Intel i7-5930K Haswell-E 6-Core 3.5GHz vs AMD FX-8350 Vishera 8-Core 4.0GHz

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

Tylman5

Reputable
Jun 21, 2014
4
0
4,510
I'm currently building a computer for high end 3D modeling and video editing. I'm currently decided between AMD and Intel for the CPU. Below are the two specific CPU's I'm torn between.

AMD FX-8350 Black Edition Vishera 8-Core 4.0GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 125W

Price - $179.99
8-Cores
Operating Frequency ----- 4.0GHz (4.2GHz Turbo)
Thermal Design Power ---- 125W
Cache----- 8MB

Intel Core i7-5930K Haswell-E 6-Core 3.5GHz LGA 2011-v3 140W

Price - $579.99
6-Core - 12 threads
Operating Frequency ----- 3.5GHz
Thermal Design Power ---- 140W
Cache----15MB

The AMD clearly wins in price, cores, and operating frequency. What I don't know is whether the hyper threads make up for the slower frequency and two less physical cores. Are the 12 threads better at 3.5GHz or the 8 single thread cores at 4.0GHz?





 
Solution
DubbleClick
An I7 5820k (which is what you'd take rather than the 5930k, assuming you don't plan on 4-way crossfire with four r9 290x's) is about twice as strong in threaded workloads than a 8350fx. And about 1.5-1.75x as strong in single core performance. A slightly oc'ed I7 3770k would be the equivalent to a 9590fx, except for single core performance where it would once again be much stronger.

So yeah, there isn't really much to say. If budget isn't a problem, go with an I7 5820k, or if you don't mind another 500 bucks, the I7 5960x.
But remember, the most expensive parts there are ram and motherboard. DDR4 is a lot more expensive than ddr3, offering similar performance as of right now. Same for motherboards, $250 at least

If you can live with...
Sort by date Sort by votes
TheIcedCanadian

TheIcedCanadian

Reputable
Jun 17, 2014
487
0
4,960
The AMD FX 8350 has more physical core, but they are MUCH weaker and don't perform as well, as it is based on a completely different architecture. The i7 5930k is more expensive, but has MORE cores and MUCH stronger cores. The Intel CPU's have better, more efficient, cooler and stronger cores. The Intel will perform much better than the AMD - the Intel is also much newer.
Hope this helps :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DubbleClick

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460
An I7 5820k (which is what you'd take rather than the 5930k, assuming you don't plan on 4-way crossfire with four r9 290x's) is about twice as strong in threaded workloads than a 8350fx. And about 1.5-1.75x as strong in single core performance. A slightly oc'ed I7 3770k would be the equivalent to a 9590fx, except for single core performance where it would once again be much stronger.

So yeah, there isn't really much to say. If budget isn't a problem, go with an I7 5820k, or if you don't mind another 500 bucks, the I7 5960x.
But remember, the most expensive parts there are ram and motherboard. DDR4 is a lot more expensive than ddr3, offering similar performance as of right now. Same for motherboards, $250 at least

If you can live with slightly less performance and possibly care for money, go with an I7 4790k. It's about 20% weaker than the 5820k in well threaded applications, but ~15% stronger in single core performance. Goes for $300 instead of $360. Another $120 for a motherboard (instead of $250) and about $320 for 32gb of ram, opposed to $600 for 32gb of ddr4 for the 5820k. And for professional work you're definitely looking at 32-64gb of ram. 16gb at least and even theres a noticeable difference ($160 instead of $300) already.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Hvar01

Hvar01

Reputable
Jan 14, 2015
9
0
4,510
If we just compare the two brand with eachother. Amd is much cheaper and got (on the fx-line) many cores with high frequencies while intel are expensive, not really that high frequencies (although very good, nothing bad) and doesn't have that many cores. Intel processors can make more equations per second and core than amd can. This is why amd need those extra cores and high frequencies. This results in a higher price on intel's side.

The conclusion is that the i7-5930k is well, REALLY overpowered compared to the fx-chip. I'm not saying that amd is bad or anything (got one myself) but it's like comparing stone to diamond.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Q

qepsilonp

Distinguished
May 19, 2009
13
0
18,510
Nooo no no... ... ... First to answer your question the 5930K performs around 60% better per core vs the FX8350 and even better vs the FX 8350 when both are having all there cores being used.

Now Frequency = Hertz = Hz = Ghz is only one factor in how well a CPU will work other factors include transistor count and the efficiency of the architecture especially when you are talking about multi core CPU's etc.

So trying to compare a 5930K which Intel they make them self's to AMD who get TSMC to make there CPU's just from the Ghz is not going to give you an accurate view because Intel and AMD not only have different architectures with differing efficiencies, they are on completely different manfcatoing processes sizes the 5930K is on a 14nm FinFET manufacturing process while AMD is on a 32nm manufacturing process so Intel can put more transistors in a given die area which means with a lower frequency they can manage the same processing power.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom