Gaming - i5 4690K vs FX-8350 vs FX-8370

I'd save money from the h110i and get a 4790k really... but the i5 is better

For the majority of use being gaming, the i5 will probably be the best bet. I7's really don't offer much gain in the gaming department and run $70 more for a locked 4790, $100 more for an unlocked 4790k. They don't offer 50% more gaming performance, not even close yet cost 50% more than the 4690k. The i7's for the lga1150 are all quad cores with hyperthreading and it serves as a minor performance boost in heavy threaded situations but even then the performance bump is only around 15-20% at most, sometimes less.

Even in threaded applications, other than a very few specific instances the i5/i7 still easily outperforms the amd's fx-8xxx and 9xxx due to much better single core performance. Seems like a common mistake that people think single core performance means only in single core/single thread instances. Core performance translates throughout the spectrum, so even in heavily threaded situations - if the i5 or i7 is processing fewer threads at a faster rate, it more than makes up the difference.

Think of it this way. If a semi truck is pulling 2 trailers (more threads - amd) at a time, but is only travelling at 40mph and another truck is pulling only 1 trailer (less threads - intel) at 80mph - they will both move 2 trailers worth of goods to the destination in the same amount of time, even if the one truck has to make 2 trips (it's speed more than makes up for it). Meanwhile if the circumstance only requires 1 trailer be delivered, the faster truck will easily get it there faster. The more threads theory rarely means anything, slow is still slow.

AMD has more cores, but less power to each core. So I'd go Intel

Hello.

I had a FX-8350 and I didn't had a good experience with this CPU, all games I was played, my gpu usage stays low, like a bootlenecking, so I sell my cpu and boght a i5-4690k, I didn't test yet, but if I was you, I won't go with amd, due my problem with the fx-8350

Here's a topic that I created while ago.

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2476168/280x-8350-low-gpu-usage.html

When i5 arrive, I post some results here.

Thanks for the reply, but I ended up buying the 4690k. Doubled or even tripled my performance

WOW, it's great to hear, so my choice was right too, looking foward to test the i5 4690k.

Thanks.

I have several desktops in my house. Two of which are AMD based machines, one with an FX 6300 and the other with a Phenom II 1090 t, and my most recent build which has an i5 4690k. I can tell you this much, as far as gaming goes the 4690k beats the living crap out of both of my AMD rigs. Even overclocked to 4.4GHz which is as far as I can get my FX 6300 to run stable it struggles at taking full advantage of my crossfired r9 270x's! The i5 4690k, on the other hand, even at stock speeds has no problem at all. I'm not an Intel fanboy, if anything I'd consider myself an AMD fanboy as this is my first ever Intel build. Take it as you will, but I'm now starting to see the light as to why Intel is vastly considered the better cpu.

It depends. For gaming, i'd recommend an fx processor, however if you are going to do a little more then gaming for example video editing or along those lines, i'd go for the intel processor. The i5 does perform better then the amd processor, but games are really starting to take advantage of 8 cpu cores now due to the consoles having 8 cpu cores. So in short, The fx processor is a little older, but will still be a relatively good cpu to game with for a couple of years to come. The intel cpu however will be the faster option.

Something to keep in mind, gaming consoles and pc's are not the same. The reason for such heavily threaded 8 core in say the ps4 running the amd jaguar isn't because multiple threading alone is the end all be all. It's a solution to allow higher processing capability in a unit that's a very small form factor and has things like power and cooling restraints. If you can't put something fast and hot inside a small box, lower the clocks and spread it sideways in parallel with multithreading. Pc's don't suffer this problem, they're not consoles. If anything, consoles are trying to become more like pc's, not the other way around. Consoles are also strictly hardwired for gaming, much like a bitcoin miner is designed to mine bitcoins. Pc's aren't designed this way, they're designed to be multipurpose.

What's also funny is all the speculation. Everyone tries to hold up the crystal ball and tell the future of how things will be. One such case was an article from 2 years ago, april of 2013 from redgamingtech's site. "One concern we’ve got is that Intel’s Haswell marks the last of the CPU’s made by Intel (at least that’s known so far) which will be user upgradeable. All other CPU’s will be part of the motherboard, which means upgrading is a lot more difficult." Yet here we are in the heyday of haswell, broadwell being released, skylake soon to come out with cannonlake in the works - all socketed cpu's, business as usual. No soc chip style permanent cpu's in the motherboards. I can't fault people for trying to make an educated guess but at the same time they couldn't get things more wrong.

Fast forward to present day and current speculations about dx12 and games needing oodles of cores to run. It's really no different. It goes back to common sense, improvements are getting harder and harder to come by. Silicon can only be pushed so fast, so when reaching the physical limitations of the materials, adding more frequency hits a ceiling eventually. Now other measures have to be taken to squeeze more performance, improve efficiency so the average system doesn't require a 1500w psu to run it. Die shrinks gave intel all kinds of problems, hence the delay with broadwell. Game devs would be foolish to design their software for hardware that either doesn't exist or for hardware that only encompasses a fraction of the users. They work in tandem with hardware manufacturers. If quad cores were no longer useful, intel would stop making them. If game devs want fatter pay days, they're not going to pander to the minority with 8 core/thread cpu's. That would cancel out all those gaming with 6 core and quad core fx chips, not to mention the 860k and others on the amd side, along with all the i5, i3 and pentium g owners. Pretty much half of amd and intel's lineup. It just doesn't make sense from a business standpoint and money drives business, not tech.

Vulkan and dx12 will make the fx 8350 plus radeon 290x the bees knees. Asynchronous compute engines will benefit from the hyperthreading. Goodbye Intel and nvidia, you made enough money and you retarded amd graphics for long enough.

Dude
How can u compare fx 6300 with i5 4690.
I5 is almost double its price so obviously it ll perform better

Currently amd cpu's have less ipc (instructions per clock) than intel cpu's. Couple that with an amd card and as of right now the amd gpu drivers are harsher on a cpu than nvidia's making what should be an obvious pairing of amd cpu + gpu less desirable. Often times an nvidia card will allow an amd cpu perform better because there's less driver overhead for cpu cores which already fall a bit behind.

Dx12 will help alleviate that, reducing the middleman effect of the cpu processing instructions via the drivers and allowing software to communicate more directly with the graphics card. That's where the cpu will be freed up more with dx12. It won't however make an fx cpu suddenly have higher ipc than it currently has and while dx12 will be a boost to fx processors it will also be a boost to intel processors. Intel cpu's would have to stay stagnant and the boost only apply to amd to give it a chance to catch up or even less likely, surpass intel cpu's.

When games finally do begin adopting dx12 more and more it will be a benefit to all gamers and allow current gpu's to perform better as well as lighten the load on the cpu. In general we'll see better, more immersive and more complex games scaling better with mid to lower end hardware. In terms of amd's performance, zen looks like their next best chance to turn around their cpu performance and improve their ipc which continues to hurt their bulldozer/piledriver lineup.

The issue with the 8350, it's already aging and past due for a replacement. Compared to other updating hardware, zen really can't come fast enough. Once zen is out and hopefully meets most of its expectations there will be even less reason to go with the 8350. If zen had come in a more timely manner, the 8350 would have been put out to pasture already.

I have a FX 8350 overclocked at 4.4 Ghz + a R9 290X and it runs most of my games on high or ultra settings at 1080p 60 fps.

The reason why i5 is better for gaming is because of that attrocity called DirectX 11. I am not sure because I have not test it yet. The rumor us that With DirectX 12 a FX8350 will run better than the i5 and as good as the entry level i7s. We will have to wait and see.

I have a 4690K and it doesn't seem to be holding me back in any games. Mine is sitting very comfortably at 4.5ghz with a Noctua U-12S 120mm single tower. My temps in games barely brake 60 and it's super quiet. I'd highly recommend this over an H100i if you haven't already bought it. Unlike the big twin tower coolers, it doesn't put much stress on the socket at around 1.6lbs with fan.

I built my 4690K system around the time X99 came out and was still too expensive. At the time, I figured I might upgrade to a Broadwell i7 when it came out and use this chip for another build. In hind sight, that obviously didn't pan out and I might have bought the 4790K since games are starting to get better about using more threads. Might make it more future proof, depending how long I want to go between upgrades. Right now, 4690K is still the best bang for the buck though.

I think any talk of dx12 making an fx chip more powerful than an i5/i7 are just that, rumor. Keep in mind all the hype about dx12 is all about drawcalls. It does nothing to factor in that a game still requires the cpu to handle the game engine. It's been shown more and more that more recent games have been growing just as cpu dependent as they are gpu dependent so it's not really a good idea to throw a $600 gpu on any ol' $50 cpu anymore.

DirectX isn't going to make magic happen and at the core fx chips lack the ipc. That's not going to change. It's precisely why amd's focus on zen has been ipc improvement, if it wasn't an issue they wouldn't be working so hard on it. They have the core count, they have for a long time and it's not doing them a whole lot of good. Maybe in theory but theory doesn't produce results.

It's also not going to change current games and cpu performance. New games keep rolling out and dx12 is still absent. Depending how long it takes game dev's to get dx12 actually into some game titles zen could very well finally be out. Of course dx12 will help fx chips, it will help all chips. It's not exclusive to assisting amd but if amd's cpu's are already struggling a bit to keep up with api overhead and run the game then obviously reducing driver overhead on the cpu will help.

Let's just hope Hitman isn't an indication as to how DX 12 is going to improve gaming performance! Luckily, or unluckily, I got the game with the purchase of a video card. It's a total disaster!

Lol just so you know your Math is WAY off there, in your analogy.

Thread closed due to necro posting.