FX 8350 vs i5 4460

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Solution
Nextg_Rival
You can find plenty of CPU FPS/settings tests and benchmarks on the internet in YouTube and Google. I recommend looking for Battlefield 3/4 as the engine used for that game is very CPU dependent. The i5 4460 and the FX 8350 aren't equal, the i5 4460 is better, but the FX 8350 can do everything the i5 4460 can in terms of gaming because there's very few things that can actually force a CPU to work at max capacity when gaming. The i5 4460 offers a better upgrade path and more power, but the FX 8350 offers a cheaper alternative. I take it you are building an entirely new system, so there's no issue regarding motherboard compatibility, which is nice. A personal piece of advice, search for comparisons between the R9 290X and the R9 390 when...
Sort by date Sort by votes
Nextg_Rival

Nextg_Rival

Honorable
Jan 16, 2015
779
0
11,160
Here are some benchmarks: http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=2076&pid2=1140&compare=core-i5-4460-3-2ghz-vs-fx-8350

Look at the stats, the percentage at the top is a little bit flawed. Basically, the i5 is more powerful in gaming, but the FX 8350 will still do everything the i5 4460 can, while being cheaper. It is also better for editing as it has 4 extra threads, although I am not sure if that will benefit Photoshop. Essentially, the FX 8350 is just a cheaper alternative to the i5 4460. Depending on your budget, you should choose one of those. How much money do you intend to use and what are your system's other specifications?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rapidflyhigh

rapidflyhigh

Honorable
Mar 24, 2015
167
1
10,710
it will be sticked with a r9 290x or r9 390.(i think there will be no bottleneck with both).
so if the fx 8350 can really do what an i5 can do in gaming why spending moe.
in gaming they're equal ??
Also any benchmark for cpu's in new games.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DeathRabit

DeathRabit

Splendid
Jun 18, 2014
2,323
2
22,665
Example AMD build ready for OC up to 4.5Ghz
F8320E power usage/ OC / review / benchmarks
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8864/amd-fx-8320e-cpu-review-the-other-95w-vishera/2

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz 8-Core Processor ($128.99 @ Directron)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($26.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($74.98 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 970 4GB Superclocked ACX 2.0 Video Card ($316.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: Enermax OSTROG ATX Mid Tower Case ($37.50 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Antec High Current Gamer 620W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($64.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $750.41
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-06-14 11:32 EDT-0400

Anyway due DX11 API overheat in AMD GPU ( * single thread) better take Nvidia GPU to AMD CPU.
Example in Witcher 3
R9 290X
http://pclab.pl/art63116-48.html
GTX 970
http://pclab.pl/art63116-47.html
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nextg_Rival

Nextg_Rival

Honorable
Jan 16, 2015
779
0
11,160
You can find plenty of CPU FPS/settings tests and benchmarks on the internet in YouTube and Google. I recommend looking for Battlefield 3/4 as the engine used for that game is very CPU dependent. The i5 4460 and the FX 8350 aren't equal, the i5 4460 is better, but the FX 8350 can do everything the i5 4460 can in terms of gaming because there's very few things that can actually force a CPU to work at max capacity when gaming. The i5 4460 offers a better upgrade path and more power, but the FX 8350 offers a cheaper alternative. I take it you are building an entirely new system, so there's no issue regarding motherboard compatibility, which is nice. A personal piece of advice, search for comparisons between the R9 290X and the R9 390 when the latter card starts being offered on the market - rumour has it that the R9 300 series are mostly rebrands, so the R9 290X might actually be just as good, but cheaper.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Nextg_Rival

Nextg_Rival

Honorable
Jan 16, 2015
779
0
11,160


No need for a cooler if you aren't overclocking. I am using an Gigabyte LMT78 - USB3 or something like that and it costs about 30 pounds while working just fine, so you can really save up a lot of money on the motherboard. There are also many good cheap coolers like the Zalman Optima CNPS10X.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nextg_Rival

Nextg_Rival

Honorable
Jan 16, 2015
779
0
11,160


He asked for a comparison and list of advantages, not a build.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rapidflyhigh

rapidflyhigh

Honorable
Mar 24, 2015
167
1
10,710
fx 8350 + 970a ds3p + 212 evo (270$~280$)
i5 4460 + h97 + 212 evo (305$~310$)
who's the better combo for gaming if there's no big difference i will go for amd
can anyone expect the prices for r9 390 or r9 390x
or should i go for r9 290x
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DeathRabit

DeathRabit

Splendid
Jun 18, 2014
2,323
2
22,665


I cannot resist :)
But I attach game benchmarks to compare in wide spectrum of games, and info why better is take Nvidia GPU to AMD CPU ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nextg_Rival

Nextg_Rival

Honorable
Jan 16, 2015
779
0
11,160
The expected prices for the R9 390 and the R9 390X are between 300$ and 385$. There was an article about that somewhere, but I can't find it right now. It might be on Google. The R9 390X is the only worthy card I think, because it uses new VRAM tech (HBM). All the other cards are rebrands, which means they are basically overclocked R9 200 series. You need to check that on the release date of the 300 series. As to your question, the i5 4460 has higher performance, but it's unlikely for you to notice that in most games as games generally depend more on CPUs than GPUs, meaning that even if the i5 4460 has higher performance, it won't necessarily provide any benefit over the FX 8350. Do you have any specific games in mind so we can check?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rapidflyhigh

rapidflyhigh

Honorable
Mar 24, 2015
167
1
10,710

I Hate nvidia so i won't buy anything from them
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
nikoli707

nikoli707

Splendid
Jan 4, 2012
6,008
5
29,965
siege of shanghi 64man multiplayer run...
BF4-CPU-Benchmark.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DubbleClick

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460


If I recall correctly a fx 8350 should at least be paired with a am3+ 970 board on stock speeds according to AMD. Those begin at ~$60. The fx 8350 is $170, together that's $230. An i5 4460 is $180 and a H81 board around $30. That makes $210 and gives better results in games. There is absolutely no reason ever to get an AMD cpu for gaming at the moment.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nextg_Rival

Nextg_Rival

Honorable
Jan 16, 2015
779
0
11,160
You are right, the FX 8350 is a little bit more expensive than I expected (which is still cheaper than the i5). The FX 8320 which is almost equal to the 8350 in performance on the other hand is way cheaper... It also works with the board I mentioned earlier and can fit in a 160$ price range. As to the 300 series, I am fairly certain I read an article predicting the new cards to be released with performance per dollar in mind, priced between 300 and 400 dollars. I actually found the article - it is linked through Tek Syndicate.

That's the link: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-300-series-pricing-confirmed-aggressive/

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DubbleClick

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460


That would however limit the fx 8320 to stock speeds - at which even an i3 would absolutely demolish it.

As for pricing, that's awesome. If this becomes true, I'm definitely getting a R9 390x. I'll miss shadowplay, but hey guess I'll finally have use for the iGPU of my i7.

Edit: Nevermind. Looks like the R9 390x isn't going to be the Fiji chip that reviews have been based on. Too bad. Barely faster than a R9 290x, same or higher power consumption and that for $390? No thanks...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nextg_Rival

Nextg_Rival

Honorable
Jan 16, 2015
779
0
11,160
You lost me at the moment you said an i3 would "demolish" a FX 8320. ( http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=2130&pid2=1143&compare=core-i3-4160-3-6ghz-vs-fx-8320 )

As to the Fury cards (the rumoured "R9 395X" or "R9 395X2"), don't worry, I am sure that they'll still be at a more affordable price than most products on the market, although personally if I had the choice I'd wait for the prices of the R9 295X2 to drop further - it's still the most powerful GPU out there years after its release. Too bad that even though it's experienced a massive price drop it's way out of my budget. As to the R9 390X, it does seem very enticing considering that it provides very decent performance and more than sufficient VRAM at that price range, although I'd personally go with the R9 390 considering that it's even cheaper and there's probably not that big of a difference between it, the X version and the GTX 970 in terms of performance apart from the VRAM, which is really the only thing that this price range in the GPU market is lacking.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
teknobug

teknobug

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2011
407
1
18,815
An i3 demolishing the 8320 is a bit exaggerating in description. However I have/had an i3 4160, FX 8320 and 8320E and the i3 is much more efficient at a lot of things than the FX's are and consumes less power. It only matters more for the 8320 or 8350 when it comes to video editing, streaming while gaming, running a handful of applications at once, or CAD based stuff but for gaming, most games runs just fine on an i3 except only a select few where the difference in framerate average being marginal in games like Battlefield 4- let alone needing to overclock the FX's to pull ahead of the Intels (an i3 4360 goes head to head vs a 4.8GHz 8320E in BF4).

To be honest, I find it hilarious at how the majority of people on the internet gets turned off by an i3 because it's "a dual core" and doesn't know that an i3 often has the strongest single thread IPC compared to most CPU's and single thread IPC is what most games care about and will continue to do so for a while longer.

However I would much prefer to pick the i5 4460 over an i3, the price isn't that much more and is better for general purpose use.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nextg_Rival

Nextg_Rival

Honorable
Jan 16, 2015
779
0
11,160
I am not saying that the i3 is bad, but an i3 "demolishing" a FX 8320 is extremely far-fetched. The i3 will suffice for 90% of the stuff out there, but that doesn't make it better than the FX, considering that it will suffice for 98% of the stuff out there. My point is that any present day processor of decent design will be able to run games, but if you want it to do more than that (like streaming, editing and so on) while also being a cheaper option, the FX chip is a perfect choice.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DubbleClick

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460
A haswell I3 does however beat fx cpu's. The fx 9590 is about where they match on average.
Sure, 'demolish' might be exaggerated a bit, but when they match with the fx at 4.7-4.8ghz, what do you think happens with the fx at 3.5ghz?

And yeah, the r9 390(x) isn't going to be much better as a gtx 970 as it seems. Maybe closes up on full hd and pulls a little further at 4k. For $390 with twice the gtx 970's power consumption and heat emission (=louder cooling) and much worse drivers and missing features, I honestly don't see sense in it. At $250 it might be worth it if you're initially budget limited, maybe at $300 for CF at 4k. But I'd choose a gtx 970 any day over it.

The R9 Fury XT/R9 395x2 however look promising. The former might be priced well with $700, preferably lower because there's the gtx 980 ti - the latter seems absolutely pointless at $2k given the gtx 990 ti goes for the same.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nextg_Rival

Nextg_Rival

Honorable
Jan 16, 2015
779
0
11,160
I can't even comprehend how you could consider an i3 equal to the FX 8320, put aside superior, so I'd prefer to not discuss this topic further as I can see that we have radically different opinions regarding the subject which are unlikely to change.

The R9 390 seems a very appropriate replacement to the GTX 970 though - with 6 GB VRAM becoming the new standard, 8 GB provides quite an advantage over 3.5 GB. The R9 390 seems like a more powerful option for a slightly higher budget range than the GTX 970, although I do agree that the GTX 970 is one of the few cards that are actually worth their price. Regarding the drivers, that's a matter of games and opinions. I also never use any dedicated cooling, but I don't really have a problem with heat intensive components. Apart from that, the GTX 970 really doesn't offer any other features over the R9 390.

Regarding the Fury cards, I am really excited as well by this new HBM tech, it was about time something shook up the market and the constant cycle of selling overpriced rebrands. Hopefully AMD can start some serious competition against NVidia so we can stop getting ripped off. Also, is it a typo or is a 990 Ti actually on the market? Because I haven't specifically heard of such a card, but it could be interesting.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
teknobug

teknobug

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2011
407
1
18,815


Just wondering, do you have or use an i3?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DubbleClick

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460


All reviews show this. Haswell i3's are superior to FX 8 cores in games.



The R9 390 should be slower or at best as fast as a gtx 970.
Games don't really use more than 3.5gb (or 4gb, which the gtx 970 has, the slower last 0.5gb are really a non issue) unless you're gaming at above 1080p.
As for features: G-Sync, better drivers (faster optimization for games), less power consumption, DSR, h.264 shadowplay (which works much better than vce) and so on.



GTX 990 TI is going to be two GTX Titan X's with higher core clocks (quite a lot higher). It's more or less as fast as the R9 395X2 but has some edges over it, for the same price.
 
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