i5 4690k still worth getting over fx 8350??
- Thread starter Ninjaster
- Start date
Solution
IntelTurtleFan
Dignified
- Apr 10, 2015
- 3,787
- 14
- 16,965
The i5 out performs the 8xxx or 9xxx in every gaming category by 15%. The weakest i5 is faster in games than the fastest FX chip. The FX chips have a slight edge in video editing if they have 8 cores.
Another CPU similar to the cost of a 4690k is the Xeon 1231 v3 it is faster than the i5 in games and doubles the AMD in render speed.
The Xeon is a i7 without overclocking abilities. The Xeon has 8 virtual cores like the i7. The i5 only has 4 however if you are gaming only the i5 is best and you can overclock the K models.
This video sums up most of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iehrXA3n39c
The Xeon will perform like the i7 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDVcpAhegWs
Another CPU similar to the cost of a 4690k is the Xeon 1231 v3 it is faster than the i5 in games and doubles the AMD in render speed.
The Xeon is a i7 without overclocking abilities. The Xeon has 8 virtual cores like the i7. The i5 only has 4 however if you are gaming only the i5 is best and you can overclock the K models.
This video sums up most of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iehrXA3n39c
The Xeon will perform like the i7 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDVcpAhegWs
lazyboy947
Splendid
- Jun 11, 2012
- 2,749
- 0
- 21,460
most people would ask the question the other way around in as is the 8350 still work getting over the 4690k as most prefer the intel over amds old fx line. DX12 is suppose to bring a lower cpu overhead meaning the cpu is less needed in supported games, so it unless there is something i missed on dx12, there will be no difference between dx 11 and 12 on cpu performance, at the top tier of each manufacturer. The fx 8350 was released in 2012 and is quite old compared to barely a year for the 4690k. For reference current intel cpus and chipsets are on Z97 and 4th gen cpus with devils canyon with Skylake a Z170 releasing in a few months, where the 8350 and 990fx released against intels 2nd gen sandy bridge cpus, and p67 or Z68 chipset
RAZER Gamer
Reputable
- May 27, 2015
- 705
- 0
- 5,360
I have the Intel i5-4690K and can tell you it beats most AMD CPU's. It stays under 60 degrees on full load with the stock cooler! It isn't actually very loud with the stock cooler too. It has brilliant performance and can be heavily overclocked. My i5 is at 4.4Ghz but you could overclock it higher. Without this CPU my system would be in ruin, it's an amazing CPU for the money and I highly recommend it over most other CPU's.
Hope this helps
Hope this helps
RAZER Gamer
Reputable
- May 27, 2015
- 705
- 0
- 5,360
Intel CPU's generally have much better quality and performance compared to AMD's cheap CPUs. It's like the Fury X, everyone thought it would beat the 980 Ti. It came out, and was crap, it sucked compared to the 980 Ti. Once again AMD is falling behind Intel and Nvidia.
lazyboy947
Splendid
- Jun 11, 2012
- 2,749
- 0
- 21,460
Really the quality of the cpu isnt a problem on both sides as they both make reliable and quality cpus, but it is the performance of said cpus. AMD has yet to release a new flagship high end cpu beside increasing clocks of piledriver vishera 8 cores. So its pretty obvious the winner when comparing to a 4 year newer cpu. But the 8320/8350 bring in good performance for under $150. I saw zero game increase going from an OC PII X6 to a OC 8320 to a OC i7 5820k with my 7970 which until the 300 series released was AMDs third best single gpu from the 200 series.
Now for the Fury X thing, its hard to reason that the card was crap and sucked compared to the 980ti, did u actual read any reviews or benchmarks? The only reason ur opinion is it was crap is either u expected a Titan killer, which was rumored, or u dont give AMD a chance.
Now for the Fury X thing, its hard to reason that the card was crap and sucked compared to the 980ti, did u actual read any reviews or benchmarks? The only reason ur opinion is it was crap is either u expected a Titan killer, which was rumored, or u dont give AMD a chance.
guanyu210379
Illustrious
- Mar 30, 2007
- 7,684
- 25
- 38,115
i5 4690k is better for gaming but also more expensive than FX8350.
FX8350 on the other can run better on certain programs or games which can gain advantage on more cores than faster cores.
If you need both fast cores and more cores/threads, i7 4790k or E3-1231V3 is more interesting to you.
Intel procs have the better thermal dissipation and power management too.
Deciding between AMD and Intel today is more related to budget or to pure fanboy-ism.
I have been switching or building my rigs since years between AMD and Intel, few of my rigs was even outside AMD and Intel namely VIA Cyrix.
I would say, if you wanna pure performance, Intel is the way to go today.
AMD was good, FX8xxx was good at launch but AMD unfortunately still does not bring anything new to the market since then. The architecture starts to be out-of-date in my opinion.
About DX12, I dunno yet if DX12 can make the FX8xxx perform better, we have just to wait until DX12 really used in games. All the things people said about DX12 and AMD procs and GPUs are pure theoretical and speculations for now, only real life will tell the truth. This is why I am very excited about Win10 and DX12.
FX8350 on the other can run better on certain programs or games which can gain advantage on more cores than faster cores.
If you need both fast cores and more cores/threads, i7 4790k or E3-1231V3 is more interesting to you.
Intel procs have the better thermal dissipation and power management too.
Deciding between AMD and Intel today is more related to budget or to pure fanboy-ism.
I have been switching or building my rigs since years between AMD and Intel, few of my rigs was even outside AMD and Intel namely VIA Cyrix.
I would say, if you wanna pure performance, Intel is the way to go today.
AMD was good, FX8xxx was good at launch but AMD unfortunately still does not bring anything new to the market since then. The architecture starts to be out-of-date in my opinion.
About DX12, I dunno yet if DX12 can make the FX8xxx perform better, we have just to wait until DX12 really used in games. All the things people said about DX12 and AMD procs and GPUs are pure theoretical and speculations for now, only real life will tell the truth. This is why I am very excited about Win10 and DX12.
nismoguy82
Reputable
- Feb 25, 2014
- 179
- 0
- 4,710
Simply put, if you need something for gaming soon or right away, you can't go wrong with the i5. If you're in no hurry and can wait for DX12 to see if there's any substantial performance gains for the FX, then wait. Your money and time. It's up to you .
synphul
Champion
- Mar 11, 2011
- 9,477
- 7
- 54,965
A decent outline of dx12 with bench's and win10 so far. Dx12 will likely make all cpus perform better, I think that's clear. It won't make less powerful cpus more powerful by magic though.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-why-directx-12-is-a-gamechanger
On multithreaded dx11 with a gtx 970, the fx 8350 actually comes closer to pushing the same draw calls as the i5 than it does with dx12. Also quoted from the article "The data presented in this article should be put into context. Massively increasing draw calls is a fascinating metric, but it is only one small component of a typical game engine."
Which means until dx12 is fully implemented both in driver support AND in game engines (which could take a good year, maybe more for widespread full use), this is only one aspect. Fx may still get a slight bump from additional things but these performance upgrades aren't amd only. They apply to both intel and amd for a better gaming experience all the way around. A year from now, skylake will be where haswell/devil's canyon is today likely on the verge of cannonlake or the next chip and zen should finally have come out. Realistically I'd expect portions of dx12 to be implemented but full support will require game engines be rewritten and that's not an overnight job. Had dx12 came out 3yrs ago it may have boosted the fx to perform a bit better than it currently does but in reality it's looking like zen around the corner and the lengthy time to implement dx12, fx may have somewhat missed the boat almost.
If amd gets with it finally once zen is out, there may even be yet another zen based chip (and subsequent intel chips) by the time we start seeing regular full dx12 usage and games/engines designed for it.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-why-directx-12-is-a-gamechanger
On multithreaded dx11 with a gtx 970, the fx 8350 actually comes closer to pushing the same draw calls as the i5 than it does with dx12. Also quoted from the article "The data presented in this article should be put into context. Massively increasing draw calls is a fascinating metric, but it is only one small component of a typical game engine."
Which means until dx12 is fully implemented both in driver support AND in game engines (which could take a good year, maybe more for widespread full use), this is only one aspect. Fx may still get a slight bump from additional things but these performance upgrades aren't amd only. They apply to both intel and amd for a better gaming experience all the way around. A year from now, skylake will be where haswell/devil's canyon is today likely on the verge of cannonlake or the next chip and zen should finally have come out. Realistically I'd expect portions of dx12 to be implemented but full support will require game engines be rewritten and that's not an overnight job. Had dx12 came out 3yrs ago it may have boosted the fx to perform a bit better than it currently does but in reality it's looking like zen around the corner and the lengthy time to implement dx12, fx may have somewhat missed the boat almost.
If amd gets with it finally once zen is out, there may even be yet another zen based chip (and subsequent intel chips) by the time we start seeing regular full dx12 usage and games/engines designed for it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 18
-
Question Can I plug a docking station to a USB-C 2.0 port to have video output?- Started by jameli
- Replies: 2
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram