Worse performance of i5 4460 than Fx-8350 - normal?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
N

Necruss

Reputable
Apr 4, 2015
103
0
4,680
Hi Guys,

in one of the topics I asked if the i5 4460 will perform with my GTX-970 better in games than FX-8350. The answer was that generally yes because of it's better single core performance. What's more there were voices saying that the FX-8350 can be sometimes a bottleneck for this cards.
I had an opportunity to buy such set: i5 4460 / Ga-b85m-d3h / 8GB of Kingston Fury 1600 DDR3 ram for a good price so I bought it.

My previous config was FX-8350 + Ga970a-ud3p + G.Skill Ripjaws 8GB DDR3 2133.
Asus Strix GTX970 in both cases.

I've done initial tests (3dmark11) and surprisingly the i5 performance was significantly lower. With my FX at standard clock I got 11 800points. With FX OC'ed to 4.4 there was 12 200 points. My mobo did not allow to OC the CPU more (VR's were very hot).

This set with i5 gave me a result of 10 800 points.

Is this normal? Will the performance in the games be also as much smaller?

FIrst signal came from Geforce Experience which after the change of the set notified me, that I have to optimise my settings in Witcher3 and lower 2 settings.

Please help me because I am confused. I did not sell my FX set so I can install it back and sell this i5 as it was a really good offer so I can resell it without money loss.

I will be very grateful for your feedback on this one.
 
Solution
iam2thecrowe
In many games, at 1080p with a 60hz screen, and if your chosing to run max detail settings, there really isn't going to be a significant difference between the cpu's. But there are many games that will favour the i5 quite a bit.
Fallout 4 that you play you can see in this benchmark: http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html
The intel cpu's do a lot better, but then the fx cpu is still hitting near 60fps, so you wouldn't notice the difference if your not using vsync.
The witcher 3 you can see there is hardly a difference between AMD or Intel cpu's:http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html
Its quite gpu bottlenecked.
Generally, the Intel rig will perform better across the board, they...
Sort by date Sort by votes
herrwizo

herrwizo

Illustrious
Feb 17, 2009
5,152
43
40,240
You cannot compare benchmarks with real game tests. Play a real game and you will see an improvement, guaranteed.

Benchmarks are specifically written to use all available resources they can - in your case, all FX cores. Games are not, at least not at the moment.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
N

Necruss

Reputable
Apr 4, 2015
103
0
4,680


This is what I thought initially. I know that benchmark results can not be comparable with real gaming. But this Geforce Experience message worries me. If it suggests to lower the settings then I am worried about the performance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
herrwizo

herrwizo

Illustrious
Feb 17, 2009
5,152
43
40,240
Forgot to add that your FX was certainly not a bottleneck for your card. People are exaggarating. The only way this CPU can be seen as a "bottleneck" is when games are working better with smaller number of faster cores than with larger number of slower cores. In other words, it is a bottleneck for game engine, not for your graphics card. In games this CPU usually cannot show what it is capable of. Not its fault, just the way games are designed. DX12 should solve some of those issues, but for now games favor Intel's architecture.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
N

Necruss

Reputable
Apr 4, 2015
103
0
4,680


So generally this i5 4460, eventhough it has lower clocks, has stronger cores, than FX, and that's why it should perform better in the games focused on single core performance (most of recent games)?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
N

Necruss

Reputable
Apr 4, 2015
103
0
4,680


I play mostly Witcher3 and planning to play X-Com2 and Fallout4. Maybe new Dragon Age. You think it is better to stay with this i5 4460 or going back to the FX-8350 would be a better option? As I mentioned I could not OC this FX more than to 4.4. My mobo could not handle higher clocks as the VR's were starting to be very hot (99 C grades).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
herrwizo

herrwizo

Illustrious
Feb 17, 2009
5,152
43
40,240
As for the Witcher 3, it is not a CPU intensive title, I can confirm that. You will see virtually zero improvement, as people were able to get good framerates even from older dual cores - as long the graphics card is strong, it works fine.

No idea about X-Com and Fallout, though - never played them, and it all depends on the game engine.

In short, games which are more CPU-intensive than GPU-intensive tend to show the biggest FPS boost with Intel.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
iam2thecrowe

iam2thecrowe

Glorious
Jul 4, 2010
10,591
21
44,965
In many games, at 1080p with a 60hz screen, and if your chosing to run max detail settings, there really isn't going to be a significant difference between the cpu's. But there are many games that will favour the i5 quite a bit.
Fallout 4 that you play you can see in this benchmark: http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html
The intel cpu's do a lot better, but then the fx cpu is still hitting near 60fps, so you wouldn't notice the difference if your not using vsync.
The witcher 3 you can see there is hardly a difference between AMD or Intel cpu's:http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html
Its quite gpu bottlenecked.
Generally, the Intel rig will perform better across the board, they can be quite even in some titles but the intel can gain significant leads in other titles. With many newer titles the gap is closing compared to where it used to be though, with better optimization for multi core cpu's.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
N

Necruss

Reputable
Apr 4, 2015
103
0
4,680


THanks for the clarification and links
 
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