Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 4170 vs Intel I5 2500k

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Intel i5
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 16, 2012 4:37:00 PM

I know this is probably a contentious issue among fans of both brands... but I'm looking to buy a new system and I can't decide whether I should get a 4170 or a I5 2500K.

Reading around on different forums, the general consensus seems to be that the 2500K is better, but I've also seen several benchmark comparisons that put the 4170 at better performance in games (which is primarily what I'm looking for).

So... it's hard to decide which is better, or if there is much of a significant difference at all.... Thoughts?

More about : amd 4170 intel 2500k

October 16, 2012 5:15:16 PM

it's no contest, Intel i5-2500K/3570K for the win...

if in the US and live near Microcenter or Fry's they have in-store only deals and you can get the CPU and/or CPU + mobo combo for less than anywhere else.
plus they price match.

i5-3570K @ $195.74 out the door..
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2012 5:46:34 PM

I don't ever think I have seen anything that shows an FX-4170 ahead of an i5-3570k in games.

Maybe with a $5000 cooling system on it (which also isn't on the 3570k) or something.

I would really like to see those benchmark results, personally.
Related resources
October 16, 2012 6:26:42 PM

futuremark is CRAP!!!
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 16, 2012 6:47:13 PM

proffet said:
futuremark is CRAP!!!


Futuremark is fine (it is 3DMark, after all, one of the most reliable benches there is).

The problem with the page that's linked here is that the score is just an estimated score based on user submitted scores.

So, not very accurate, considering that, 1. there are more 2500K's/3570K's out there than there are 4170's and 2. I would venture a guess that every 4170 score submitted is overclocked, while probably only half or less of the 2500K/3570K scores are overclocked scores because a lot of people with 2500K's/3570K's don't think they need to OC (they're right) and the people with 4170's think they have to OC to catch up (they're also right)...
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2012 6:58:16 PM

I am not going to say 3dMark is crap, however, I am not real sure that benchmarks in it are in any way indicative of performance in games.

As DjDecibel mentioned, 3dMark scores don't take into account OCing. Two people with the exact same hardware can have very different 3dMark scores.

The 4170 chip is probably the better value, in general, due to its lower price, but it is definitely not faster out of the box.

Find some real benchmarks that do strict scientific methodology. Ones with variables controlled. Preferrably, all the exact same hardware except what absolutely can't be kept the same (FX can't go in Intel socket, for instance).

RAM should be the same, hard drive the same, video card the same, etc. Ideally, nothing will be OCd during the testing on either side of the fence.
October 16, 2012 7:02:43 PM

Thanks for the responses. It does seem that the 2500 is the better chip from almost everything I've read, but I just don't know if its better ENOUGH to justify the extra cost.
October 16, 2012 7:07:18 PM

futuremark is crap and 3D is suspect at times...
my opinion of course..

good choice with the 2500K BTW..
+1
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 16, 2012 7:08:26 PM

Naxis said:
Thanks for the responses. It does seem that the 2500 is the better chip from almost everything I've read, but I just don't know if its better ENOUGH to justify the extra cost.


The 4170 is one of only three FX CPU's that I would recommend (the other two being the 8120/8150).

The 4170 is "good enough" for gaming, but that's about the best I can say for it. An i5 is worth the extra cost to me, but I also had the money to spend on one too, so I may be a bit biased.

If you're strapped for cash and can't afford an i5, the 4170 will do. If you can afford it, the i5 is the answer (no arguments needed).
October 16, 2012 7:11:07 PM

rather have the 965BE-980BE over any FX-41xx..
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2012 7:33:12 PM

The i5 is the power chip, the FX is the value chip.

Choose based on which one matters more to you. Be aware that you will probably need to OC the FX chip if you get it and you want comparable performance in processor intensive tasks.

The time/effort/frustration you spend OCing can easily blow away any up front cost savings.
October 16, 2012 8:15:38 PM

How do you guys think an I3 2100 would compare?
October 16, 2012 8:17:12 PM

i3-2120 or the IB equal i3-3220 @ 3.3GHz (2C/4T) is a solid chip..
October 16, 2012 9:46:31 PM

I5 no contest but if this was i3 vs FX i would say FX
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2012 10:27:16 PM

Don't forget an i5-3450 + cheap 7 series board combo (b75, or h77, or something).

That offers a decent price reduction from z77 + 3570k while still keeping most of the power.
October 16, 2012 10:39:20 PM

even the i5-2400 beats the AMD offerings, good suggestion 'Raiddinn'..
October 16, 2012 11:08:51 PM

Raiddinn said:
Don't forget an i5-3450 + cheap 7 series board combo (b75, or h77, or something).

That offers a decent price reduction from z77 + 3570k while still keeping most of the power.


I might go for this. I see there's some reasonably priced 3450/motherboard combos around (P8H61-MX motherbords).

I *could* stretch my budget to a 2500k but with everything else I have to buy it pushes the total price up a bit too much, so I think this might be the way to go.
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2012 4:06:22 AM

It is dangerous to get a 6 series board to pair with an Ivy Bridge chip. The H61 boards will only be able to accept Ivy Bridge chips after a BIOS update has been performed. That can't be done with said Ivy Bridge chip.

If it isn't done prior to you receiving the board, you would be SOL. Many manufacturers have been putting newer BIOSs on recently made 6 series boards, but there is no way to tell how long your prospective board will have been sitting on the shelf.

It is safer to stick with a 7 series board which Ivy Bridge is guaranteed to work in (B75, H77, Z77, etc).

If you can get a store to put them together and make sure they will boot before they hand it off to you, though, then there is no reason not to get an Ivy Bridge + 6 series board.
October 19, 2012 9:37:48 PM

Thanks for all your thoughts/advice guys. In the end I went for a I5 3450 with a B75 motherboard.
October 19, 2012 10:49:21 PM

works for me.
it was a nice suggestion from ' Raiddinn '..
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2012 6:42:20 AM

You are comparing two CPU's at two different price points so you can expect differing performance out the box.

Depending on the nature of the system you are building you should look to maximise costs in a area where excessive is pointless and focus on areas which affect the performance and experience more; Graphics and SSD's. Any AMD CPU is capable of delivering high end performance but intel does it more efficiently but don't let people convince you that AMD is slow, the difference on metal level is nano seconds.

So the choice is simply what you need, Intel chips are great but AMD can give you what you need on a budget.
October 20, 2012 8:12:00 AM

then raise your budget...
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2012 3:31:15 PM

It just depends on if you want more value or more performance. Some people lean one way some lean the other.
!