Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD FX 8350 vs i5 3570k

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 7, 2012 2:31:21 PM

Hi all,
I am building my first gaming pc around Christmas and I was originally set on the i5 3570k and the ASrock extreme4 z77 mobo.
However I have recently seen the AMD FX 8350 for around £20 cheaper and as I am on a budget this option appealed to me.
I am also going to be using the pc for game creation and possible video editing as well as gaming.
Which CPU should I go for? If you think I should go with AMD please suggest a motherboard which has about the same features as the ASRock extreme4 one I mentioned above.
Thanks

More about : amd 8350 3570k

November 7, 2012 2:41:08 PM

What about your GPU?. If you use a proper gpu then the i5 3570k is very capable for gaming and editing. If you are in budget building then go with a quad core AMD and a highend Discrete GPU like HD7850 or GTX 560 ti.
November 7, 2012 2:42:12 PM

I am probably gonna use a Radeon HD 7950
Related resources
November 7, 2012 3:13:15 PM

If you are on budget take a look at the FX 8320, is just a FX 8350 that didn't past all the quality test, that doesn't mean is a faulty CPU, only that it won't overclock as high as a FX 8350.

I have my FX 8320 sitting at 4,5 Ghz and 1,392V at 34 Cº with a 212 EVO push/pull
November 7, 2012 3:22:38 PM

Thanks guys I am not on a very tight budget and I have about £160 for the CPU. This is how much the 3570k costs. The 8320 looks like a good option if I do go AMD however looking at benchmarks intel seems to have the edge and for only a bit more money.
Thoughts?
November 7, 2012 3:47:00 PM

reubenno said:
I am probably gonna use a Radeon HD 7950


My build is an amd 8350 and sapphire amd 7950 the difference in gaming is 5 or 6 fps difference the i5 has that small advantage but nothing you would really notice the i5 is a quad while the amd is 8 core make sure to stay away from the 81xx series from amd go for the 8350
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 10:44:22 PM

The FX 8350 isn't really an octocore, more of a quad with Hyper Threading. It loses out on most games. Very few games will even fully utilize a quad, letalone an "octocore". I like my FX 4100 don't get me wrong, but intel seems to be the better option past the $200 mark, as it has always been.
November 7, 2012 11:40:19 PM

montosaurous said:
The FX 8350 isn't really an octocore, more of a quad with Hyper Threading. It loses out on most games. Very few games will even fully utilize a quad, letalone an "octocore". I like my FX 4100 don't get me wrong, but intel seems to be the better option past the $200 mark, as it has always been.


The 8350 is an octocore. It has 4 modules and 2 cores each module so that makes 8 cores. Get your fact rights
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 12:22:40 AM

Dangi said:
If you are on budget take a look at the FX 8320, is just a FX 8350 that didn't past all the quality test, that doesn't mean is a faulty CPU, only that it won't overclock as high as a FX 8350.

I have my FX 8320 sitting at 4,5 Ghz and 1,392V at 34 Cº with a 212 EVO push/pull


those temps have to be a idle temp. if they are a load temp ill call you a liar.

hbeduryan818 said:
My build is an amd 8350 and sapphire amd 7950 the difference in gaming is 5 or 6 fps difference the i5 has that small advantage but nothing you would really notice the i5 is a quad while the amd is 8 core make sure to stay away from the 81xx series from amd go for the 8350


in most games yes it is 5-6 fps but in games like bf3 it will be much bigger

hbeduryan818 said:
The 8350 is an octocore. It has 4 modules and 2 cores each module so that makes 8 cores. Get your fact rights


they are not full cores. each module has shared resources(fpu, l2 cache). you get your facts straight buddy.
November 8, 2012 12:28:26 AM

2683950,9,787688 said:
those temps have to be a idle temp. if they are a load temp ill call you a liar.



in most games yes it is 5-6 fps but in games like bf3 it will be much bigger



they are not full cores. each module has shared resources(fpu, l2 cache). you get your facts straight buddy.[/quote

But calling it hyperthreading is bs cause i7 has hyperthreading but piledriver/bulldozer had much more faster and smoother rendering
a c 109 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 8, 2012 12:34:31 AM

hbeduryan818 said:
The 8350 is an octocore. It has 4 modules and 2 cores each module so that makes 8 cores. Get your fact rights

As someone else has already stated, they aren't full cores.

A Piledriver module has two Integer Cores. These are not the same as a dedicated core due to the shared resources among the two Integer units. It's essentially a way of 'Physical Hyperthreading'.
November 8, 2012 12:35:53 AM

mocchan said:
As someone else has already stated, they aren't full cores.

A Piledriver module has two Integer Cores. These are not the same as a dedicated core due to the shared resources among the two Integer units. It's essentially a way of 'Physical Hyperthreading'.


Its 4 modules woth 2 cores in each woth shared l2 and l3 cache just read it
a c 109 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 8, 2012 12:36:26 AM

hbeduryan818 said:
2683950,9,787688 said:
those temps have to be a idle temp. if they are a load temp ill call you a liar.



in most games yes it is 5-6 fps but in games like bf3 it will be much bigger



they are not full cores. each module has shared resources(fpu, l2 cache). you get your facts straight buddy.[/quote

But calling it hyperthreading is bs cause i7 has hyperthreading but piledriver/bulldozer had much more faster and smoother rendering
said:


It's not BS to compare it to Hyperthreading. It's a very similar concept in a way to force a single 'core' to work on two threads at a time. AMD's solution is much more efficient in this respect (Intels Hyperthreading allows 1 core to do 100% work of a single core+30% more from Hyperthreading. If I remember correctly, AMD's module approach allows each Integer unit to work on 70% workload of a full core); too bad these cores IPC are just pitiful.
November 8, 2012 12:37:15 AM

mocchan said:
It's not BS to compare it to Hyperthreading. It's a very similar concept in a way to force a single 'core' to work on two threads at a time. AMD's solution is much more efficient in this respect (Intels Hyperthreading allows 1 core to do 100% work of a single core+30% more from Hyperthreading. If I remember correctly, AMD's module approach allows each Integer unit to work on 70% workload of a full core); too bad these cores IPC are just pitiful.


Piledrivers ipc is so much faster compared to faildozer even though alot of people noticed real world didference with an i5 and 8150 imagine how good 8359 is considering its 15% faster
a c 109 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 8, 2012 12:40:47 AM

hbeduryan818 said:
Piledrivers ipc is so much faster compared to faildozer even though alot of people noticed real world didference with an i5 and 8150 imagine how good 8359 is considering its 15% faster

I'm not talking about the performance of Piledriver; I'm pointing out the fact that AMD's CPU's currently lack the performance to back up their CPU's architecture.

To make it more clear, I'm saying AMD's module approach is very efficient; they just lack the IPC to compete with i7's.

On a side note, PD's performance comes from IPC and clock speed increases. 7% from IPC and 7% from a boost in clock speed; they didn't achieve a 15% IPC increase.

**EDIT**

Picture courtesy of Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AMD_Bulldozer_block_d...(8_core_CPU).PNG Again, Integer Cores/Clusters. Can't really call them 'cores' per se.
November 8, 2012 12:42:48 AM

mocchan said:
I'm not talking about the performance of Piledriver; I'm pointing out the fact that AMD's CPU's currently lack the performance to back up their CPU's architecture.

To make it more clear, I'm saying AMD's module approach is very efficient; they just lack the IPC to compete with i7's.

On a side note, PD's performance comes from IPC and clock speed increases. 7% from IPC and 7% from a boost in clock speed; they didn't achieve a 15% IPC increase.



Ive used amd and intel cpus for a while and the only time i noticed a huge drifference was using an a4 3400 apu againt an i5 2500
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 12:44:59 AM

cbrunnem said:
each module has shared resources(fpu, l2 cache). you get your facts straight buddy.

Ok guys...we've seen this module and cores kinda argument a lotta times before. All i can say is believe what you feel it is, but don't force your opinion on the other person, coz its only gonna end up in a war :) 

As for me, I regard the FX 8xxx series as a 8 core chip. Why?

Because, if you look back, original intel "cores", in the 8086, 80186 etc didn't have an FPU at all, forget about shared FPU's !!! They had to be paired with an external 8087 FPU co-processor.

Also, there's nothing wrong with sharing L2 cache as well, my E8400 has a shared 6MB L2 cache, doesn't mean its a single core!!

The only thing is that it shares the front end......but again the decoder will be split from SR onwards.....so in the end, the reality lies somewhere between these 2 extremes, but tends to be more close to being an octo-core :) 



a c 283 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
November 8, 2012 12:45:00 AM

hbeduryan818 said:
Its 4 modules woth 2 cores in each woth shared l2 and l3 cache just read it


The shared resources is what makes it not "act" like 8 real cores, though. There are 8 integer cores, but only 4 FPU's, so the integer cores are what's known as "skinny" cores. They get the job done, but not anywhere near as well as 8 "fat" cores would (like Intel cores or AMD cores pre-BD).

They're barely able to be called 8, 6, and 4 core CPU's, but they certainly don't have the performance of anything close to what they should.

a c 109 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 8, 2012 12:45:13 AM

hbeduryan818 said:
Ive used amd and intel cpus for a while and the only time i noticed a huge drifference was using an a4 3400 apu againt an i5 2500

Again, why do you bring up irrelevant information? I'm not talking about noticing a difference in performance. I'm talking about raw performance, not real world differences.

I've also used AMD and Intel CPU's, by the way.
a c 109 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 8, 2012 12:45:41 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
The shared resources is what makes it not "act" like 8 real cores, though. There are 8 integer cores, but only 4 FPU's, so the integer cores are what's known as "skinny" cores. They get the job done, but not anywhere near as well as 8 "fat" cores would (like Intel cores or AMD cores pre-BD).

They're barely able to be called 8, 6, and 4 core CPU's, but they certainly don't have the performance of anything close to what they should.

+1

Thank you.
November 8, 2012 12:49:44 AM

$hawn said:
Ok guys...we've seen this module and cores kinda argument a lotta times before. All i can say is believe what you feel it is, but don't force your opinion on the other person, coz its only gonna end up in a war :) 

As for me, I regard the FX 8xxx series as a 8 core chip. Why?

Because, if you look back, original intel "cores", in the 8086, 80186 etc didn't have an FPU at all, forget about shared FPU's !!! They had to be paired with an external 8087 FPU co-processor.

Also, there's nothing wrong with sharing L2 cache as well, my E8400 has a shared 6MB L2 cache, doesn't mean its a single core!!

The only thing is that it shares the front end......but again the decoder will be split from SR onwards.....so in the end, the reality lies somewhere between these 2 extremes, but tends to be more close to being an octo-core :) 



Im not a fanboy of either but i do admit bulldozer was a fail and i mean a FAIL piledrivers tweaked architecture should bring more of a 8 core power
November 8, 2012 12:54:29 AM

Since your all here quick question should i got with the haf xm corsair 500r or 400r my mobo does support usb 3.0 header
a c 109 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 8, 2012 1:00:36 AM

hbeduryan818 said:
Im not a fanboy of either but i do admit bulldozer was a fail and i mean a FAIL piledrivers tweaked architecture should bring more of a 8 core power

It wasn't fail per se, AMD just went about the wrong way marketing it :lol:  It's a great concept for a CPU.

Piledriver at the moment is a great option; especially the FX-83XX series for a budget rendering rig.

On a side note, Carbide 500R gets my vote for the internal options and the price at the moment. $80 after rebate on newegg at the moment, quite a steal.
a c 82 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
November 8, 2012 1:02:08 AM

all you need to do is look here http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701 all the information you need to decide what you want, in black and white, no opinions just facts. AMD for gaming = lose, for some heavily threaded apps = win.
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 1:02:44 AM

I bought an FX 4100 knowing it was a dual core with Hyperthreading. The Phenom II's were true quad/hexacores. They aren't bad chips, and overclock well (at least the 4xxx series does). You'll get a heck of a lot more if you overclock an i5 however. The FX 4100 is stable and cool on stock cooling at 4.2GHz for me, and I expect others to have the same result. It is better than a Sandy i3 by a little when OC'ed.
November 8, 2012 1:04:54 AM

montosaurous said:
I bought an FX 4100 knowing it was a dual core with Hyperthreading. The Phenom II's were true quad/hexacores. They aren't bad chips, and overclock well (at least the 4xxx series does). You'll get a heck of a lot more if you overclock an i5 however. The FX 4100 is stable and cool on stock cooling at 4.2GHz for me, and I expect others to have the same result. It is better than a Sandy i3 by a little when OC'ed.



Try the 4300
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 1:07:07 AM

mocchan said:
It wasn't fail per se, AMD just went about the wrong way marketing it :lol:  It's a great concept for a CPU.

Piledriver at the moment is a great option; especially the FX-83XX series for a budget rendering rig.

On a side note, Carbide 500R gets my vote for the internal options and the price at the moment. $80 after rebate on newegg at the moment, quite a steal.


Personally, I think the Bulldozer architecture is a major design error. It suffers in single threaded apps, and in some multithreaded apps it will lose to the i5 due to poor threading. You should want a few, great cores. Not many mediocre cores.
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 1:09:31 AM

hbeduryan818 said:
Try the 4300


All it is a small increase in clock rate and power efficiency. An FX 4170 would probably fare very well against it. I'd like to see Bulldozer and Piledriver compared at the same clocks.
a c 109 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 8, 2012 1:20:05 AM

montosaurous said:
Personally, I think the Bulldozer architecture is a major design error. It suffers in single threaded apps, and in some multithreaded apps it will lose to the i5 due to poor threading. You should want a few, great cores. Not many mediocre cores.

Generally speaking, yes, it definitely has its flaws. It makes me wonder why AMD didn't continue refining the Phenom's :lol: 
a c 283 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
November 8, 2012 1:22:34 AM

mocchan said:
Generally speaking, yes, it definitely has its flaws. It makes me wonder why AMD didn't continue refining the Phenom's :lol: 


They wanted to try and design the "magic bullet".

Like I said on the Piledriver article here on Tom's, I think it was stupid of AMD to take that much of a risk when they could least afford to.

Intel could have afforded to screw up that badly, but AMD? Not so much.
November 8, 2012 1:25:36 AM

montosaurous said:
All it is a small increase in clock rate and power efficiency. An FX 4170 would probably fare very well against it. I'd like to see Bulldozer and Piledriver compared at the same clocks.


Piledriver delivers 10-15% than bulldozer and 7% in single core to core performance
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 1:29:41 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
They wanted to try and design the "magic bullet".

Like I said on the Piledriver article here on Tom's, I think it was stupid of AMD to take that much of a risk when they could least afford to.

Intel could have afforded to screw up that badly, but AMD? Not so much.


At least they still have ATI. Without ATI AMD would be long gone.
November 8, 2012 1:35:20 AM

montosaurous said:
At least they still have ATI. Without ATI AMD would be long gone.


You are such a hater! Amd would still be here because if bulldozer or pd was never inveted people would still invest in the phenom smart ass
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 1:40:36 AM

hbeduryan818 said:
You are such a hater! Amd would still be here because if bulldozer or pd was never inveted people would still invest in the phenom smart ass


AMD has been having trouble since 2008. ATI has kept them afloat. Why? Because ATI cards are a great value. In the end Nvidia's brightest will be better, but not many people pay $400 for a GPU either. Thuban and Deneb were both great architectures and faired well against intel. I have an FX 4100 by the way, so you can't call me a fanboy.
a c 109 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 8, 2012 1:41:41 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
They wanted to try and design the "magic bullet".

Like I said on the Piledriver article here on Tom's, I think it was stupid of AMD to take that much of a risk when they could least afford to.

Intel could have afforded to screw up that badly, but AMD? Not so much.


Thank you for clarifying a few things :) 

It's very sad how they gambled when they could have just stuck to a very robust line of CPU's.
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 1:45:16 AM

mocchan said:
Thank you for clarifying a few things :) 

It's very sad how they gambled when they could have just stuck to a very robust line of CPU's.


The Phenom II's were getting old. They could've switched to the Phenom III as a name, just to rejuvenate it.
November 8, 2012 1:45:29 AM

montosaurous said:
AMD has been having trouble since 2008. ATI has kept them afloat. Why? Because ATI cards are a great value. In the end Nvidia's brightest will be better, but not many people pay $400 for a GPU either. Thuban and Deneb were both great architectures and faired well against intel. I have an FX 4100 by the way, so you can't call me a fanboy.


AMD > Intel Ive been building comps for 8 year out of those 8 years built 2 amds last month
November 8, 2012 1:48:24 AM

montosaurous said:
The Phenom II's were getting old. They could've switched to the Phenom III as a name, just to rejuvenate it.


The only fail with bulldozer with architecture
November 8, 2012 1:53:46 AM

So AMD releases the Piledriver which are up to the task and people still debate......smh
November 8, 2012 1:55:30 AM

chase3567 said:
So AMD releases the Piledriver which are up to the task and people still debate......smh


Yupppp plus amd even stated their going in their own route and dont want to compete with intel
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 1:58:20 AM

Sorry reubenno that we turned your question into an AMD vs intel thread. To answer your question, an i5 would be better, though an FX 8350 might last you longer. You'll never get the performance of an i5 3570k from it, but it might be better in 3-4 years. I find AMD cpus tend to age much better than their intel counterparts. If you want immediate great performance, than an i5 is clearly the winner. If you want a long lasting CPU, go for the 8350.
November 8, 2012 2:00:39 AM

montosaurous said:
Sorry reubenno that we turned your question into an AMD vs intel thread. To answer your question, an i5 would be better, though an FX 8350 might last you longer. You'll never get the performance of an i5 3570k from it, but it might be better in 3-4 years. I find AMD cpus tend to age much better than their intel counterparts. If you want immediate great performance, than an i5 is clearly the winner. If you want a long lasting CPU, go for the 8350.


Looking at benchmarks the amd kills i5 for performance- price ratio and the i5 is only $40 more sad.......
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 2:04:17 AM

montosaurous said:
Sorry reubenno that we turned your question into an AMD vs intel thread. To answer your question, an i5 would be better, though an FX 8350 might last you longer. You'll never get the performance of an i5 3570k from it, but it might be better in 3-4 years. I find AMD cpus tend to age much better than their intel counterparts. If you want immediate great performance, than an i5 is clearly the winner. If you want a long lasting CPU, go for the 8350.


for the reasons that the 8350 would be better in 3-4 years a dual core in 3-4 years would be faster.

hbeduryan818 said:
Looking at benchmarks the amd kills i5 for performance- price ratio and the i5 is only $40 more sad.......


i wanna see these benchmarks.
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 2:08:56 AM

cbrunnem said:
for the reasons that the 8350 would be better in 3-4 years a dual core in 3-4 years would be faster.



i wanna see these benchmarks.


More games will support more cores/threads in a few years. 3-4 years I'm getting Skylake so it doesn't matter to me.
November 8, 2012 2:11:22 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
If you're talking about the 8350, no. The 8350 is the exact same price as an i5 3570K.


8320 also 8329 beats in price to performance ratio
a c 283 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
November 8, 2012 2:11:25 AM

hbeduryan818 said:
Looking at benchmarks the amd kills i5 for performance- price ratio and the i5 is only $40 more sad.......


If you're talking about the 8350, no. The 8350 is the exact same price as an i5 3570K.
a c 283 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
November 8, 2012 2:12:12 AM

montosaurous said:
More games will support more cores/threads in a few years. 3-4 years I'm getting Skylake so it doesn't matter to me.


My thoughts exactly.

It doesn't even matter what you buy right now, you'll want a better CPU in 3-4 years, regardless.
November 8, 2012 2:17:58 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
The shared resources is what makes it not "act" like 8 real cores, though. There are 8 integer cores, but only 4 FPU's, so the integer cores are what's known as "skinny" cores. They get the job done, but not anywhere near as well as 8 "fat" cores would (like Intel cores or AMD cores pre-BD).

They're barely able to be called 8, 6, and 4 core CPU's, but they certainly don't have the performance of anything close to what they should.


Corsair 400r vs 500r vs haf xm?
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 2:19:10 AM

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701

Both have their strengths and weaknesses. The i5 is the winner for gaming and single threaded apps hands down. If you can wait a few months, Haswell will completely destroy both for only a little bit more money.
!