Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I5 3570K or FX 8350?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 10, 2012 8:58:07 PM

Guys whats better for gaming the I5 3570K or FX 8350?

More about : 3570k 8350

a b à CPUs
November 11, 2012 4:30:03 AM

They both have their ups and their downs. I've tried the AMD's and the Intel's although Intel tends to help give "higher framerates" AMD seems to be much more smooth and stable. The only way Intel would be better in games is if you are using like a GTX 680 and then that's like 10 FPS. AMD uses a bit more power and when you overclock you need to make sure you have a decent power supply, this goes with both brands but AMD does use a bit more power. Overall I choose AMD because It's very nice and very smooth although I would definitly go with Intel if I was using some GTX 690's.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2012 4:39:03 AM

since its gonna be mostly for gaming get the 3570k. its a no brainer.
November 11, 2012 5:42:40 AM

If I were to get an AMD I would get the 8320 and save a few bucks as both 8320 and 8350 have nearly same OCing headroom.

However for gaming I would choose intel i5 3570k.
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2012 12:42:37 PM

melikepie said:
They both have their ups and their downs. I've tried the AMD's and the Intel's although Intel tends to help give "higher framerates" AMD seems to be much more smooth and stable. The only way Intel would be better in games is if you are using like a GTX 680 and then that's like 10 FPS. AMD uses a bit more power and when you overclock you need to make sure you have a decent power supply, this goes with both brands but AMD does use a bit more power. Overall I choose AMD because It's very nice and very smooth although I would definitly go with Intel if I was using some GTX 690's.


Dunno how long ago you "tried" Intel CPUs, but no, Intel CPUs are more smooth and stutter-free playing modern games: http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...







Quote:
As you probably expected, the Ivy Bridge-derived processors are near the top in overall gaming performance. Intel has made incremental improvements over the Sandy Bridge equivalents in each price range, from the i5-2400 to the i5-2500K and i7-2600K. The Core i5-3470 offers perhaps the best combination of price and performance on the plot, and the Core i5-3570K offers a little more speed for a bit more money. The value curve turns harsh from there, though. The i7-3770K doesn't offer much of an improvement over the 3750K, yet it costs over a hundred bucks more. The Core i7-3960X offers another minuscule gain over the 3770K, but the premium to get there is over $500.

Ivy Bridge moves the ball forward, but Intel made even more performance progress in the transition from the prior-generation Lynnfield 45-nm processors—such as the Core i5-760 and i7-875K—to the 32-nm Sandy Bridge chips. From Sandy to Ivy, some of the potential speed benefits of the die shrink were absorbed by the reduction of the desktop processor power envelope from 95W to 77W.

Sadly, with Bulldozer, AMD has moved in the opposite direction. The Phenom II X4 980, with four "Stars" cores at 3.7GHz, remains AMD's best gaming processor to date. The FX-8150 is slower than the Phenom II X6 1100T, and the FX-6200 trails the X4 980 by a pretty wide margin. Only the FX-4170 represents an improvement from one generation to the next, and it costs more than the Phenom II X4 850 that it outperforms. Meanwhile, all of the FX processors remain 125W parts.

We don't like pointing out AMD's struggles any more than many of you like reading about them. It's worth reiterating here that the FX processors aren't hopeless for gaming—they just perform similarly to mid-range Intel processors from two generations ago. If you want competence, they may suffice, but if you desire glassy smooth frame delivery, you'd best look elsewhere. Our sense is that AMD desperately needs to improve its per-thread performance—through IPC gains, higher clock speeds, or both—before they'll have a truly desirable CPU to offer PC gamers.

Fortunately, there are some glimmers of hope emanating from AMD. The Trinity APU, which combines higher-IPC Piledriver cores with an integrated Radeon, beat out an Ivy-based mobile CPU in our gaming tests. Trinity is slated to make its way to the desktop this fall, and it may provide some relief when it arrives. After that, we expect an eight-core chip based on Piledriver and then an APU and CPU refresh based on Steamroller, another architectural revamp. We think the firm is moving in the right direction, which is a change from recent years. Whether it can do so quickly enough to catch up with Intel, though, is the truly vexing question.
November 11, 2012 3:33:03 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Dunno how long ago you "tried" Intel CPUs, but no, Intel CPUs are more smooth and stutter-free playing modern games: http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...

http://techreport.com/r.x/cpu-gaming-2012/skyim-99th.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/cpu-gaming-2012/skyrim-beyond-16.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/cpu-gaming-2012/value.gif

Quote:
As you probably expected, the Ivy Bridge-derived processors are near the top in overall gaming performance. Intel has made incremental improvements over the Sandy Bridge equivalents in each price range, from the i5-2400 to the i5-2500K and i7-2600K. The Core i5-3470 offers perhaps the best combination of price and performance on the plot, and the Core i5-3570K offers a little more speed for a bit more money. The value curve turns harsh from there, though. The i7-3770K doesn't offer much of an improvement over the 3750K, yet it costs over a hundred bucks more. The Core i7-3960X offers another minuscule gain over the 3770K, but the premium to get there is over $500.

Ivy Bridge moves the ball forward, but Intel made even more performance progress in the transition from the prior-generation Lynnfield 45-nm processors—such as the Core i5-760 and i7-875K—to the 32-nm Sandy Bridge chips. From Sandy to Ivy, some of the potential speed benefits of the die shrink were absorbed by the reduction of the desktop processor power envelope from 95W to 77W.

Sadly, with Bulldozer, AMD has moved in the opposite direction. The Phenom II X4 980, with four "Stars" cores at 3.7GHz, remains AMD's best gaming processor to date. The FX-8150 is slower than the Phenom II X6 1100T, and the FX-6200 trails the X4 980 by a pretty wide margin. Only the FX-4170 represents an improvement from one generation to the next, and it costs more than the Phenom II X4 850 that it outperforms. Meanwhile, all of the FX processors remain 125W parts.

We don't like pointing out AMD's struggles any more than many of you like reading about them. It's worth reiterating here that the FX processors aren't hopeless for gaming—they just perform similarly to mid-range Intel processors from two generations ago. If you want competence, they may suffice, but if you desire glassy smooth frame delivery, you'd best look elsewhere. Our sense is that AMD desperately needs to improve its per-thread performance—through IPC gains, higher clock speeds, or both—before they'll have a truly desirable CPU to offer PC gamers.

Fortunately, there are some glimmers of hope emanating from AMD. The Trinity APU, which combines higher-IPC Piledriver cores with an integrated Radeon, beat out an Ivy-based mobile CPU in our gaming tests. Trinity is slated to make its way to the desktop this fall, and it may provide some relief when it arrives. After that, we expect an eight-core chip based on Piledriver and then an APU and CPU refresh based on Steamroller, another architectural revamp. We think the firm is moving in the right direction, which is a change from recent years. Whether it can do so quickly enough to catch up with Intel, though, is the truly vexing question.


The link you gave suggest that AMD CPUs are worse than Intels in terms of stuttering or frame latencies . However your comment seems to suggest otherwise.....
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2012 11:15:34 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Dunno how long ago you "tried" Intel CPUs, but no, Intel CPUs are more smooth and stutter-free playing modern games: http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...

http://techreport.com/r.x/cpu-gaming-2012/skyim-99th.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/cpu-gaming-2012/skyrim-beyond-16.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/cpu-gaming-2012/value.gif

Quote:
As you probably expected, the Ivy Bridge-derived processors are near the top in overall gaming performance. Intel has made incremental improvements over the Sandy Bridge equivalents in each price range, from the i5-2400 to the i5-2500K and i7-2600K. The Core i5-3470 offers perhaps the best combination of price and performance on the plot, and the Core i5-3570K offers a little more speed for a bit more money. The value curve turns harsh from there, though. The i7-3770K doesn't offer much of an improvement over the 3750K, yet it costs over a hundred bucks more. The Core i7-3960X offers another minuscule gain over the 3770K, but the premium to get there is over $500.

Ivy Bridge moves the ball forward, but Intel made even more performance progress in the transition from the prior-generation Lynnfield 45-nm processors—such as the Core i5-760 and i7-875K—to the 32-nm Sandy Bridge chips. From Sandy to Ivy, some of the potential speed benefits of the die shrink were absorbed by the reduction of the desktop processor power envelope from 95W to 77W.

Sadly, with Bulldozer, AMD has moved in the opposite direction. The Phenom II X4 980, with four "Stars" cores at 3.7GHz, remains AMD's best gaming processor to date. The FX-8150 is slower than the Phenom II X6 1100T, and the FX-6200 trails the X4 980 by a pretty wide margin. Only the FX-4170 represents an improvement from one generation to the next, and it costs more than the Phenom II X4 850 that it outperforms. Meanwhile, all of the FX processors remain 125W parts.

We don't like pointing out AMD's struggles any more than many of you like reading about them. It's worth reiterating here that the FX processors aren't hopeless for gaming—they just perform similarly to mid-range Intel processors from two generations ago. If you want competence, they may suffice, but if you desire glassy smooth frame delivery, you'd best look elsewhere. Our sense is that AMD desperately needs to improve its per-thread performance—through IPC gains, higher clock speeds, or both—before they'll have a truly desirable CPU to offer PC gamers.

Fortunately, there are some glimmers of hope emanating from AMD. The Trinity APU, which combines higher-IPC Piledriver cores with an integrated Radeon, beat out an Ivy-based mobile CPU in our gaming tests. Trinity is slated to make its way to the desktop this fall, and it may provide some relief when it arrives. After that, we expect an eight-core chip based on Piledriver and then an APU and CPU refresh based on Steamroller, another architectural revamp. We think the firm is moving in the right direction, which is a change from recent years. Whether it can do so quickly enough to catch up with Intel, though, is the truly vexing question.


I "tried" gaming on sandy bridge and tested ivy bridge.
November 11, 2012 11:24:40 PM

Go with Intel; you won't go wrong.
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2012 11:49:01 PM

GoldenI said:
Go with Intel; you won't go wrong.

Go with Intel; you will be sorry.
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2012 11:54:04 PM

melikepie said:
Go with Intel; you will be sorry.


Correction: Go with Intel; you will NOT be sorry. :lol: 

Either way they are close but I would go with the Intel processor since it is based on real cores. Anyways don't take my joke serious to the point I am a Intel fanboy because I am running an AMD Phenom II X4 955 right now. Honestly though I believe Modern Intel processors are generally better than AMD processors. Back in the day it was the other way around though.
a c 283 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 11, 2012 11:57:06 PM

melikepie said:
Go with Intel; you will be sorry.


Now, now, let's not completely derail this (that goes for GoldenI's reply too, actually).
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2012 11:58:47 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Now, now, let's not completely derail this (that goes for GoldenI's reply too, actually).

Well, I wan't a jaffa cake or pie, who's with me?
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2012 12:03:35 AM

Count me in :lol: 
November 12, 2012 1:13:49 AM

Go with the FX-8350 you will be happy
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2012 4:29:56 AM

chase3567 said:
Go with the FX-8350 you will be happy

Yep, but a better idea is to buy jaffa cakes and pie.
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2012 7:03:33 AM

go with pentium G630 . its only $65 while fx-8350 is $200. intel wins !!!
a c 88 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
November 12, 2012 9:25:37 AM

chase3567 said:
Go with the FX-8350 you will be happy

If you are delusional and ignore hard evidence.
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2012 11:51:03 AM

sayantan said:
The link you gave suggest that AMD CPUs are worse than Intels in terms of stuttering or frame latencies . However your comment seems to suggest otherwise.....


Heh, there was a comma there - "no, Intel CPUs are more smooth..."
February 6, 2013 12:21:40 AM

melikepie said:
I've tried the AMD's and the Intel's although Intel tends to help give "higher framerates" AMD seems to be much more smooth and stable. The only way Intel would be better in games is if you are using like a GTX 680 and then that's like 10 FPS. AMD uses a bit more power and when you overclock you need to make sure you have a decent power supply, this goes with both brands but AMD does use a bit more power. Overall I choose AMD because It's very nice and very smooth although I would definitly go with Intel if I was using some GTX 690's.


You aren't to smart are you? The 3570 beats the 8350 by 20 to 40 FPS in every game using the same video card in both systems. The brand of video card has nothing to do with it. Intel is much better in gaming. It is twice as fast in single threaded apps, as for multi core, they are about the same. AMD uses a good bit more power. AMD uses 25 more watts idle, it uses 52 more watts with typical usage, and uses 61 more watts at peak, if you over clock it, it can pull as much as 300 watts. That is F'n insane. And since there is only a $15 difference between the 2, anyone that buys the AMD at this point would be a fool. Only AMD fanboys will buy that processor.

I really don't get what you mean by more smooth and stable.. My Intel doesn't jump nor crash. That is just a stupid thing to say. If your Intel was doing either, then you either had a bad processor, or something else was wrong.

Go check out some benchmarks. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/701?vs=697

Quote:
"Overall I choose AMD because It's very nice and very smooth"
Yes, so is mine.
Quote:
"although I would definitly go with Intel if I was using some GTX 690's."
Which again has NOTHING to do with performance. I have been using Radeons with Intel for many years, and guess what? They perform just as good or better than Nvidia.

I always go with whoever is the fastest. If its Radeon, I get them, if its Nvidia, I buy them.. Back when AMD64's first came out, they were beating the crap out of Intel, and I bought one, but since then, AMD hasn't been able to win. I remember when the old AMD K6'2 were around in the mid 90's. The AMD fanboys swore by them, they said they were faster in games, and just about everything else, yet EVERY benchmark showed the Pentium-2's beating the socks off of AMD. Once a fanboy always a fanboy. And after owning a K6-2 300, 333, 350, 400, and a 450, and owning a Pentium 2 300, 333, 350, and a 450. I can say the Intels were way faster.

You are a very misinformed person. You need to spend some time reading up online.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2013 4:19:58 AM

Quote:
Which again has NOTHING to do with performance. I have been using Radeons with Intel for many years, and guess what? They perform just as good or better than Nvidia.

That isn't what I meant. Did you happen to read around that text? Always look around :pfff: . Anyway I meant if you going for a GTX 690, or two then get a 3970x or something.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2013 4:30:00 AM

Oh good another thread about this. I am sure we will get a definitive answer THIS time. :) 
!