Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD FX-8150 vs. Intel Core i5-3470

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 24, 2012 9:39:53 AM

Because of the release of Piledriver, Bulldozer chips have gone low in my country. An ASRock 970DE3/U3S3 + AMD FX-8150 costs $284. An ASRock H77M + Intel Core i5-3470 costs $285. Which would be better? :( 
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2012 10:04:37 AM

The i5 would be miles better! You're looking at around 10% better application performance and 30%+ better gaming performance.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 10:14:51 AM

Would the 8 cores have any advantages? :(  I mean, a dollar less and you get an 8-core 3.6GHz each against a dollar more 4-core 3.2GHz.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2012 10:28:38 AM


You can not compare the GHz for different CPUs let alone different architectures, and the 8 cores of a bulldozer are not always treated as 8 cores, there is a reason it is called 4 modules 8 cores, read up on one of the many reviews of the bulldozer architecture for a much better explanation.

Now, if you are going to overclock and use heavily threaded applications, and do not care about the power draw, then the bulldozer may just be the one for you, if, however, you are going to use it for normal everyday tasks and gaming, then the i5 will yield a better performance, take a look at this comparison of the two CPUs.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 11:46:19 AM

Seems like i5's the way to go.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 11:48:29 AM

Can I ask why does FX-8150 yield lower FPS with the same graphics card as with an i5-3470? I thought CPU's were not much limiting factors in gaming... or am I wrong. Hmmm. The FPS difference between those two are very faaaar.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2012 11:52:00 AM

You're right that graphics card is more important, but CPU is important too. Some games particularly rely on the CPU. Classic example is Grand Theft Auto 4, or more recently, Battlefield 3's multiplayer (single player is fine as long as the graphics card is fast). It's also resolution-dependent - higher resolutions move the workload more to the graphics card. As lower resolutions, CPU has more impact. For the same price though, it would be insane to buy that AMD processor.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 9:25:08 PM

I see... Thanks for clearing things up. But what do you meany by "it would be insane to buy that AMD processor"?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2012 9:28:47 PM

Insane because you'd be paying the same price for something that is slower in every way. Sometimes AMD is better for applications and worse for games, but in this case, AMD is worse for both. With no money saved, there's no point in choosing something 30% slower in games and slightly slower in applications too.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2012 9:58:39 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Insane because you'd be paying the same price for something that is slower in every way. Sometimes AMD is better for applications and worse for games, but in this case, AMD is worse for both. With no money saved, there's no point in choosing something 30% slower in games and slightly slower in applications too.

AMD is not that bad, assuming he/she is buying a $200 CPU they are most likely going to spend around the same for the GPU. Both are good, AMD is what I have and I also tried ivy bridge which I did not like as much at all.

Ivy bridge is too slow when it comes to programs today, it just gives slightly better framerates when it comes to games (more then slightly but that's assuming you bought a extreme edition).

AMD runs nice and smooth which I like but that can cause problems because it may be smooth but not "as" fast when it comes to game. Your NOT getting anymore then around %3 FPS with Intel on games unless you buy a $500+ CPU and a $500+ GPU and that's what you would expect from a better GPU.


Overall AMD is the best choice for your CPU unless yours ONLY playing games, your willing to overclock a lot and your spending a TON of money on everything in your system.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 10:41:53 PM

i5 all the way, for gaming you will see a huge difference but only in games, plus you can overclock the *** out of one of the ivy i5's :D 
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 10:48:58 PM

At stock speeds and no overclocking done, i5-3470 over an FX-8150 anytime? Or... I could get an FX-6300 for a lot cheaper.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2012 10:54:48 PM

AlistairH1993 said:
i5 all the way, for gaming you will see a huge difference but only in games, plus you can overclock the *** out of one of the ivy i5's :D 

Yes, you can get em to 4GHz with 10V!
While the AMD FX gets 6Ghz+!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2012 12:48:11 PM

melikepie said:
AMD runs nice and smooth which I like but that can cause problems because it may be smooth but not "as" fast when it comes to game. Your NOT getting anymore then around %3 FPS with Intel on games unless you buy a $500+ CPU and a $500+ GPU and that's what you would expect from a better GPU.


Got a benchmark to back that up? See http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/fx-8350-vishera-review,re... for benchmarks backing up that 30% figure and disproving melikepie's 3% figure.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2012 8:15:42 PM



LOL I know it proves nothing so why did you post it? What you did there is referred to as 'cherry-picking' - selecting a single benchmark to support your argument. Typically frowned upon. What I did was post a link to the entire article so people can see the whole range of benchmarks. If you had also posted the results from Skyrim and World of Warcraft, people could see how much the i5 can benefit performance in games that make use of CPU performance. But that would invalidate your "3%" argument wouldn't it?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2012 8:31:36 PM

sam_p_lay said:
LOL I know it proves nothing so why did you post it? What you did there is referred to as 'cherry-picking' - selecting a single benchmark to support your argument. Typically frowned upon. What I did was post a link to the entire article so people can see the whole range of benchmarks. If you had also posted the results from Skyrim and World of Warcraft, people could see how much the i5 can benefit performance in games that make use of CPU performance. But that would invalidate your "3%" argument wouldn't it?

They were almost exactly the same I did not look for the best.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2012 8:41:34 PM

melikepie said:
They were almost exactly the same I did not look for the best.


Haha nope. Take another look. At 1080p Skyrim Ultra, 85.7fps on the i5 vs 56.4fps on the FX. That's 52% faster. Then 51% faster at high settings. Then 19% faster and 31% faster respectively in World of Warcraft. So quite a bit faster, and hardly "$500+".
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2012 10:14:49 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Haha nope. Take another look. At 1080p Skyrim Ultra, 85.7fps on the i5 vs 56.4fps on the FX. That's 52% faster. Then 51% faster at high settings. Then 19% faster and 31% faster respectively in World of Warcraft. So quite a bit faster, and hardly "$500+".

tardy tard tard
m
0
l
November 25, 2012 10:58:41 PM

Get a FX-6300. It's better than the FX-8150
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2012 10:59:03 PM

e_X said:
Get a FX-6300. It's better than the FX-8150

No it's not!
m
0
l
November 25, 2012 11:58:50 PM

melikepie said:
No it's not!

Yeah it is. It has better performance in gaming. If you are video editing the fx-8120 is better because of the extra 2 cores.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2012 12:19:30 AM

e_X said:
Yeah it is. It has better performance in gaming. If you are video editing the fx-8120 is better because of the extra 2 cores.

No it's not.
<- <- <- Look At My Rank, I Think I Know More lol
m
0
l
November 26, 2012 12:50:36 AM

melikepie said:
No it's not.
<- <- <- Look At My Rank, I Think I Know More lol


I'm with e_x on this one, 6 core vishera will beat 8 core bulldozer in single threaded, but 8 core bulldozer will beat 6 core vishera in multithreaded
m
0
l

Best solution

November 26, 2012 12:59:46 AM

Those benchmarks above are good examples of bottlenecking, if the OP has a graphics card capable of pushing those FPS than the i5 would beat it, but otherwise..

@OP
IMO, the FX if you use a lot of multithreaded stuff, the i5 if your gaming. If your GPU isn't strong enough to push those frames, than it doesn't matter. I myself am getting a vishera FX 8320 so I have
A: an upgrade path (steamroller is looking to be an AWSOME improvement on piledriver, especially in single thread performance. It's currently looking to be in the order of 30% and apparently it's on the same AM3+ socket :) )
B: I play a lot of BF3, and vishera is well suited to that
C: my graphics card isn't powerful enough to make the CPU matter

I hope this helps you decide :) 
Share
November 26, 2012 1:03:13 AM

melikepie said:
No it's not.
<- <- <- Look At My Rank, I Think I Know More lol

The new Vishera is better than bulldozer since they have slightly better architecture.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2012 1:55:44 AM

e_X said:
The new Vishera is better than bulldozer since they have slightly better architecture.

I never said anything about that, and that is ONLY depending on the core count.
4 Core Vishera < 8 Core Bulldozer By A LOT
m
0
l
November 26, 2012 2:00:08 AM

Intel is $1 more. Its the obvious choice at that price. No further discussion is required.

To the OP, don't get mATX, get ATX. If you add more hardware to your PC temps will suffer.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2012 2:06:20 AM

NV88 said:
Intel is $1 more. Its the obvious choice at that price. No further discussion is required.

To the OP, don't get mATX, get ATX. If you add more hardware to your PC temps will suffer.

Nope get AMD, Intel will end that socket in about a year anyway while AM3+ will go on for a while.
m
0
l
November 26, 2012 3:49:51 AM

See what I wrote
m
0
l
November 26, 2012 5:21:49 AM

melikepie said:
Nope get AMD, Intel will end that socket in about a year anyway while AM3+ will go on for a while.


Until what? Undertaker? AMD is a waste at these prices. Ivy Bridge will easily last until Skylake. Who cares if the socket changes? An irrelevant pro AMD argument.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2012 5:23:40 AM

NV88 said:
Until what? Undertaker? AMD is a waste at these prices. Ivy Bridge will easily last until Skylake. Who cares if the socket changes? An irrelevant pro AMD argument.

Well, lets see your wasting lots of money buying another MOBO... hmm that's seems better to me now huh?
m
0
l
November 26, 2012 5:49:06 PM

melikepie said:
Well, lets see your wasting lots of money buying another MOBO... hmm that's seems better to me now huh?


Amother pointless argument. The B75 mobo I bought for my gaming system was a grand total of $75. Yes, truly wallet shattering. Performance at stock is identical to a $500 motherboard with a 680 an i7. You were saying?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2012 7:07:33 PM

PANZER4 said:
Those benchmarks above are good examples of bottlenecking, if the OP has a graphics card capable of pushing those FPS than the i5 would beat it, but otherwise..

@OP
IMO, the FX if you use a lot of multithreaded stuff, the i5 if your gaming. If your GPU isn't strong enough to push those frames, than it doesn't matter. I myself am getting a vishera FX 8320 so I have
A: an upgrade path (steamroller is looking to be an AWSOME improvement on piledriver, especially in single thread performance. It's currently looking to be in the order of 30% and apparently it's on the same AM3+ socket :) )
B: I play a lot of BF3, and vishera is well suited to that
C: my graphics card isn't powerful enough to make the CPU matter

I hope this helps you decide :) 



Actually C: is wrong, the weaker the GPU and the lower the resolution the more the CPU matters.


m
0
l
November 26, 2012 8:28:50 PM

melikepie said:
I never said anything about that, and that is ONLY depending on the core count.
4 Core Vishera < 8 Core Bulldozer By A LOT

I said 6 core Vishera > 8 core Bulldozer
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2012 1:20:16 AM

maxalge said:
Actually C: is wrong, the weaker the GPU and the lower the resolution the more the CPU matters.

The CPU matters on the cycles the game have, which means a weaker GPU could make the computer use less CPU.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2012 1:35:41 AM

melikepie said:
The CPU matters on the cycles the game have, which means a weaker GPU could make the computer use less CPU.



I'm pretty sure its been universally found that the lower the resolution the more cpu bound and the less gpu bound a game becomes.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2012 1:42:23 AM

maxalge said:
I'm pretty sure its been universally found that the lower the resolution the more cpu bound and the less gpu bound a game becomes.

The only case that would happen is if the GPU is the same for both resolution, and it would cause more updates a second because of the higher frame rate.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2013 4:17:25 AM

Well,I used to be an AMD fanboy,up till I came to realize what the truth really was.People say Intel is more pricey than AMD and yet doesn't deliver the performance expected.F*** the b***h who says so. Look at the AMD's 8350,which once was the top end CPU from AMD,before the 9 series arrived. 8350 is beaten by Intel's Mid-end i5-3470 in every aspect except the Cinebenchmark.And the price,that's just the same too.So,what's the point in being an AMD fanboy,believing in what should be called useless and pointless arguments? And about the 8150,come on dude,the i5-3470 beats 8350.So what's the point in comparing it with the 8150? Anyway,for our own sake,do it and the results will be no different from what is expected-Intel beating AMD...
Want proof? Here....
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/FX-8350-vs-Core-...
m
0
l
!