AMD FX-8150 vs. Intel Core i5-3470
- Thread starter icedburg3
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Video Games
Solution
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
@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
lothdk
Distinguished
- Jan 20, 2010
- 881
- 0
- 19,160
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.
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.
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.
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.
melikepie
Distinguished
- Dec 14, 2011
- 1,612
- 0
- 19,810
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.
AlistairH1993
Distinguished
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15
- 0
- 18,510
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 
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?
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+".
PANZER4
Honorable
- Jul 2, 2012
- 290
- 0
- 10,810
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
@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
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram