[CPU] 3570k vs 8350 I need this answered QUICK!

Thank you for looking at my post I have a serious question and I need this answered tonight sadly I am sorry for any rush I have put in this I should have been better prepared. I am going to Microcenter tomorrow and I'm making a CPU purchase

I5-3570k or a AMD FX 8350

Now for my serious question, I was sold on the 3570k UNTILL I look at the specs someone PLEASE explain this to me.

Intel Core i5 3570K - 3.4GHz - 1MB L2 - 6MB L3

AMD FX-8350 - 4.0GHz - 8MB L2 - 8MB L3

The specs are right in front of my face, how POSSIBLY can a quad core 3.4 beat a eight core 4.0ghz. I don't understand this someone please explain. Thank you for the quick and hastily response you have no idea how much it means.
12 answers Last reply
More about 3570k 8350 answered quick
  1. Plus, the 3570K is $20 cheaper at Micro Center than the 8350. At that price point, 3570K wins hands down, no question about it - i5 all the way. Also, the Piledriver is not a true 8-core, or at least it doesn't perform like it has 8 distinct cores. It's arranged in 4 modules of 2 cores/module, so the cores in a module share resources - it's sort of like hyperthreading, except I think it only beats the 3770K in one or two multithreaded tasks.

    At least AMD is pricing Piledriver a little more appropriate to what its performance level is. Now, if you needed a cpu strictly for multithreaded tasks (not gaming), the 8350 might be a reasonable budget-level competitor to the i5 or i7, considering its price point.
  2. amd has nothing that compares to that cpu, the 3570 will blow that amd cpu out of the water even at stock speed.

    hands down i5 ;)
  3. hafijur said:
    amd cpu's are a good 2-3 years behind intel as amd barely have improved since 2008, maybe even gone backwards with there new amd 32nm fx series cpu's. Its quite simple core 2 duo outperformed amd pheonom 1st gen quad cores.

    Its all about how many instructions it can do not how many cores you have as 4 or 8 cores that are slow will get trounced by a quad core that is fast and very efficient. Amd 4ghz is like intel cpu at 1.8ghz this generation per core this is. I am not sure about this but I think amd 8 cores are not really true 8 cores.

    Finally Amd system could win on a few benchmarks while the intel cpu could win on others. The i7 3770k however would trounce the fx8350. Having said that the i5 3570K if you oc it to 4.5ghz would still trounce the fx8350. To be fair you could run two i5 3570k machines at 4.5ghz and take less electricity then the fx8350 cpu.

    Amd are like how intel were in the pentium 4 era show high ghz or even high cores to make them look like they are good, at least amd this era are cheap then intel were in 2005.

    Amd are milking what they can as they are 2-3 years behind intel. To be honest they will need to improve there cpu 2-3x better performance per watt just to get close to where intel is now and the most worrying this is intel haswell is when intel are actually focusing on performance per watt ivy bridge is virtually 22nm trigate sandy bridge replacement with very little improvement performance per watt.

    Sorry for the long message.

    Ok thanks so the 3570k I should buy. But my question is if I'm looking at their specs, how can I tell its better you know, what can I look at on the box or something, or on their spec pages that would be like "wow" factor in some sort of area that makes it so much faster them amd.
  4. They don't put this on the boxes, so no:
  5. Ok I'm thinking of pairing my 3570k with a extreme 4 mobo and a corsair 500r case. Everything there sound good?
  6. yep but u dint list the rest of ur components tho, i can give u some pointers if u list the rest :)
  7. Quote:
    But my question is if I'm looking at their specs, how can I tell its better you know, what can I look at on the box or something, or on their spec pages that would be like "wow" factor in some sort of area that makes it so much faster them amd.

    A CPU's performance is like a cars performance, there is no one single metric that will let you compare two cars in any meaningful way.

    The closest you can get to a single metric is:

    Sadly most synthetic benchmarks do not test the efficiency of the CPU and it's caches. A 64MB L2/L3 cache will do nothing for performance if it's hit ratio is only 30% for example.

    When I say OVERALL EFFICIENCY above, I am not referring to power consumption, or space, size, etc. Just the efficiency of the processor at executing real-world code.

    Single metric comparisons are dangerous, it's always better to use a 2D or 3D graph so that the actual performance data can be interpreted rapidly and meaningfully for a given application.

    The hit ratio's for the cache(s) for a given application are not usually published, so this makes it even harder to calculate.

    Thankfully we have sites like Toms Hardware, Tech Report, AnandTech, XbitLabs, SemiAccurate and several others to get the bigger picture.
  8. iceclock said:
    yep but u dint list the rest of ur components tho, i can give u some pointers if u list the rest :)

    Graphics: 7870 MSI Hawk
    Monitor: Auria 2560x1440 27'
    PSU: Corsair HX750W
    CPU: 3570k
    Mobo: Extreme4
    Ram: 8gigs GSkill 2x4
    Case: I've changed to the Fractal Midi Tower ((On sale for 50$ on newegg))
  9. i spit on them fx chips...a recent switcher here and i will literally poop on my previous 8120fx
  10. looks solid except id say go with these instead, different powersupply, ram and gpu, and thats about it, fractal is decent.

    850watts and solid as hell, xfx makes top notch hardware thats including psu.

    also for ram:

    16 gigs pays off in the end and isnt alot more, good for future proofing.

    7870 twinfrozr stays just as cool. but u can go with hawk if ud prefer.

    also for motherboard id recommand this:

    a few bucks more but def worth it, better overall mobo in my opinion but same brand.


    if you wanna game in 2560 x 1440 5ms

    alot better than auria, not worth skimping on a decent screen if not, go with a 1080p 27inch monitor and i could recommand one if ud like

    enjoy :)
  11. Yeah, never rely on posted specs. Also, if you haven't noticed, Intel provides almost three times as much data on their components when compared to AMD. I'm not a fanboy, but that just seems odd to me that a technological manufacturer's product description has less specs on their website than a can of soup. I go to benchmark websites (several, since you can never just trust one) to see how they perform with the software I'm likely to use.
  12. Best answer selected by KevinHamm.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel i5