Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd processor equivalent to intel i5 processor

Last response: in Components
Share
January 20, 2013 11:28:49 AM

processor in AMD equivalent to core i5
January 20, 2013 11:47:04 AM

parlok said:
processor in AMD equivalent to core i5


Depends on how old the i5 is.

Generally when gaming is the main concern there is no AMD CPU that is equal to the i5. The nearest you get is AMD FX 8350.
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 11:53:45 AM

They don't make one yet.
m
0
l
Related resources
January 20, 2013 12:09:44 PM

cbxbiker61 said:
The "common" knowledge about FX-8350 has been misleading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE


No no no. Different hardware has been used during the tests, just Watch the video response to it. Which clearly shows otherwise.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
January 20, 2013 12:12:24 PM

In what task and which i5? Assuming you mean the 2500/3570, then the 8350 will be what you want.
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 12:39:33 PM

Get out the pitchforks! Someone has challenged the assertion that an i5 wins all of the benchmarks.

It's almost as if someone denied the world is flat.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
January 20, 2013 12:51:03 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
No no no. Different hardware has been used during the tests, just Watch the video response to it. Which clearly shows otherwise.



Of course they used different hardware. It's not like he's going to drop an 8350 into a Z77 MB.

m
0
l
January 20, 2013 12:59:05 PM

Ignoring the video, point is no AMD processor can top an i5, or be equal to one. An old 760 beats out the 8350 in some benchmarks, to let you guys know. Plus, look at the difference in power efficiency! I think that says alot about what AMD has to throw at Intel.
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 1:08:51 PM

Yes, that's the ticket....just ignore/bash anything that doesn't match your pre-conceived ideas.

I have an FX-8350 and it smokes Intel processors way beyond the i5 for the things that I do. That would be media encoding for one.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
January 20, 2013 1:20:07 PM

I have to wonder how many intel fanboys have gleaned their "knowledge" strictly from numbers they have seen on pretty charts. I understand that things have to be quantified, but I don't think people realize how small some differences are in real-world use.

I have actually spent time moving GPU's between two computers and gaming just to experience the real-world difference between AMD and Intel, and it reminds me of my experience at the track.

People read car mag articles that show car A beats car B to 60mph by 0.2 seconds and they think they can feel that from the drivers seat.

This is what those charts look like when you are actually playing a game:
http://youtu.be/DD3ucbL1B7w

And this is with a 600Mhz clock advantage for the Intel chip. (3.4Ghz AMD vs 4Ghz Intel.)
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 1:36:10 PM

Half my systems are AMD ones, and I used to run an AMD Opteron 275 before most people even knew what a dual-core processor was. (Read: That's four cores, over two sockets).

- I am not an Intel fan; I am merely a fan of the better product for a given application.
- Today, more than 50% of the time, and maybe even >= 70% of the time that is the Intel Core i5 2000 or 3000 series processor.
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 1:49:04 PM

All the sources that are reliable will tell that Intel has the best gaming performance right now with their CPUs. You can't argue against numbers.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
January 20, 2013 2:09:27 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
All the sources that are reliable will tell that Intel has the best gaming performance right now with their CPUs. You can't argue against numbers.


There are two concerns when spending money on "better".

How much money?

How much better?





m
0
l
January 20, 2013 2:17:06 PM

Aristotle to himself: All of my "reliable" sources tell me the world is flat. My personal observations indicate otherwise.....hmmmm what a quandry.
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 2:41:10 PM

AMD FX-#### stutter on about 1 in 20 frames, sometimes 1 in 8 frames.

Intel Core i5 might only stutter on 1 in 40 frames, and by nowhere near as much for anywhere near as long (it's hard to notice).
m
0
l
a b À AMD
January 20, 2013 2:44:55 PM

@ Scott_D_Bowen, watch your language.
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 2:51:18 PM

Z1NONLY said:
There are two concerns when spending money on "better".

How much money?

How much better?


i5-3570k and AMD FX 8350 should have about the same price. So the question is a no-brainer.
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 2:57:18 PM

Care to PM me an explanation of that?
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 3:00:24 PM

Scott_D_Bowen said:
AMD FX-#### stutter on about 1 in 20 frames, sometimes 1 in 8 frames.

Intel Core i5 might only stutter on 1 in 40 frames, and by nowhere near as much for anywhere near as long (it's hard to notice).


FX-what?

This is a common theme for Intel biased arguments to try to lump the FX-8350's in with previous generations in comparisons. An FX-8350 is not an FX-8150.

Tom's hardware conveniently left the 8350's out of their last roundup...wonder why that was?
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 3:13:08 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
i5-3570k and AMD FX 8350 should have about the same price. So the question is a no-brainer.


Well actually the price of a FX-8320 is £130 vs the £170 for an i5-3570K, and £150 for a FX-8350.

I think too much people ignore the real world differences between the two CPU's which is almost nill.
If you're budget can afford it then sure - go Intel, but honestly an FX-8320 can do anything an i5 can albeit a TAD (hardly noticeable in real-world) slower.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
January 20, 2013 3:26:16 PM

Scott_D_Bowen said:
Oh, you want a 8350 specific article, that has better than bar charts?
- http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/skyrim-latency.gif



This is exactly the kind of "pretty graph" logic I was talking about.

Here's the pretty chart for Crysis 2 (because I don't have Skyrim to demonstrate):

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

The frame latency chart implies a dramatic difference in gaming.

Sure the numbers are what they are, and intel is "better", but this is what those numbers LOOK like in PRACTICE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbGUfaPg-Vo&feature=yout...

Maybe the difference would be more noticeable if that pretty chart flashed on the screen every few seconds, just to remind me how awesome my Intel rig is and how lame the AMD rig is?

I'm not arguing performance numbers. I'm cautioning against placing too-high a value on differences that look dramatic on a chart and then barely noticeable (if at all) in real life.
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 3:27:34 PM

Scott_D_Bowen said:
Oh, you want a 8350 specific article, that has better than bar charts?
- http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/skyrim-latency.gif


So we accept that an i5 performs better than an 8350 with regards to latency in Skyrim?
No one here was every making the statement that an FX-8350 was better in all games.

Now we turn back to the linked FX-8350 review... Somehow their benchmark results are disqualified because they prove that the i5 is not better in "all" games, and in some the FX-8350 trounces the Intels.

m
0
l
January 20, 2013 3:29:37 PM

Z1NONLY said:
This is exactly the kind of "pretty graph" logic I was talking about.

Here's the pretty chart for Crysis 2 (because I don't have Skyrim to demonstrate):

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...


Sure the numbers are what they are, and intel is "better", but this is what those numbers LOOK like in PRACTICE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbGUfaPg-Vo&feature=yout...

Maybe the difference would be more noticeable if that pretty chart flashed on the screen every few seconds, just to remind me how awesome my Intel rig is and how lame the AMD rig is?

I'm not arguing performance numbers. I'm cautioning against placing too-high a value on differences that look dramatic on a chart and then barely noticeable (if at all)t in real life.

You keep linking to GPU dependent games that sue hardly any CPU.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
January 20, 2013 3:35:20 PM

yummerzzz said:
You keep linking to GPU dependent games that sue hardly any CPU.


And yet the pretty latency chart implies a "big difference" between the two anyway.

GPU dependent or not, we have a graph for THAT game that says "intel is awesome and AMD sucks".

Then we have a demonstration in the real world that shows the difference is nil in real use.

Maybe there should be disclaimers on the charts that say "Disregard dramatic difference shown here when game is GPU dependent."


m
0
l
January 20, 2013 3:38:23 PM

But if you were to do those tests with BF3 multiplayer or Planetside 2 there would be a larger difference. IS that small difference worth £40 or $65? That's up to the consumer.
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 3:49:57 PM

yummerzzz said:
But if you were to do those tests with BF3 multiplayer or Planetside 2 there would be a larger difference. IS that small difference worth £40 or $65? That's up to the consumer.


The difference of price will in the end of the day go to Intel's favor because the FX CPUs use almost 2 times the power as the current ivy-bridge. So you will be paying more on the long term if getting an AMD FX CPU.

And there is huge different in CPU intensive games such as starcraft 2 where the FX 8350 even can't keep 60 FPS

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51141.png

I can keep on posting

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51140.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51139.png

m
0
l
a b À AMD
January 20, 2013 3:50:37 PM

yummerzzz said:
But if you were to do those tests with BF3 multiplayer or Planetside 2 there would be a larger difference. IS that small difference worth £40 or $65? That's up to the consumer.


Ok. But I was calling out the faith in frame-latency charts by demonstrating how well Crysis 2 plays when the chart implies the game will suck when played on an AMD compared to an Intel.


m
0
l
a b À AMD
January 20, 2013 3:58:46 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
The difference of price will in the end of the day go to Intel's favor because the FX CPUs use almost 2 times the power as the current ivy-bridge. So you will be paying more on the long term if getting an AMD FX CPU.

And there is huge different in CPU intensive games such as starcraft 2 where the FX 8350 even can't keep 60 FPS

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51141.png

I can keep on posting

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51140.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51139.png


Thanks for the other two links.

So the 8350 "only" gets 70.5 fps with Dawn of WarII where the i5 gets 84.7?

And "only" 95 fps in WOW and the i5 gets 126....

You are making my point for me.

If there was a chart showing AMD at 300fps and intel at 350fps, I think your logic would dictate that AMD is a waste of money and Intel would clearly provide a noticeably-better gaming experience?


m
0
l
January 20, 2013 4:04:34 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
The difference of price will in the end of the day go to Intel's favor because the FX CPUs use almost 2 times the power as the current ivy-bridge. So you will be paying more on the long term if getting an AMD FX CPU.

And there is huge different in CPU intensive games such as starcraft 2 where the FX 8350 even can't keep 60 FPS

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51141.png

I can keep on posting

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51140.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51139.png


That's just BS. Apparently you've never actually done power cost calculations.

At idle the cpu's are going to use close to the same power. Only when they're under heavy load will they differ significantly. So figure out how many hours you have sit in front of your machine playing games to make any significant difference in your "cost". I'll be happy to help you out with your math if you get stuck.

I have a little bash script to do my power calculations when I'm really interested in what something "costs".
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 5:25:03 PM

My 80plus platinum PSU with my AMD rig are doing just fine on efficiency.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
January 20, 2013 6:35:42 PM

They would be even better with Intel rigs. Even less power used.

Guys, you are arguing with someone using Youtube links to defend is position. This should tell you something. I'll throw out the next logical argument for him to youtube around however because I'm in a playful sleep deprived mood. Why spend similar money on a CPU that is slower? Even if its only 8% slower, why buy it? Not saying 8350 is bad choice as sometimes it does as well if not better then an i5, but why buy a slower CPU?
m
0
l
January 20, 2013 6:40:50 PM

the amd cpu's only really beat the i5 when you are looking at multi-threaded things like video encoding

and because most people rarely do a lot an i5 is better because most people mainly use games.

now if you were a proffesional you would go for an i7 6 core cpu

this would beat amd because intel cpu's are more efficent.

m
0
l
January 20, 2013 6:52:21 PM

cbxbiker61 said:
That's just BS. Apparently you've never actually done power cost calculations.

At idle the cpu's are going to use close to the same power. Only when they're under heavy load will they differ significantly. So figure out how many hours you have sit in front of your machine playing games to make any significant difference in your "cost". I'll be happy to help you out with your math if you get stuck.

I have a little bash script to do my power calculations when I'm really interested in what something "costs".


http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...

Now, what did you say? Even at idle the difference is almost 50% and at load almost 100%.
m
0
l
!