Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wich Proccesor Should i get

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 3, 2013 7:48:51 PM

Hey im thinking of getting the AMD 8350 or the Intel 3570k. I want the AMD since its cheaper but in the long range I record videos for Youtube what would be better for playing games and recording. I'm not saying movies. like 10 minute gameplays. What would be better for quality. Or if there's anything else you suggest! And wich one would be better for BattleField 3 and dayz and games like that ?

More about : wich proccesor

a c 177 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 3, 2013 8:12:00 PM

the 8350 is better for multitasking and should be better for recording gameplay etc while gaming, Teksyndicate or razethew0rld, compared the two cpus while recording.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc&list=UUNovoA...

Its one of these i dont remember exacts, and while not recording the 8350 is only 5-15 fps different from the i5, and bf3 specifically is like 2fps off.

Edit: The i5 should overall be better in gaming, and will cost about the same with similar priced mobo against the 8350, cpu wise there is like a $20 difference and it just matters on the motherboard or else basically the same cost. But again i saw that while recording or live streaming the fx usually beat the i5
m
0
l
a c 390 à CPUs
a c 168 À AMD
February 3, 2013 8:27:35 PM

+1^
For your needs, go with the less expensive 8 core. Gaming difference will be unnoticeable between the two as long as you have a good card. But multi-tasking will be better with the 8 core.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 135 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 3, 2013 11:01:47 PM

full specs? and budget

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2013 3:11:14 AM

I'm not going to apologize for AMD or even recommend them in this situation. there is no point. the 3570k is vastly superior to the piledriver in Raw per core performance. And the multithraeded benchmarks where the 8350 BARELY pulls ahead has less to do with being na 8 core and more to do with it having 600 mhz stoc clockspeed advantage.

Run the 35700k up to 4ghz since bothe processors are pretty much equal in terms of overclocking potential and watch the i5 equal the FX in multithreaded situations and demolish it in gaming and general computing tasks.

All though I really hate to say it AMD just don't make w whole lot of snese at this point in time. If you so budget strapped you need an extra $50 to go Intel you would be better just saving another $50 and buying the Intel.

I love AMD. My systems aside from my current 2600k have been nothing but AMD. It's just at this point in time there are very few niche reasons to consider buying an FX. Unless you enjoy slower,hotter, and less effecient CPU's for generally the same cost minus a few bucks.
m
0
l
a c 390 à CPUs
a c 168 À AMD
February 4, 2013 3:24:23 AM

According to these charts, the two processors look rather evenly matched. The Intel pulls ahead in single threaded apps, for sure. But in multi-threaded apps, they kinda leap frog each other depending on the benchmark program.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/701?vs=697

But, yes, the Intel chip is of superior design. However, the OP was looking for the less expensive of the two if there wasn't enough of a difference for his purposes to matter. If he wants to spend $100 more, by all means go with the Intel.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
a c 135 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 4, 2013 3:26:57 AM

big ur obviously a fanboy.

amds new cpus are quite good for the price and i cant wait for steamroller.

yes if he wants to spend 100$ more. but thats if he has extra 100$
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2013 4:54:20 AM

iceclock said:
big ur obviously a fanboy.

amds new cpus are quite good for the price and i cant wait for steamroller.

yes if he wants to spend 100$ more. but thats if he has extra 100$



I never said the 8350 was a bad processor. It just makes no sense at its current pricepoint. I don't understand why I am a "fanboy" for recommending the better product.

I even stated in certain niche situations the 8350 may be viable. But 9/10 times the 3570k makes more sense. Plus how does $30 more=$100 more??
m
0
l
a c 152 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 4, 2013 5:54:15 AM

bigj1985 said:
I'm not going to apologize for AMD or even recommend them in this situation. there is no point. the 3570k is vastly superior to the piledriver in Raw per core performance. And the multithraeded benchmarks where the 8350 BARELY pulls ahead has less to do with being na 8 core and more to do with it having 600 mhz stoc clockspeed advantage.

Run the 35700k up to 4ghz since bothe processors are pretty much equal in terms of overclocking potential and watch the i5 equal the FX in multithreaded situations and demolish it in gaming and general computing tasks.

All though I really hate to say it AMD just don't make w whole lot of snese at this point in time. If you so budget strapped you need an extra $50 to go Intel you would be better just saving another $50 and buying the Intel.

I love AMD. My systems aside from my current 2600k have been nothing but AMD. It's just at this point in time there are very few niche reasons to consider buying an FX. Unless you enjoy slower,hotter, and less effecient CPU's for generally the same cost minus a few bucks.


I agree 100%.
m
0
l
a c 135 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 4, 2013 10:22:36 AM

100$ more as motherboards are a bit more expensive on the intel side.

+ u gotta cover cooler.

m
0
l
a c 177 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 4, 2013 9:53:35 PM

Amd has better features on the motherboard as ahigher priced intel board as all 6gb/s sata, etc, and he doesnt need a aftermarket cpu cooler as stock works with no oc, and really it wont be $100 for lets say a hyper 212 plus a 990fx board or the recommended asrock z77 extreme 4 or 6, pricing is still very similar.
m
0
l
!