AMD 8350 vs. Intel i5 3570k for GAMING

[xenova]

My friends and I are in a heated argument over which cpu is superior for gaming. Which of these CPUs has greater overclock potential, less energy consuming, and is superior in overall gaming?

 

[ScrewySqrl]

the 3570K is superior to the FX-8350, but only a little bit (less than 5 fps difference in most games with everything else the same).

every chip's overclock potential is different, but the 8350 will generally use more power.

 

[godlyhank]

The i5 is better for gaming, for all 3... its lower power consumption especially when overclocked, you will see roughly 4.5-4.7 ghz out of both, but remember 8350 starts at 4.0 ghz where as 3570k starts at 3.4 ghz i think, so bigger increase from i5, so in all aspects almost the i5 is the better gamers choice, would only recommend the 8320/8350 for the multithreaded apps and editing etc, as it is good for that stuff.

 

[godlyhank]

sry for dbl post fished this out

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,review-32616-5.html

i7 and i5 similar powers in gaming, this is the diff with crossfire etc, so a lot of gfx power

 

[nokiddingboss]

i'd go for amd just for the sake of argument
i5 is better in games but that is already a given right?

 

[godlyhank]

Yea get a fx 4300 put it under extreme cooling, dont forget your lab coat OC it to 7-8 ghz ^.^

 

[redeemer]

the 3570K is superior to the FX-8350, but only a little bit (less than 5 fps difference in most games with everything else the same).

every chip's overclock potential is different, but the 8350 will generally use more power.

I would not say superior that fanboyish! Single threaded performance is stronger on the Intel so its better at gaming for the most part.

 

[lazyboy947]

Power consumption i dont see as an issue, saw a review with the i5 and fx stock, idle, and load power usage for the whole system same specs were very close, its when u get into a overclock like the 4.5 ghz area where the fx uses alot more power than the i5 around 75-100 if i remember

 

[rshillshooter81]

What about a Cyrix CPU? any fanboys of Cyrix?

 

[goonbar79]

My friends and I are in a heated argument over which cpu is superior for gaming. Which of these CPUs has greater overclock potential, less energy consuming, and is superior in overall gaming?

Newer i5's (2500K, 3570K) are definitly better for gaming than any of the newer AMD cpus with 8 cores (FX-83xx,81xx, etc). AMD cpus are still fairly inefficient when it comes to individual core vs Intel's, and gaming on most PC games today still requires cpu performance per core, usually around full use of 4 cores. The more CPU dependent the game, the bigger the gap. That is why, gaming wise, i5's are equal (in some cases slightly better) than their hyperthreading enabled counter parts, i7's. Not all games are effected, but here are a good examples of this problem:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

Another issue is power consumption. AMD's cpus consume around +30~40 watt at stock settings, and the power consumption gets much worse when overclocked to higher clock. The higher the clock, the more watt each additional clock will consume to provide the extra performance. This is true for Intel too, but AMD is generally much worse because of the lack of efficiency. Depending on how much you game, or how much you fully utilize all the cores, the more energy bill you will end up with every month. It may not be much per bill, but if you do the math for 2~3 years, it will add up.

 

[lazyboy947]

So running a gaming pc isnt similar to a fridge or some other appliance? Ur worried about power consumption, i mean some light bulbs can compare against the power usage of a cpu, i dont see where 40-50 watt from the two cpus matters.

 

[xenova]

So running a gaming pc isnt similar to a fridge or some other appliance? Ur worried about power consumption, i mean some light bulbs can compare against the power usage of a cpu, i dont see where 40-50 watt from the two cpus matters.

it's not about lowering the energy bill. It's about more power consumption generating more heat for the computer.

 

[lazyboy947]

well still the difference from the i5 and fx, are still similar as to the fact that IB runs hotter because the cpu heatspeader using thermal paste to transfer heat, the avg gamer even when overclocking the extra heat produced from 50watts is wat a few degrees?

 

[Azn Cracker]

Id get the i5, only a few games use more than 4 cores so the i5 will have a huge advantage. Even in games that can utilize 6 cores, the intel i5 still wins.

 

[loops]

The only time a FX chip would be better is if it allowed you to get a better gpu. (Given the current state of cpus)

 

[redeemer]

When Overclocking Ivy Bridge runs as hot as the sun, the 8350's heat is easier to manage. As far as power consumption goes 8350 vs Ivy Variant its not an issue! The 8350 is a better overclocker for sure, however the Ivy i5's when overclocked have better scaling in performance over the 8350.

Both Chips are excellent, I would say the the i5 is a better gaming chip overall and the 8350 has the edge productivity but is an excellent gaming chip as well.

 

[Chicano]

AnandTech Bench CPU Product Benchmarks
Bechmark results: AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Core i5 3570k
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701&i=499.500.501.502.503.504.505.506.327.328.329.330.331.332.333.25.26.27.28.29.38.39.40.41.42.43.45.46.344.345.53.54.55.60.61.62.129

 

[lazyboy947]

The only time a FX chip would be better is if it allowed you to get a better gpu. (Given the current state of cpus)

Have u seen any benchmarks between the two? Not saying the 8350 is a i5 killer lol but it can atleast compare unlike before amd was def not as close to the i5, like usual different occasions ones better than the other, single thread i5, multi thread, fx, its all in the above benchmark

 

[raytseng]

it's not about lowering the energy bill. It's about more power consumption generating more heat for the computer.

The power consumption argument that some people are focusing on doesn't make sense.

Because, you are getting more work done for the power.
People often misread the power consumption charts on max watts like when they run prime95 for 10minutes.

CPU1 uses 100watts and is at this temp
while CPU2 uses 125watts and is at another temp.

But if you review how much work was done, cpu2 does may end up doing 25%+ more work.

Some of the Toms articles went into this and calculated the actual power consumed for a particular LOAD.

The end result was the fastest chip (at stock voltages) used the least power. While the peak wattage was highest, it finished faster, so due to overhead, the total electricity consumed by the fastest chip was lower.

For games, there is a twist in that games will max out and use100% cpu and just throw in extra frames here and do more work for you.
If you want to reduce the power usage,
1) OC multiplier only, don't change voltages on your CPU which should keep at least the same efficiency (actually increase it a slight bit due to amortizing overhead). You are now getting the most work done for your electrons-even if it's a meaningless pixel drawn here or there. When you resort to increasing voltages to get higher clocks is when you are losing efficiency.

2) If you are concerned about heat is generated, then don't overclock the multiplier or even throttle and underclock it, saving electrons at the cost of a few fewer fps.

The stuff about the ivybridge TID is a moot point.
If you are asking about the Power Efficiency, which is what I'm talking about between amd/intel, then go with the intel.

 

[littleleo]

I think the i5-3570K is a better gaming CPU compared to the 8350 however the difference isn't that great. AMD is catching up, but of course the new Intel Haswell will be out in June so we'll see how those look. The reason I'd pick the intel over the AMD is the 1155 motherboard can take the i7 models so you have a viable upgrade path. The 8350 is the top of the line AMD AM3+ so your already topped out.

 

[darkspartenwarrior]

Right now AMD single core performance in general is around 70% of any given Intel i-series and by Broadwell AMD will be around 50% single core performance compared to Intel.

For gaming the i5 wins, for multithreaded applications, the answer might be different.

 

[iceclock]

3570k for pure gaming. if your gonna do editing and photo manipulation 8350 for the win. but even in gaming the 3570k doesnt beat it by much

 

[goonbar79]

So running a gaming pc isnt similar to a fridge or some other appliance? Ur worried about power consumption, i mean some light bulbs can compare against the power usage of a cpu, i dont see where 40-50 watt from the two cpus matters.

Look, lets not bring in comparison to other appliances and light bulbs into the calculation. Simply comparing current Intel vs AMD cpus of similar performance bracket, you WILL pay around $10~$40 per year more for using AMD cpus, during typical PC use and gaming. Most users will use a PC build for about 2~3 years (if not longer), so that does make a difference to some users who are energy conscious.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

its not a matter of opinion or fanboyism, if you read any review of them the 3570k has an overwhelming victory for gaming purposes. You shouldn't ask for opinions on the matter you will only get BS from fanboys, go strait to the facts, read a bunch of reviews. The information is all there in black and white, its not rocket science, there really doesn't need to be any more threads clogging the forums about this topic.

 

[goonbar79]

The power consumption argument that some people are focusing on doesn't make sense.
Because, you are getting more work done for the power. People often misread the power consumption charts on max watts like when they run prime95 for 10minutes.

CPU1 uses 100watts and is at this temp while CPU2 uses 125watts and is at another temp. But if you review how much work was done, cpu2 does may end up doing 25%+ more work.

This argument actually makes a lot of sense, depending on what we are discussing. If we are discussing FX-6300 vs i3's, then you are absolutely right. The performance gap, especially multi-threaded tasks, is large enough that even though i3's are efficient, it's slower overall performance negates the whole advantage. However, when we are discussing higher end cpus with similar performance, then the power usage to complete the same task around the same time is the deciding factor.

A great example is 3570K vs FX83xx. These are similar in price, 3570K is faster in gaming, single threaded tasks, and uses lot less power, while FX83xx is faster in most multi-threaded tasks. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/6. Comparing just cpu vs cpu, 3570K is clearly the winner. The extra wattage is NOT getting the user extra performance. If you say that that is not the real world use calculations, then try to do the math, and see what you get. I have extensively tested this power usage theory, and there is no question about it, especially for hardcore gaming.