Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel i5 3570k vs FX 8350 Gaming

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 20, 2013 8:08:32 PM

I saw a lot of benchmarks of the i5 3570k, and the 8350 on gaming, and the i5 beat the 8350 by 20%.

Ok so basically I'm building a gaming PC for $700 (includes shipping/taxes). My first choice was the Phenom II x4 965 BE, with an HD 7870. I heard from many ppl that the phenom will bottleneck the HD 7870. So what I thought I'd do is, get the 7770 or 7870 and just get a much better processor (I'm planning to get an HD 8xxx gpu when they come out also).

Will the 8350 and HD 7770/7870 or i5 3570k be better for gaming? What about of the next gen. GPU's?

Which one is more future proof?

And last thing, will haswell be released on LGA 1155?

Thx
Related resources
February 20, 2013 9:22:33 PM

Just before you buy consider comparing them in teh games you play, not necessarily the benchmarking staples. I watch TekSyndicate and I second that 8350 if you are a little short on money. Look at this article if you plan on getting a high end 8000 series http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...
The 8350 can't quite keep up with intel, even though the intel is a bit more expensive.
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2013 9:36:33 PM

markus843 said:
Omg, tysm.. I was about to buy intel haha...

Both are on par, remember that Logan of Tek Syndicate test the FX-8350 running X-split at the same time of gaming so if you'll not run X-split, the 3570k is slightly ahead...
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2013 9:44:27 PM

Although going with the 965 BE will allow you to buy a better GPU now and have better gaming performance than with the i5 and the weaker GPU (no arguments here), I would still suggest going with the i5 for a couple of reasons (not the FX as the intel chip is the better gaming CPU).

You presumably plan to keep and use this computer for a while, the general advantages of having an unlocked intel system over the long term are obvious, the i5-3570K is a more powerful processor than AMD can currently provide and should last longer into the future. The cost of upgrading the 965 BE based system in the future will be high. So if you look at it in terms of keeping this PC for 3-4 years you can retain the same platform with the i5-3570k and upgrade the GPU a few times to the best you can afford when you need to. You also said you plan on purchasing the 8000 series radeons and once you do you will regret not having a faster CPU.

If you get the 965 BE with a 7870 now, the next GPU you want to upgrade to will most definitely be bottlenecked by the system and youll have to not only replace the GPU but also the entire platform, so in the long term it won't be worth it.

So I personally would never build a system around a weak CPU if I planned to upgrade to a better GPU in the future, if I wanted a cheap system that I didn't plan to upgrade in the future it would be a different story.

So bottom line... build an intel i5 system with the future in mind... and buy the best GPU you can afford now. In future you can easily overclock the CPU and it has enough power to support more powerful GPUs for a while


a b à CPUs
February 20, 2013 10:07:11 PM

amirp said:
Although going with the 965 BE will allow you to buy a better GPU now and have better gaming performance than with the i5 and the weaker GPU (no arguments here), I would still suggest going with the i5 for a couple of reasons (not the FX as the intel chip is the better gaming CPU).

You presumably plan to keep and use this computer for a while, the general advantages of having an unlocked intel system over the long term are obvious, the i5-3570K is a more powerful processor than AMD can currently provide and should last longer into the future. The cost of upgrading the 965 BE based system in the future will be high. So if you look at it in terms of keeping this PC for 3-4 years you can retain the same platform with the i5-3570k and upgrade the GPU a few times to the best you can afford when you need to. You also said you plan on purchasing the 8000 series radeons and once you do you will regret not having a faster CPU.

If you get the 965 BE with a 7870 now, the next GPU you want to upgrade to will most definitely be bottlenecked by the system and youll have to not only replace the GPU but also the entire platform, so in the long term it won't be worth it.

So I personally would never build a system around a weak CPU if I planned to upgrade to a better GPU in the future, if I wanted a cheap system that I didn't plan to upgrade in the future it would be a different story.

So bottom line... build an intel i5 system with the future in mind... and buy the best GPU you can afford now. In future you can easily overclock the CPU and it has enough power to support more powerful GPUs for a while

+1 the 8000 series or the GTX700 series will be really faster and finally capable of using PCI-e 3.0 as they now developping for this technology (it'll still be compatible with 2.0 but they surely optimise their cards for 3.0 higher bandwith and lower latency)

So if you build an old system, you'll surely need to change all CPU/MOBO/RAM combo with a new GPU, however if you grab a better CPU, you'll keep it and only change the GPU this year...

I gennerally build a good CPU and change the GPU at 1.5 to 2 generation/series interval and 3-4 times with the same PC (so CPU/MOBO/RAM is the thing you'll keep the longer on the run (for me about 4-5 years as i had a Q6600 before and i've upgraded at the 2012 black friday sales...)
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 20, 2013 10:13:54 PM

The Haswell will be an LGA1150 and is due to be released in June. It was to rumored be running DDR4, but it looks like that isn't going to happen due to some technical issues and cost.

I would recommend the i5-3570K over the 8350 because with the i5 you could in the future upgrade to the i7 models if you wanted more power, and with the 8350 you are already at the top of the line. I got my i5-3570K from Microcenter for $189. The next gen of nVidia's are supposed to be out later this year and the AMD's late (Dec.) this year or early next year. So current model VGAs may drop some in price some after summer if your patient.
February 20, 2013 10:49:13 PM

Thanks for all the replies guys. So far my only 2 options are pretty much the i5 with the HD 7770, or the i3 with an 7850. Which would be better?
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2013 10:58:53 PM

Depends, do you care about your short term performance over long term? The 7850 and i3 will be significantly faster than the 7770 (a fairly slow GPU) in games now, but later youll probably want to upgrade the i3 if you decide to upgrade the 7770.

Even though I recommended against the 965 BE .... I'd say go with the i3 and 7850 because at least then youd be able to purchase a motherboard that supports a future upgrade path to i5/i7 and you can choose a mobo that supports crossfire so later you can purchase a 2nd 7850 (performance of two 7850's is pretty sick)

Only reason I'm against the 7770 is that it's pretty slow... slower than a 6870 even. Check to see if the 650 ti is in your budget? maybe that with the i5 would be a decent choice.

edit: Also a warning, dont build an i5 and 7770 planning to crossfire it later, crossfiring lower end cards is usually not the best idea

a c 104 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 21, 2013 4:53:35 AM

th3_ory said:
AMD FX 8350 vs Intel 3570K vs 3770K vs 3820
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE&list=UUNovoA...

AMD FX 8350 OC vs i5 3570k OC Using an EVGA GTX 670
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc&list=UUNovoA...

Benchmarks
http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357...
In summary, GO AMD

Other than that, graphics card choices hurt my head.....THE NUMBERS!!!


Tek Syndicate is full of it.
For example, in Far Cry 3 they claimed the i5-3570K got 45% of the frame rate as the 8350 at 1080p (8350 at 5GHz, 3570K at 4.5GHz) when paired with a GTX670. They claimed something similar for Arma 2.

That's simply NOT true in reality so I'm baffled at these claims.

This is just ONE benchmark that completely contradicts their claims:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/far-cry-3-performan...

If an i5-3550 (3.3GHz) beats the 8350 (4GHz) how would the 8350 magically get more than DOUBLE the performance of the i5-3570K when both are overclocked?

While the hardware and probably quality settings aren't the same as TK's review, a quick glance suggest that TK is simply full of it or made some pretty severe mistakes in their benchmark.

*It's almost like they accidentally had the i5-3570K using only two cores or forced it into a low-power mode through overclocking.
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2013 5:10:38 AM

lol yea and if you scroll down on their page ( http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357... ) and just logically look at the results that they obtain ... (they are so disorganized) but simply just look at them, there are so many contradictions and results within them that are impossible....and I am not even speaking about the AMD fx results. Just compare the three intel chips they used.. their results are extremely inconsistent.
February 21, 2013 5:11:45 AM

photonboy said:
Tek Syndicate is full of it.
For example, in Far Cry 3 they claimed the i5-3570K got 45% of the frame rate as the 8350 at 1080p (8350 at 5GHz, 3570K at 4.5GHz) when paired with a GTX670. They claimed something similar for Arma 2.

That's simply NOT true in reality so I'm baffled at these claims.

This is just ONE benchmark that completely contradicts their claims:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/far-cry-3-performan...

If an i5-3550 (3.3GHz) beats the 8350 (4GHz) how would the 8350 magically get more than DOUBLE the performance of the i5-3570K when both are overclocked?

While the hardware and probably quality settings aren't the same as TK's review, a quick glance suggest that TK is simply full of it or made some pretty severe mistakes in their benchmark.

*It's almost like they accidentally had the i5-3570K using only two cores or forced it into a low-power mode through overclocking.


Wow.. that sucks.. I was excited about the 8350 lol.. Well, in all honesty I'll be going for the 8350 simply for these 4 reasons:

1. It does very well in multi tasking outside of gaming
2. Price (only $35 but still leaves me room for a better gpu)
3. Still does good enough while gaming also
4. Steamroller is coming out for AM3+ which I'm probably going to upgrade later on
a c 104 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 21, 2013 5:51:06 AM

markus843 said:
Wow.. that sucks.. I was excited about the 8350 lol.. Well, in all honesty I'll be going for the 8350 simply for these 4 reasons:

1. It does very well in multi tasking outside of gaming
2. Price (only $35 but still leaves me room for a better gpu)
3. Still does good enough while gaming also
4. Steamroller is coming out for AM3+ which I'm probably going to upgrade later on


*I strongly suggest you investigate the 8350 vs 3570K situation thoroughly. I'm getting pretty conflicting info. For example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

In BF3 the performance is similar (GPU bottleneck), but in Warcraft and Skyrim the i5-3570K beats the 8350 easily (3570K at 3.4GHz vs 8350 at 4GHz).

Maybe something changed, but I suggest you be fairly certain the 8350 is what you want. According to this review the 8350 is slightly faster in programs that are multi-threaded but NOT as fast in current gen games.

ANOTHER THING to consider if your not in a rush is seeing how Intel's Haswell pans out but we're talking June/July I believe. My understanding is that the performance gains will be minor but that the CPU is heavily optimized for minimal power consumption in idle (designed for the MOBILE applicatons).

So a Haswell motherboard + CPU might see a very SIGNFICANT drop in power in idle and minimal usage (browsing etc) to the point the CPU fan can easily turn off. The CPU apparently an turn off and on quickly and Intel has made claims of up to 20x LESS POWER though lets see official testing later..
February 21, 2013 6:29:00 AM

photonboy said:
*I strongly suggest you investigate the 8350 vs 3570K situation thoroughly. I'm getting pretty conflicting info. For example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

In BF3 the performance is similar (GPU bottleneck), but in Warcraft and Skyrim the i5-3570K beats the 8350 easily (3570K at 3.4GHz vs 8350 at 4GHz).

Maybe something changed, but I suggest you be fairly certain the 8350 is what you want. According to this review the 8350 is slightly faster in programs that are multi-threaded but NOT as fast in current gen games.

ANOTHER THING to consider if your not in a rush is seeing how Intel's Haswell pans out but we're talking June/July I believe. My understanding is that the performance gains will be minor but that the CPU is heavily optimized for minimal power consumption in idle (designed for the MOBILE applicatons).

So a Haswell motherboard + CPU might see a very SIGNFICANT drop in power in idle and minimal usage (browsing etc) to the point the CPU fan can easily turn off. The CPU apparently an turn off and on quickly and Intel has made claims of up to 20x LESS POWER though lets see official testing later..


Wow that's impressive.. I'm guessing haswell will be extremely expensive when it comes out though, maybe dropping in price in september?
I'm in a rush though so haswell is not an option for me at the moment.
What do you think I should get? You seem to know a lot about this?
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 21, 2013 6:36:58 AM

Actaully the FX is faster than the 3570K in well optimised games, like Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2.
http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Crysis...
It's actually past Core i7 speed in Crysis 3.
The thing is that Skyrim and WoW are poorly optimised.
For example Skyrim runs faster & smoother on less cores. Tests even show that it runs the smoothest with a single core CPU. Enough said.
And WoW is, lets face it, a 9 year old game. I'd hardly call it current generation.

Just look at games like Far Cry, Battlefield 3, Crysis 3...
The PS4 was announced yesterday and it's using an AMD Jaguar CPU, so games are likely to become more and more optimised for AMD FX CPU's in the future.

But that is not to say that FX 8350 + HD 7770 is a good choice.
In terms of gaming, it's a very imbalanced system.
Just go with the Phenom II X4 975 or, better yet a FX 8120.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
This comes down at 212 dolars after shipping and rebate.
And you'll hopefully be able to afford a HD 7870 XT.
February 21, 2013 7:11:02 AM

Kamen_BG said:
Actaully the FX is faster than the 3570K in well optimised games, like Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2.
http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Crysis...
It's actually past Core i7 speed in Crysis 3.
The thing is that Skyrim and WoW are poorly optimised.
For example Skyrim runs faster & smoother on less cores. Tests even show that it runs the smoothest with a single core CPU. Enough said.
And WoW is, lets face it, a 9 year old game. I'd hardly call it current generation.

Just look at games like Far Cry, Battlefield 3, Crysis 3...
The PS4 was announced yesterday and it's using an AMD Jaguar CPU, so games are likely to become more and more optimised for AMD FX CPU's in the future.

But that is not to say that FX 8350 + HD 7770 is a good choice.
In terms of gaming, it's a very imbalanced system.
Just go with the Phenom II X4 975 or, better yet a FX 8120.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
This comes down at 212 dolars after shipping and rebate.
And you'll hopefully be able to afford a HD 7870 XT.



That combo is not available in canada :cry: 
I'm actually going for the 8120 and going to OC it. I'm hoping newer games are optimized for more cores/threads :pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  .
I actually fit in an FX 8120 and an HD 7870 in my budget also.
a c 104 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 21, 2013 9:25:25 AM

http://nodewerx.com/2013/01/fx-8120-vs-i5-3570k-benchma...

*Many of his games are bottlenecked by the GPU as he runs at high resolutions. I get his reasons as it's "real world" but you really need to run at low-res to bottleneck the CPU or else run games that are heavily CPU-dependent. So it's important to note in the above review the difference in performance in the CPU-dependent games:
- STALKER C.O.P.
- World of Warcraft (M.O.P.)
- Skyrim (the MINIMUMS reflect a CPU bottleneck)
- BF3 (in this case the MAXIMUM reflects a CPU bottleneck)
- Guild Wars 2

*I don't believe in pointing to just one or two games or saying "this game isn't well optimized". What matters is how MOST of the games you intend to play will run. If you intend to play Guild Wars 2 for example then look at the graph in the review and note the AVERAGE frame rates.)

Considering the TOTAL COST of ownership in your system including the hardware, internet, power (it's small but a factor) and games you'll find that the money you save on the FX8120 vs an i5-3570K ($60 comparing lowest prices) is quite small as a percentage over say a three-year period.

The i5-3570K will perform slightly better in some cases and destroy the FX8120 in others.

But would that $60 be better put towards a better graphics card? I doubt it but that depends highly on how much you're spending. If you spent $100 for the graphics card and $220 for an i5-3570K that's $320. In this case it would make far more sense to spend $160 for an FX8120 and $160 on the graphics card. However, there's a CROSSOVER POINT and that's difficult to determine (and of course it varies by the game).

My opinion by comparing many benchmarks is that an HD7850/HD7870 may be the crossover point where it may teeter one way for some games and the other way for others. Personally, if you can manage it I would put about $280 towards the graphics card and $220 towards an i5-3570K.

I hope the above makes sense.

Yes, games will start using threads better and the FX8120's 8-cores will be utilized better however that's not going to happen overnight. Spend your money to get the best value NOW.

Don't flame me guys, I'm just relaying information so an informed decision can be made.
February 21, 2013 10:24:27 AM

photonboy said:
http://nodewerx.com/2013/01/fx-8120-vs-i5-3570k-benchma...

*Many of his games are bottlenecked by the GPU as he runs at high resolutions. I get his reasons as it's "real world" but you really need to run at low-res to bottleneck the CPU or else run games that are heavily CPU-dependent. So it's important to note in the above review the difference in performance in the CPU-dependent games:
- STALKER C.O.P.
- World of Warcraft (M.O.P.)
- Skyrim (the MINIMUMS reflect a CPU bottleneck)
- BF3 (in this case the MAXIMUM reflects a CPU bottleneck)
- Guild Wars 2

*I don't believe in pointing to just one or two games or saying "this game isn't well optimized". What matters is how MOST of the games you intend to play will run. If you intend to play Guild Wars 2 for example then look at the graph in the review and note the AVERAGE frame rates.)

Considering the TOTAL COST of ownership in your system including the hardware, internet, power (it's small but a factor) and games you'll find that the money you save on the FX8120 vs an i5-3570K ($60 comparing lowest prices) is quite small as a percentage over say a three-year period.

The i5-3570K will perform slightly better in some cases and destroy the FX8120 in others.

But would that $60 be better put towards a better graphics card? I doubt it but that depends highly on how much you're spending. If you spent $100 for the graphics card and $220 for an i5-3570K that's $320. In this case it would make far more sense to spend $160 for an FX8120 and $160 on the graphics card. However, there's a CROSSOVER POINT and that's difficult to determine (and of course it varies by the game).

My opinion by comparing many benchmarks is that an HD7850/HD7870 may be the crossover point where it may teeter one way for some games and the other way for others. Personally, if you can manage it I would put about $280 towards the graphics card and $220 towards an i5-3570K.

I hope the above makes sense.

Yes, games will start using threads better and the FX8120's 8-cores will be utilized better however that's not going to happen overnight. Spend your money to get the best value NOW.

Don't flame me guys, I'm just relaying information so an informed decision can be made.


Thanks for the informative post. Unfortunately I'm just plain broke :cry: 
I did manage to downgrade some other things, and put in a 8320 ($180) and HD 7870 ($220). This is probably what I'm going for because I'll have the option to upgrade to the steamroller CPU later on (1-3 years or so).
Thx
a c 104 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 21, 2013 10:47:25 AM

markus843 said:
Thanks for the informative post. Unfortunately I'm just plain broke :cry: 
I did manage to downgrade some other things, and put in a 8320 ($180) and HD 7870 ($220). This is probably what I'm going for because I'll have the option to upgrade to the steamroller CPU later on (1-3 years or so).
Thx


Okay.
Keep in mind a better CPU paired with the same HD7870 might not make a big difference in many games as that GPU would be a bottleneck. There will be a VALUE consideration you have to face again depending on your budget. For example, if you had $300 it might make the most sense to just get a better graphics card (i.e. an HD9950 4GB or whatever).
February 21, 2013 10:49:19 AM

markus843 said:
Thanks for the informative post. Unfortunately I'm just plain broke :cry: 
I did manage to downgrade some other things, and put in a 8320 ($180) and HD 7870 ($220). This is probably what I'm going for because I'll have the option to upgrade to the steamroller CPU later on (1-3 years or so).
Thx


i think that is the best solution for your case
February 21, 2013 5:36:23 PM

photonboy said:
Okay.
Keep in mind a better CPU paired with the same HD7870 might not make a big difference in many games as that GPU would be a bottleneck. There will be a VALUE consideration you have to face again depending on your budget. For example, if you had $300 it might make the most sense to just get a better graphics card (i.e. an HD9950 4GB or whatever).


You're right about that.
But, I had an HD 6670 before, and I was perfectly fine with it playing BF3 on high settings, if this hd 7870 can play it on ultra at 30-40 fps, I'm happy (on 1920x1080).
I do other things outside of gaming and a lot of multi tasking so the 8320 would help me with that also.
a c 104 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 21, 2013 10:14:20 PM

markus843 said:
You're right about that.
But, I had an HD 6670 before, and I was perfectly fine with it playing BF3 on high settings, if this hd 7870 can play it on ultra at 30-40 fps, I'm happy (on 1920x1080).
I do other things outside of gaming and a lot of multi tasking so the 8320 would help me with that also.


I have no issues with your CURRENT choice (mostly). If you read my above comment again, I'm talking about the FUTURE if you decide to upgrade the same AMD motherboard.

The choices are generally:
1) CPU only
2) graphics card only
3) BOTH

It boils down to the budget and it gets kind of weird. Chances are choice #1 wouldn't make a lot of sense. Here's the value proposition (example only):

Say in two or three YEARS:

1) $300 budget - Graphics card only (GTX870 or HD9950 ?)
2) $500 budget - $300 graphics card AND $200 CPU
3) $800 to $1000 budget (new system and sell old system)
4) ALTERNATIVE - keep current system for some games and get a next-gen XBOX720/PS4 for others

Anyway, I'm pretty off track now... good luck.
a b à CPUs
February 22, 2013 2:20:12 AM

I have both platforms, ivy and fx. The noticeable differences I notice in gaming come from titles like WoW. If you aren't watching counters or running a stop watch through an extensive benchmark list. Go with your gut. Just don't get Bulldozer, go with Piledriver. Good Luck.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 29, 2013 6:33:23 AM

8350 is more future proof as newer games would definitely make use of more threads and hence the end results soon would be similar to the logan benchmarks in which he was also running XPlit . Hence 8350 would be better as it holds more for the future.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 29, 2013 10:49:27 AM

hafijur said:
Sangeet Khatri said:
8350 is more future proof as newer games would definitely make use of more threads and hence the end results soon would be similar to the logan benchmarks in which he was also running XPlit . Hence 8350 would be better as it holds more for the future.


Most games in the future will run better on the i5 3570k then the fx8350. Heck 90% of the games run better overall on a core i3 cpu then the fx8350. Intel cpus have higher memory bandwidth more concentrated performance. Also tek syndicate logans benchmarks are a load of rubbish. In fact there is a direct response to them using as identical hardware brands as possible on both amd and intel system and the i7 destroys the fx8350 on virtually 80-90% of the benchmarks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCAKD-tRfWQ


Okay, so for the former half of the sentence you are comparing 8350 with i3 and then suddenly you jump to i7 in the latter half of the sentence.

Another thing is that logan is not rubbish at all. He has been doing the same thing from years, and hence he is right and also Linux (another PC building master) from NCIX did the benchmarks and they were pretty damn close.

Another thing is that 8350 is not there to compete with i7, it is there to compete with i5 3570k and it is on par with it.

And this is a confirmed truth that games nowadays are taking advantages of more cores. This is a fact. Believe it or not, this thing is true.

And the final thing is that you are so blind in favour of Intel that you make up all your facts wrong. Please if you are in this forum, please do not suggest things without knowing them all.

I am not an AMD Fanboy but since Intel's socket is now old. Hence it would be good to get 8350 according to today's conditions and future proof-ability.
a c 104 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 29, 2013 4:38:26 PM

8-core usage in games:

While the FX-8350 will be made better use of in the future, it's simply not clear of how long it will take until an FX-8350 performs better in MOST games compared to the i5-3570K.

Games have a long development cycle, and just because the PS4/XBOX ONE come out this year doesn't mean every game will suddenly run better on the FX-8350 because they have 8-core CPU's.

I don't think anybody knows when or even if most games will run better on an FX-8350 but even if they do it could take TWO YEARS before this happens.

If you're going to build a PC, buy what works NOW not what MIGHT work better in the future (plus many people with new machines buy OLDER titles from Steam for $5, $10 or $15 rather than the newest. I like to WAIT a year for patches and price drops.).
June 30, 2013 1:51:28 PM

markus843 said:
I saw a lot of benchmarks of the i5 3570k, and the 8350 on gaming, and the i5 beat the 8350 by 20%.

Ok so basically I'm building a gaming PC for $700 (includes shipping/taxes). My first choice was the Phenom II x4 965 BE, with an HD 7870. I heard from many ppl that the phenom will bottleneck the HD 7870. So what I thought I'd do is, get the 7770 or 7870 and just get a much better processor (I'm planning to get an HD 8xxx gpu when they come out also).

7870 with i5 3570k is the best of the two. Also, pretend that haswell does not exist, get a good cpu fan or water cooling, and then overclock it.
Will the 8350 and HD 7770/7870 or i5 3570k be better for gaming? What about of the next gen. GPU's?

Which one is more future proof?

And last thing, will haswell be released on LGA 1155?

Thx

September 30, 2013 10:57:34 AM

I got the 8350.
Liquid cooled.
Remember all new consoles are using amd hardware.
8 cores @ approx 1.9ghz.

They will use amd pc's to backport console games to pc starting 2014 becouse it comes closest to console hw.

That's a fact.

All console port games will run like crysis 3 wich is optimized for 8 core amd fusion systems.

Intel won't be behind but they won't be far ahead either.

On a 60hz monitor you will be fine with a fx8350 for about 4 years.
I'm good on stock settings now and can if needed oc to 5.2ghz.
Mine does 4.5ghz on stock volts.
The chip just rocks and its cheap..
Like u said. Steamroller is yet to come out.
Easy upgrade with about 20 to 30% increased performance over vishera.

Amd performance goes up 20 to 30% per generation.
In the meantime the 4770 is slower than its predecessor the 3770.

Do the math.
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2013 12:20:41 AM

I've personally owned the 6350 and the 3570K, both in the past year. I built am AM3 gaming rid then sold it and used the money to build my ivy bridge. During that time I ran many benchmarks all with the same GPU (GTX 760) and when I had the 6350 my averages were around 48fps in tests. With the 6350 Overclocked to 4.5Ghz i got it up to about 53 average but the CPU ran hot. When I got my 3570k at stock 3.4Ghz i averaged about 52 in the exact same tests. Then with the 3570k overclocked to 4.4Ghz i'm now averaging 58 and 59. It also runs at 39'C during gaming compared to the 62'C the FX ran at. Same cooler on both set ups (Hyper 212 Evo)
a c 79 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 1, 2013 3:09:34 AM

Nathalex27 said:
I got the 8350.
Liquid cooled.
Remember all new consoles are using amd hardware.
8 cores @ approx 1.9ghz.

They will use amd pc's to backport console games to pc starting 2014 becouse it comes closest to console hw.

That's a fact.

All console port games will run like crysis 3 wich is optimized for 8 core amd fusion systems. consoles have a very weak cpu, even if it is 8 core, if anything, newer console ports may benefit more from an amd gpu

Intel won't be behind but they won't be far ahead either.

On a 60hz monitor you will be fine with a fx8350 for about 4 years.
I'm good on stock settings now and can if needed oc to 5.2ghz.and use 250w, so you need to buy a more powerful psu and watercooler to keep it cool
Mine does 4.5ghz on stock volts. most top out at 4.5 with a good air cooler
The chip just rocks and its cheap..its not much cheaper than a 3570k
Like u said. Steamroller is yet to come out.
Easy upgrade with about 20 to 30% increased performance over vishera.unlikely, maybe 10-15%

Amd performance goes up 20 to 30% per generation. wrong, and performance actually went backwards when they released bulldozer
In the meantime the 4770 is slower than its predecessor the 3770. <wrong

Do the math.


So YOU do the math, every reputable site out there recommends the 3570 or 4670 i5's over 8350 for gaming. There is a reason for that. Youtube vids and Teksyndicate dont count, they are bogus, only trust reputable sites that have methodical testing and know how to set their rigs up properly, like Tomshardware, Anandtech, Techreport etc. Not to mention you dug up a 3 month old thread to tell us BS.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 1, 2013 4:20:49 PM

I would recommend the Intel 3570K, or if you want to go Haswell the 4670K. They have the ability to be upgraded to i7s the 3770K or the 4770K depending if you go Ivy bridge or Haswell.

The FX-8350 is pretty much the max for the AM3+ socket. The FX-9000s well they have only been released to OEMs and the prices put them up against 2011 i7s and they require special cooling and power requirements. That is why only OEMs have gotten them.

Plus the rumor is AMD id dropping the AM3+/FX line and just going to be focusing on their APUs. They can't compete with Intel's iCore models so they are exiting that segment. We'll see if that is true in the near future.
!