8350 vs 3570k? Is tek syndicate's video accurate?

[cravin]

Is the video (s) Tek Syndicate did on the 8350 vs 3770k vs 3570k accurate? I've herad a lot about people saying it is innacurate or something. Is that true?
How would they compare for video editing? Or what about games like crysis 3?

 

[scorpinock2]

A 3770K is the best of those three CPU's without any over clocking (even with over clocking it is probably still the best) but really, is it worth 100 to 120 bucks more for about 5 minutes shaved off your video rendering? If you go with an FX 8320 you can get it for 170 many places and it over clocks the same as the FX 8350 just slightly hotter (1 or 2 degrees) and you save more money. My general judgement from many reviews read and personal experience is that overall (gaming, editing, general use, and multitasking taken into account) the i5 3570K is the weakest of the three, the FX 8350 is in the middle, and then i7 3770K is the top, but again, ask yourself which price is worth it? The FX (both the 8320 and the 8350) are the cheapest and they will beat an i5 in most respects (especially when over clocked, or have four cores disabled) and it is cheaper than one.

 

[8350rocks]

The FX (both the 8320 and the 8350) are the cheapest and they will beat an i5 in most respects (especially when over clocked, or have four cores disabled) and it is cheaper than one.

i did not know the i5s are not allowed to be over clocked, do owners of the 2500k/3570k know of this new rule (you just made up to prove your point)?

Actually, he did not make anything up, I see no reference to not being able to OC intel chips at all in his post.

Furthermore, just because you don't like the results, doesn't mean you need to bash them.

@OP: The FX-8350 is as much or more chip for the money as an i5, and it costs less money. If you do anything other than gaming too, or if you multitask alot, the AMD is the better choice without doubt. The i7-3770k is marginally better at alot of things, but for twice the money shouldn't it be alot better?

TL;DR: FX-8350 > i5-3570k

 

[8350rocks]

The FX (both the 8320 and the 8350) are the cheapest and they will beat an i5 in most respects (especially when over clocked, or have four cores disabled) and it is cheaper than one.

i did not know the i5s are not allowed to be over clocked, do owners of the 2500k/3570k know of this new rule (you just made up to prove your point)?

Actually, he did not make anything up, I see no reference to not being able to OC intel chips at all in his post.

Furthermore, just because you don't like the results, doesn't mean you need to bash them.


TL;DR: FX-8350 > i5-3570k

what results? i didn't post any results for one chip over the other. i just linked becnhmarks from professional review site rather then fan boy optimism from "8350rocks" . That said he did bring OC into the equitation when he started to compare an OC AMD chip to a stock intel chip with no OC even though you can do it. I know this may be over the head for fanboys but if both CPUs can be OC then you compare them at such speeds or simply compare them at stock. You don't OC one and disregard the others OC potential.

LOL...he compared them BOTH stock...THEN...he compared them BOTH OC'ed...you paid real close attention I can see...

 

[cravin]

Very close attention ^
What I'm thinking right now is I'll just get a gigabyte 970 ud3 motherboard (best of the 970s I hear, that or the 990 ud3) and throw in my old phenom chip. Then with an actual overclockable motherboard I can OC that thing until I can afford to get a fx 8320 (micro center $140) or maybe the next gen of fx processors.

 

[8350rocks]

Very close attention ^
What I'm thinking right now is I'll just get a gigabyte 970 ud3 motherboard (best of the 970s I hear, that or the 990 ud3) and throw in my old phenom chip. Then with an actual overclockable motherboard I can OC that thing until I can afford to get a fx 8320 (micro center $140) or maybe the next gen of fx processors.

Yeah, get the 990FX series MoBo, they will probably have the priority for support for BIOS updates when steamroller hits...

 

[cravin]

Ah yeah that would probably be better. Plus SLI

 

[scorpinock2]

The FX (both the 8320 and the 8350) are the cheapest and they will beat an i5 in most respects (especially when over clocked, or have four cores disabled) and it is cheaper than one.

i did not know the i5s are not allowed to be over clocked, do owners of the 2500k/3570k know of this new rule (you just made up to prove your point)?

Nono you misunderstand me, I meant in most respects, including overclocking, and even when both are overclocked. All K series Processors overclock for Intel.

 

[cravin]

Actually how would these compare to an overclocked phenom ii x4? Obviously the extra cores on the fx 8350/8320/6300 would be good but, would it really be a worthwile upgrade? I'm thinking of just getting a new motherboard that allows overclocking and sli and then waiting for the next gen or something

 

[8350rocks]

Actually how would these compare to an overclocked phenom ii x4? Obviously the extra cores on the fx 8350/8320/6300 would be good but, would it really be a worthwile upgrade? I'm thinking of just getting a new motherboard that allows overclocking and sli and then waiting for the next gen or something

If you're talking about a Phenom II X4 980...then you're likely good...the performance difference won't be that big a deal...

If you're talking about a 955/960/965...you will see an increase in performance over it, pretty substantially...but you're not in bad shape...

If you're talking about something less than a 955 then you should definitely upgrade and overclocking won't make up the gap, or even be close.

 

[John Bauer]

Is the video (s) Tek Syndicate did on the 8350 vs 3770k vs 3570k accurate? I've herad a lot about people saying it is innacurate or something. Is that true?
How would they compare for video editing? Or what about games like crysis 3?

personally, i would never trust a web site desperate for page views

below are some legit benchmarks and you can make your own decision on accuracies, dollar value, etc.,
you can select various 3d rendering tests in anandtech's benchmark
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/345

crysis 3
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/642/bench/CPU_03.png

Yeah, a website and youtube channel with 150,000 subscribers is pretty desperate for page views.

/s.

 

[John Bauer]

Yeah, a website and youtube channel with 150,000 subscribers is pretty desperate for page views.

/s.

tomshardware top 1k in web sites for traffic
techspot top 5k in web site for traffic
anandtech top 3k in web site for traffic

...

teksyndicate.... top 125k in web site traffic

so for those people like John who take the short bus to school, ill post a youtube video to help you understand those figures

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZ6tvqhk8U

Direct insults. Very classy.

I should add, the biggest websites, the biggest companies, etc. are the ones most out of touch with the public. EA, for example, and Microsoft, and Apple, Activision, Comcast, TWC... Sometimes great little companies are the better way to go (Vtel). Indie gaming, that's why PC gaming is so big.... The little guy....

 

[John Bauer]

you also fail to understand the web site review industry is rampant with paid reviews notoriously on amateur sites like tek syndicate. while you can hold your fan boys beliefs, the fact is the site is tiny with false results disproved by larger sites who have a lot more to lose on inaccurate information then not getting a free PSU from the regional coolermaster rep. You may continue your fany boy beliefs, im out on a thread over five months old and dead.

What about Anandtech and their blatant Intel and Nvidia bias? And the EXACT same with Tom's hardware? And Anantech's reviewer catching Intel rep's "fiddling" with some of the results, and them not giving them flak about it?

 

[MEC-777]

This all makes me laugh....

I don't know why you're all arguing, but it's entertaining. lol

Benchmarks need to be taken in context. For that reason, I implore Tek Syndicate for doing the benchmarks as they did. They did their testing in the context of real-world conditions, playing popular games at 1080p+, just like the majority of gamers. It's not inaccurate, it is what it is. Believe it or not.

Who plays games at less than 720p? Not too many. And even if you do, do you really care if the $200 AMD can only do 90fps and the $320 Intel can do 150fps in a particular game? Are you really going to notice the difference? No. So then it really doesn't matter.

If the 8350 trades blows with the 3570k in most games at the resolution and settings you play at, then both are equally worthy gaming CPU's.

If there is a specific application you use most of the time, then it makes sense to look at those specific benchmarks and choose the CPU that performs best for the money.

I really don't understand why people are getting so wound up about Tek's real-world benchmarks for the 8350 vs 3570k for gaming. To me, it makes a lot more sense to test in this manner because it's how people actually run their games and shows the true performance they will actually get.

In doing so much research for building a new PC from scratch, I've been so overly confused by all the specific and synthetic benchmarks because such benchmarks don't really show you how exactly that component in a system is going to perform during actual real-world use.

So thank you Tek Syndicate, for being realistic.

I'm building an m-ITX gaming rig in the $1000 budget range. Because there are no AM3+ socket motherboards in the m-ITX form factor and because the FM2 AMD CPU offerings don't really cut it for mid-high end gaming, I'm really left with no choice but to go Intel (4670k). If there were any AM3 m-ITX motherboards, then it would be much harder to choose because when it comes to gaming and multitasking, in general, the 8350 is a very strong competitor.

All this garbage about page views and which site is bigger with regards to skewing the results or who is more accurate... I could care less. Bottom line, what I look at is what your machine will be used for primarily and what is your budget. Both the 8350 and 3570k are excellent performers, in and around the same price range. Make your choice and enjoy. For gaming, you can't go wrong with either one.

 

[Sangeet Khatri]

All I know is that an overclocked 8350 can do anything without breaking a sweat. It is good for gaming, Video Editing and any other stuff a general computer at home needs to do. So, really 8350 is a pretty good offering from AMD at a very attractive price point.

The Teksyndicate results cannot be inaccurate. They are very much unbiased.

 

[MEC-777]

tek syndicates video has 3 or 4 embarrassing anomalys or errors that is funny. There was a gigantic difference between a sandy bridge i7 3820 and i7 3770k in one game from what I can remember. The game intel cpus destroy the amd cpu virtually every website has it as the game that intel destroys the fx chips in he has the amd fx destroy these intel chips. Now that tells you something went wrong or its just lies he gives out, logan should really have updated that video.

Were the other websites using the same GPU's, the same RAM etc....? Where the game settings and resolutions exactly the same?

Again, there's a lot more to take into account other than "both reviewers ran the same game with the same CPU and yielded different results". It's not that simple.

 

[Sangeet Khatri]

Also while he was playing he was also streaming the game to stress the CPU's even more. So that was also the reason why the 4 cores of the i5 were not able to keep up with the vast amount of Multi Tasking.

But I would say that 8350 is a great CPU for the price. It can do anything.

 

[Sangeet Khatri]

1. For gaming you would never need more than 6 cores as for now. So the extra 2 cores would perform the Xplit work and hence the performance with the 8350 while running xplit would be better.

2. You can have 100's of relatively weak processes running on a dual core, no problem. But gaming and Xplit are together very much CPU using programs and you canNOT run xplit + game at 10 percent load unless you are playing Minesweeper.

3. Multi tasking is better with more cores because more CPU using applications have access to a full core rather than being cramped in a single core.

4. If you can trust an article online, then you should have no problem trusting a Youtube video. Logan is one of the most unbiased guy on Youtube and I support him.

5. No, if someone likes a particular CPU, then that does not make one a fanboy.

6. i5 would not stream via xplit as good as the 8350 just because it would try to execute too many processes with 2 cores. I am not saying that it would be bad, but it would not be as good as the 8350 in Gaming + Xplit Streaming.

7. If you think the review is not accurate then why don't you just buy a high end test bench and prove that you are correct?

 

[MEC-777]

Tek Syndicate uses all Intel in their equipment. They're not "fan boys" of AMD. If anything, it they would be biased to Intel.

Some of you also seem to exaggerate the results by saying Tek showed the 8350 "destroy" the 3570k. That simply wasn't the case. Yes the 8350 performed better in some games, but certainly did not "destroy" the 3570k.

Let's stick to the facts and compare apples to oranges. Unless the other sites were using the exact same components (RAM, GPU, mobo... etc.) and the exact same resolution, game settings and benchmark runs, then you can't say one test was "wrong" and the other was "right". You're simply looking at the results of two different tests performed with two different systems using the same CPU's. It's not a proper comparison.

I trust Logan's tests and I take his results into consideration along with other tests and base my conclusions on the collective data. As I mentioned before as well, you have to put the test results into context.

I think we can all agree that both the 8350 and 3570k are excellent top-notch gaming CPU's for the money. Most, if not all, real-world benchmarks show that this is the case.

 

[John Bauer]

1. For gaming you would never need more than 6 cores as for now. So the extra 2 cores would perform the Xplit work and hence the performance with the 8350 while running xplit would be better.

2. You can have 100's of relatively weak processes running on a dual core, no problem. But gaming and Xplit are together very much CPU using programs and you canNOT run xplit + game at 10 percent load unless you are playing Minesweeper.

3. Multi tasking is better with more cores because more CPU using applications have access to a full core rather than being cramped in a single core.

4. If you can trust an article online, then you should have no problem trusting a Youtube video. Logan is one of the most unbiased guy on Youtube and I support him.

5. No, if someone likes a particular CPU, then that does not make one a fanboy.

6. i5 would not stream via xplit as good as the 8350 just because it would try to execute too many processes with 2 cores. I am not saying that it would be bad, but it would not be as good as the 8350 in Gaming + Xplit Streaming.

7. If you think the review is not accurate then why don't you just buy a high end test bench and prove that you are correct?

4. that is one of the dumbest things ever said on this forum. So if I trust a political editorial from USA Today, Wall Street Journal, etc., then I should therefore trust one from some idiot who posted a youtube video?

5. actually that is the very definition of a fan boy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fan%20boy

i actually feel dumber reading the above post

I actually felt my IQ dropping reading yours.

 

[John Bauer]

Understandable with such a low IQ to begin with. Luckily it won't effect your ditch digging career.

Digging ditches and building computers, what a life

 

[Sangeet Khatri]

I posted what I thought I should have. If you feel dumb or anything it does not matter at all to me.

Cheers.

 

[maddogfargo]

1. For gaming you would never need more than 6 cores as for now. So the extra 2 cores would perform the Xplit work and hence the performance with the 8350 while running xplit would be better.

2. You can have 100's of relatively weak processes running on a dual core, no problem. But gaming and Xplit are together very much CPU using programs and you canNOT run xplit + game at 10 percent load unless you are playing Minesweeper.

3. Multi tasking is better with more cores because more CPU using applications have access to a full core rather than being cramped in a single core.

4. If you can trust an article online, then you should have no problem trusting a Youtube video. Logan is one of the most unbiased guy on Youtube and I support him.

5. No, if someone likes a particular CPU, then that does not make one a fanboy.

6. i5 would not stream via xplit as good as the 8350 just because it would try to execute too many processes with 2 cores. I am not saying that it would be bad, but it would not be as good as the 8350 in Gaming + Xplit Streaming.

7. If you think the review is not accurate then why don't you just buy a high end test bench and prove that you are correct?

4. that is one of the dumbest things ever said on this forum. So if I trust a political editorial from USA Today, Wall Street Journal, etc., then I should therefore trust one from some idiot who posted a youtube video?

5. actually that is the very definition of a fan boy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fan%20boy

i actually feel dumber reading the above post

No, Sanjeet is right.

Tek Syndicate may not be quite as granular as some when testing, but their methods are applied equally to all things they are comparing and their approach is sound enough to be credible.

And no, simply liking something does not make you a fan or a fanboy. The root of fan is the same as fanatic. It is more accurate to say that blindly pedestalizing something in the face of contradictory or challenging information would make someone a fanboy.

So...if you feel dumb...maybe you should listen to posts like his a bit more. It can only help.

 

[Cazalan]

While I hate video reviews the whole point of those benchmarks was real world usage while STREAMING what you're doing. Many people do this to record their session and make Youtube videos. It does take a performance hit.

Posting links to reviews with just FPS isn't a valid comparison.

 

[Cazalan]

4. that is one of the dumbest things ever said on this forum. So if I trust a political editorial from USA Today, Wall Street Journal, etc., then I should therefore trust one from some idiot who posted a youtube video?

If you want real news go here: http://www.techdirt.com/

Not the sanitized stuff you get from USAToday or WSJ.