Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Core i5 3570k vs AMD FX-8350

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 12, 2013 9:19:49 AM

I'm going to build a gaming computer, and I've seen that many benchmarks shown 3570k was better than FX-8350.

3570k is quad core and has 3,4 Ghz L2-cache 1MB, L3-cache 6 MB.
FX-8350 is octa core and has 4,0 Ghz L2-cache 8 MB, L3-cache 8 MB.

How can Intel give better performance? AMDs cpu is better in every single part.


Thanks in advance!
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
a c 119 à CPUs
May 12, 2013 9:29:07 AM

In games, which are graphically intensive, the Intel Core i5-3570K is statistically slightly faster. Will you notice the difference? Probably not.

On a different note: the Intel Core i5-3570K has better overclocking potential, uses less power, and runs cooler. Other than that, the AMD FX-8350 can still be on par with the Intel Core i5-3570K and can handle multi-threading applications better.
m
0
l
May 12, 2013 9:44:30 AM

ksham said:
In games, which are graphically intensive, the Intel Core i5-3570K is statistically slightly faster. Will you notice the difference? Probably not.

On a different note: the Intel Core i5-3570K has better overclocking potential, uses less power, and runs cooler. Other than that, the AMD FX-8350 can still be on par with the Intel Core i5-3570K and can handle multi-threading applications better.


Thanks for the quick reply.
I think I'm going with the AMD.
Just saw this video http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357...
check it out.
AMD is acually better on some games
m
0
l
Related resources
May 27, 2013 1:54:29 PM

You'll like the FX-8350!

I've one working in an ASUS Crosshair FormulaV - Z....been running for about 4 days now! Solid.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2013 2:52:24 PM

Xerxz said:
I'm going to build a gaming computer, and I've seen that many benchmarks shown 3570k was better than FX-8350.

3570k is quad core and has 3,4 Ghz L2-cache 1MB, L3-cache 6 MB.
FX-8350 is octa core and has 4,0 Ghz L2-cache 8 MB, L3-cache 8 MB.

How can Intel give better performance? AMDs cpu is better in every single part.


Thanks in advance!


Disable every 2nd core on the 8350 and overclock it will beat the i5 in performance
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 28, 2013 8:57:54 AM

catshannon said:
Xerxz said:
I'm going to build a gaming computer, and I've seen that many benchmarks shown 3570k was better than FX-8350.

3570k is quad core and has 3,4 Ghz L2-cache 1MB, L3-cache 6 MB.
FX-8350 is octa core and has 4,0 Ghz L2-cache 8 MB, L3-cache 8 MB.

How can Intel give better performance? AMDs cpu is better in every single part.


Thanks in advance!


Disable every 2nd core on the 8350 and overclock it will beat the i5 in performance


I'm extremely skeptical about what you say. I'll have to ask my pal 8350rocks about this. Are you saying that if you disable every second core then the 8350 won't have to share resources, therefore it'll be better at single threaded tasks?

Either way, whoever picks the 8350 over a 3570k for gaming, I feel sorry for them. The second they go to play some MMO online multiplayer like World of Tanks(that only uses 2 cores and is heavily CPU dependant) they'll realize that their CPU isn't up to snuff to play games like this. You'll get way better performance from an i5. The 8350 has a specific use, multithreading. Thd 3570k can be used for everything.

If you compare a 3570k to an 8350 clock for clock. The 3570k matches(or beats) the 8350's multithreading performance and severely demolishes it in single threading and programs that use 4 or less cores(a lot of programs and games). The 3570k has .6Ghz MORE overclocking potential since it's clocked .6Ghz less to start off with. Plus the 3570k reacts better to overclocking, meaning you get more performance from overclocking than you do with the 8350. Not to mention that at stock clocks the 3570k is still a far better CPU.

If your an overclocker, the clear winner is the 3570k. And if you don't then still, get a 3570k.

General knowledge says the 3570k is the better all around processor. If you disagree then that just means your in the minority on this. Usually this tell you something. Although this is still my opinion but I base my opinions on facts.

Btw, Xerxz, are you saying that since the 8350 is clocked higher and has more cache it's suppose to be better? Stats aren't everything. In fact, their pretty meaningless. A 3570k has WAY more IPC(instuctions per clock) than an 8350. It's not even close. If you into stats, why don't you take a look at actual benchmarks, they'll show you how much better the 3570k really is. Find a review of a 3570k and 8350 both clocked at 4.8Ghz, you'll see.


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 28, 2013 10:05:29 AM

ericjohn004 said:
catshannon said:
Xerxz said:
I'm going to build a gaming computer, and I've seen that many benchmarks shown 3570k was better than FX-8350.

3570k is quad core and has 3,4 Ghz L2-cache 1MB, L3-cache 6 MB.
FX-8350 is octa core and has 4,0 Ghz L2-cache 8 MB, L3-cache 8 MB.

How can Intel give better performance? AMDs cpu is better in every single part.


Thanks in advance!


Disable every 2nd core on the 8350 and overclock it will beat the i5 in performance


I'm extremely skeptical about what you say. I'll have to ask my pal 8350rocks about this. Are you saying that if you disable every second core then the 8350 won't have to share resources, therefore it'll be better at single threaded tasks?

Either way, whoever picks the 8350 over a 3570k for gaming, I feel sorry for them. The second they go to play some MMO online multiplayer like World of Tanks(that only uses 2 cores and is heavily CPU dependant) they'll realize that their CPU isn't up to snuff to play games like this. You'll get way better performance from an i5. The 8350 has a specific use, multithreading. Thd 3570k can be used for everything.

If you compare a 3570k to an 8350 clock for clock. The 3570k matches(or beats) the 8350's multithreading performance and severely demolishes it in single threading and programs that use 4 or less cores(a lot of programs and games). The 3570k has .6Ghz MORE overclocking potential since it's clocked .6Ghz less to start off with. Plus the 3570k reacts better to overclocking, meaning you get more performance from overclocking than you do with the 8350. Not to mention that at stock clocks the 3570k is still a far better CPU.

If your an overclocker, the clear winner is the 3570k. And if you don't then still, get a 3570k.

General knowledge says the 3570k is the better all around processor. If you disagree then that just means your in the minority on this. Usually this tell you something. Although this is still my opinion but I base my opinions on facts.

Btw, Xerxz, are you saying that since the 8350 is clocked higher and has more cache it's suppose to be better? Stats aren't everything. In fact, their pretty meaningless. A 3570k has WAY more IPC(instuctions per clock) than an 8350. It's not even close. If you into stats, why don't you take a look at actual benchmarks, they'll show you how much better the 3570k really is. Find a review of a 3570k and 8350 both clocked at 4.8Ghz, you'll see.




Let me explain about FX chips so there is no need to be sceptical anymore, core 1 and 2 (or 0,1 depending on your mobo) and every other pair of core shares cache and DC what the disabling does not improve performance but it lowers load temps and allows for higher clocks on lower voltage.
Unless you really care about rendering or streaming or media encoding nothing really goes into more than 4 cores so you will not miss the cores.
Also clock for clock the i5 does not beat the 8350 in multi threaded apps or multitasking if anything it comes up severely short against it, try the items rather than read benches bro.
As this is a thread about gaming we will not need the extra cores.

I own both of these chips before you go all AMD fan boy all over me.

(saying this 1 of my 8350s wouldn't boot with the cores disabled but this is the 1st time I have encountered or heard of this issue)
m
0
l
a b å Intel
a c 329 À AMD
a c 745 à CPUs
May 28, 2013 10:28:40 AM

I own both of these chips and they are both overclocked 5.1 ghz. FX8350 \ 2nd FX8350 is at 4.7 \ 4.7 ghz. 3570K \ For my gaming I prefer my 3570K , but the FX is really really close, but for my video work my FX chips are superior.

Summary:Both are great chips!
m
0
l
May 29, 2013 6:45:49 AM

Wow, thanks a lot for all the replies!
I leanred a lot from reading your post ericjohn004.
I acually wont but the AMD.
I'm going to buy my brother PC, cuz he dont use it that often anymore.
It have a intel i5 and a better GPU than I already have :D 
m
0
l
October 30, 2013 10:45:14 AM

Xerxz said:
ksham said:
In games, which are graphically intensive, the Intel Core i5-3570K is statistically slightly faster. Will you notice the difference? Probably not.

On a different note: the Intel Core i5-3570K has better overclocking potential, uses less power, and runs cooler. Other than that, the AMD FX-8350 can still be on par with the Intel Core i5-3570K and can handle multi-threading applications better.


Thanks for the quick reply.
I think I'm going with the AMD.
Just saw this video http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357...
check it out.
AMD is acually better on some games


Yes. If you are planning to play games and use photoshop or premier ect... Use the 8350 as those extra cores will serve you well. If you are doing gaming and gaming only then the i5 is a no brainer... For the £20
You spend on price you will save in CPU coolers, case coolers and power consumption. After watching that tek syndicate video (of of wich I have seen multiple times) he ends up saying that the 8350 kicks ass. Wich it does, now you may think I'm contradicting my self there, but for editing go AMD, for gaming and gaming alone, go INTEL

m
0
l
a b å Intel
a c 122 À AMD
a c 680 à CPUs
October 30, 2013 12:51:29 PM

Way to go! You just necroed a 5 month old thread. :lol: 
m
0
l
October 31, 2013 1:27:46 AM

hey that's not good!!! dont do that guys
m
0
l
!