Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should I buy Intel i5 3570k or AMD FX 8350 right now ??

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 8, 2013 1:23:48 PM

What should I buy right now ? This is my first rig and I will use this PC for gaming, and want to be as much as possible "future proof", if thats possible . Thanks :) 
June 8, 2013 1:37:44 PM

The amd chip out performs that i5, and to my understanding the fifth gen intel chips will be on the socket 1150, so I would get the 8 core.
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2013 2:30:45 PM

Why not go 63XX? It's cheaper and it runs cooler if you overclock. Sure you could future proof with a 8350 but you could wait till Christmas when steamroller comes out and wait to see how well it will perform in the month or two after. Edit: forgot to add that the 8350 doesn't beat the 63XX by a lot on 3dmark 11.
Related resources
June 8, 2013 2:36:45 PM

guitarman77k said:
The amd chip out performs that i5, and to my understanding the fifth gen intel chips will be on the socket 1150, so I would get the 8 core.


This guy literally has no idea what he's saying.

The i5 dominates the 8350 in gaming. Get your misinformation straight before advising someone on how they should spend their money.

Speaking of socket 1150, which Haswel does indeed use, that also covers your "future-proofing" needs. It really depends on your budget. If you can afford it, shoot for the new 4th gen Intel's. If you're near a Microcenter, I'd recommend making the drive as they have great deals on them right now, which you can even pair with an 1150 motherboard and save even more. I personally drove 3 hours to Atlanta to pick up an i7-4770k with a GYGABYTE GA-Z87X-UD4H. That's a $350 flagship Haswel i7 with a fully equipped 16-phase highly-overclockeable $200 motherboard for $430. They also have deals with the i5-4670k ($200) if you're not interested in having Hyperthreading and want to save about $70.

As far as overclocking, average chips seem to hit a thermal ceiling on air cooling/all-in-one water coolers (think H100) around 4.4/4.5GHz. While these speeds may be lower than most SandyBridge and some IvyBridge equiviliant CPU's, clock-for-clock the Haskell will outperform them; ie, a 4.4GHz Haswel performs the same or better than an IvyBridge at 4.6GHz, while providing better efficiency, new instruction sets, and an upgradeable future when new 1150 CPU's are released down then road. The 1155 socket that both Sandy and Ivy use is now considered dead in terms of processor development; the current i7-3770K is and always will be that platforms flagship. As such, going with the new 1150 socket is the obvious winner.

Ultimately its entirely up to your personal preferencs and budget. The AMD chip is fine, but is definitely behind the i5-3570K you asked about; which it in turn is behind the Haswel equivalent, the i5-4670K.

If youre wanting the strongest of those two, the answer easily leans twards the i5-3570K for performance. But combine that with the needs to "future-proof" and you suddenly move on to its newest sibblings, the socket 1150 i5-4670K and i7-4770K.

Also for reference, I am speaking from experience and not hearsay which ive read on the internet. I am currently running an i7-4770K @ 4.8GHz on 1.247v with idle/load temps of 27/76 during full synthetic stress loading. It is being cooled with an unmodified Swiftech H220 using only the stock fans in a push configurationn on automatic fan control settings, in a top-mounted intake (not exhaust) setup in a Fractal Designs Arc Midi R2.

Best of luck with your decision and new system..
June 8, 2013 3:24:00 PM

At stock speeds the amd chip is faster. No if, ands, or buts. There were only two chips mentioned. Personally i would do exactly what you said, but between those two chips he would be better off with the amd.
June 8, 2013 3:33:13 PM

guitarman77k said:
At stock speeds the amd chip is faster. No if, ands, or buts. There were only two chips mentioned. Personally i would do exactly what you said, but between those two chips he would be better off with the amd.


Of the two chips mentioned, again the Intel wins. He specifically mentioned the 3570K, so logically its safe to assume he plans to over clock whichever chip he were to purchase. As such, stock speeds are irrelevant to either chip comparison and the i5 would be the wiser choice.

Note to anyone reading:
I am neither an Intel nor AMD fanboy. I simply want the best system for my money and others' as well. I am not bashing the AMD nor poster-boying the Intel. Just giving facts.
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2013 3:37:02 PM

No he wouldn't. Yes, an 8350 in total has more raw horsepower, but his rig will be FOR GAMING. A fast quad core will crush a slow 8 core any day when it comes to gaming. If he were going to be using it for media purposes such as rendering high def videos and such, AMD would be the way to go. However it's for gaming, so the 4670k would be the absolute best option. However if you cannot get a 4670k, a 3570k will still outperform an 8350 for gaming.
June 8, 2013 3:38:11 PM

I can agree with that. As far as future proofing goes i would go 1150 or am3.
June 8, 2013 3:40:19 PM

It's not like it would be a huge difference though guys. It would be very minimal. Again I am answering his original question.
June 8, 2013 3:42:35 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...

with a 10-15% increase from Ivy to Haswell and if he goes with an i7 with hyper-threading over and i5, paired with a powerful graphics card, the difference is huge, for gaming that is, get into other applications the two definitely battle with each other.
June 8, 2013 3:47:02 PM

Pls read the original question. I said that the 4770k would be best, but there will be no has well release on the 1155. So not very much of a difference.
June 8, 2013 5:28:55 PM

guitarman77k said:
It's not like it would be a huge difference though guys. It would be very minimal. Again I am answering his original question.


You answered his original question incorrectly. The difference, which is actually significant in gaming and not "very minimal" as you say, clearly makes the i5-3570k or greater the CORRECT answer, "no ifs, ands, or buts" ad you said.

guitarman77k said:
Pls read the original question. I said that the 4770k would be best, but there will be no has well release on the 1155. So not very much of a difference.


Everyone here IS reading the original question, perhaps you should reevaluate what's been said in this thread thus far. You did not say the 4770K would be best and that there will be no new releases on the 1155 platform, I said that. You agreed with me after I pointed out your misguided advice. You actually said the 8350 was the correct choice, which given his stated needs is 100% false. There is a great and noticeable difference between to the two for gaming, overclocked or not.

While this may seem like a personal attack on you its definitely not. However you continue to post "well I said this" when you didn't, "well I meant this" when clearly not, " the difference is small" when its not, or even " you should reread the question" when everyone here has a very clear understanding of what the OP asked and stated.

Continuing to post replies such as those you've been doing, in order to do what can only be described as trying to "save-face" after your apparent incorrect advice, is just clutter and unneeded. Everyone makes mistakes and is misinformed at some point, but there's no need to do anything other than just accept that you made a mistake and learn from it. Everyone at Tom's appreciates those who take time to answer their questions, even if the answer may be slightly incorrect or misinformed.

-Adam
June 8, 2013 5:41:47 PM

I'm not arguing this point anymore. I did in fact take this as a personal attack because of the way you worded your first question. obviously the two cpus he is asking about are around the same in price, and while the i5 may be slightly better for gaming. the am3 socket will be used for new amd tech whereas the intel 1155 socket will not. If he chooses to spend more money for a slight bump, or more money for new intel tech fine. I'm just answering the question to the best of my ability. Not everyone has $1000+ dollars lying around to build a custom pc with a 4770k. There were two parts to the question. I answered both. If he has extra components lying around and can spend a few hundred dollars extra i would say pick up the new 4th gen. otherwise I'm sticking with amd. I personally have a 3570k overclocked to 4.8 ghz. I game on that, and I have a friend with the 8 core we have the same graphics card, and i only get about 10fps more than he does, and both are extremely playable. There was definitely a more polite way to tell me you disagree though. kudos to you for knowing all.
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2013 7:00:16 PM

Well first of all, those are all single player benchmarks. You can't really benchmark a multiplayer match fairly because the load varies vastly but everyone by now should know that multiplayer is far more CPU intensive than singleplayer, therefore the difference between an Intel and AMD CPU becomes quite a gap with Intel on top. Second, just look at the benchs from Toms... I wouldn't trust some guy on YouTube.
June 8, 2013 7:06:56 PM

I'm just showing that in some aspects the amd chip can be considered superior. It's not like its being blown out of the water. ;) 
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2013 7:19:20 PM

But in multiplayer, it is. That's all I'm saying.
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2013 9:20:22 PM

I wouldn't fully trust Tom's, aren't they missing the top of the line SSD from their latest SSD benchmark...
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2013 10:24:02 PM

FX 8350 and AM3+ will be more future proof, no doubt about it (pretty sure Broadwell will be BGA only). And gaming wise the difference will only be noticeable in CPU intensive games like Skyrim. Go with whichever you want.
June 9, 2013 12:31:24 AM

If even after my previous statement about not "personally attacking you", you are still upset and offended, then what follows is really going to get the tears flowing. Where to begin.

guitarman77k said:
I'm not arguing this point anymore.

Everything following this statement says otherwise.

guitarman77k said:
I did in fact take this as a personal attack because of the way you worded your first question.

It wasn't a question, its was a statement. One you continue to prove.

guitarman77k said:
obviously the two cpus he is asking about are around the same in price, and while the i5 may be slightly better for gaming. the am3 socket will be used for new amd tech whereas the intel 1155 socket will not.

Now the i5 is better for gaming? Before, you stated that the FX-8350 was, as if it were a fact. "10 fps" as you stated in your own experience, is not "slightly better" in today's games which is in fact a very large advantage, not "slightly better". Also its AM3+, not AM3. There IS a distinct difference, perhaps you should look into it. Correct, Socket 1155 has no upgrade path - hence myself and others recommending 1150 and Haswell. While we're on Haswell, its the 4th generation Core family, not the fifth as you stated. I suggest you freshen up on the tech we're dealing with.

guitarman77k said:
If he chooses to spend more money for a slight bump, or more money for new intel tech fine. I'm just answering the question to the best of my ability.

Significant bump for the stated needs, hardly significantly more expensive. At least he has your approval though, right? Your ability to answer questions with misguided advice is very impressive, as is your ability to later bend what you've said.

guitarman77k said:
Not everyone has $1000+ dollars lying around to build a custom pc with a 4770k.

Man I must have stolen my parts! Point me in the direction of that Socket 1150 motherboard costing $650, which according to this statement, MUST be required to run a $350 i7-4770K. Let's not forget, that 4770K can be had for much cheaper also. Oh, I forget, did we fail to mention the i5-4670K as an option? If we did, I'm sure it would cost close to $900 for that CPU/Mobo combination, according to your logic. Oh, did you mean $1000 for the entire system? Man I'm slow....I seemed to have forgotten that Haswell apparently requires special HDDs/SSDs/GPU's/PSU's/memory/cooling solutions/optical drives/etc which are unique to the 1150 socket and cannot be used with any 1155 or AM3+ system, and that those systems come with everything needed for a full system as a free bundle when you purchase either an i5-3570K or an FX-8350. Forgive me.

guitarman77k said:
There were two parts to the question. I answered both.

Yes there were. Which is better for gaming, and which is more "future proof". The first part you answered completely wrong with false information. The second part brings socket 1150 and Haswell into the equation. On a pure "I can ONLY look at these two CPU's" point of view, the FX-8350 is more "future-proof", but definitely does not outperform the i5 in gaming as you stated. Try answering things....correctly.

guitarman77k said:
If he has extra components lying around and can spend a few hundred dollars extra i would say pick up the new 4th gen. otherwise I'm sticking with amd.

Extra components or not, he is obviously purchasing a motherboard and CPU at minimum. Additional components are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Again, where are you spending this extra $300 over either the i5-3570K or FX-8350 just to have a Haswell/1150 system? Your math is terrible. Stick to it like superglue!

guitarman77k said:
I personally have a 3570k overclocked to 4.8 ghz.

Cool. Your 4.8GHz 3570K will perform the same if not slightly worse than an i5-4670K at 4.5-4.6GHz.

guitarman77k said:
I game on that, and I have a friend with the 8 core we have the same graphics card, and i only get about 10fps more than he does, and both are extremely playable.

More comes into play than just the CPU and graphics card. But lets assume it doesn't. Did you know, that in today's games, 10FPS is very significant? True story. I'm definitely glad that you both have playable systems, though!

guitarman77k said:
There was definitely a more polite way to tell me you disagree though.

There was definitely a more accurate way of answering his question, one which doesn't involve totally falsified information, such as "The amd chip out performs that i5". Get your facts straight. I didn't disagree with you, that wasn't my opinion. I clearly stated you were WRONG, and have no idea what you're saying based on the previous "The amd chip out performs that i5" statement. Logic too strong.

guitarman77k said:
kudos to you for knowing all.

Thank you! I always appreciate receiving kudos for helping :) 


Although I'm positive this won't matter to you, guitarman, I'll tell you just so you can maybe think about it.
If you were truly bothered by me stating that you were clearly wrong, starting with ""The amd chip out performs that i5", then you have 3 options henceforth as I see it:

- Get tougher skin
- Educate yourself on the subject matter at hand
- Don't reply.

Sorry to have upset you so much. I won't even break down the YouTube video you linked, as the reviewer even stated the Intel is better for gaming, with a few gaming title exceptions, or if you're streaming - even then its hit or miss if the FX-8350 beats the Intel.

montosaurous - originally there was speculation that Broadwell would be BGA only, but Intel's latest roadmap suggests otherwise. Good looking out though!


marshal11 is correct in his multiplayer assessment. The Intel does lead once again with multiplayer taken into account.

To the OP, zeMOo:

- For pure gaming, in the majority of titles, the i5-3570K is the strongest choice of the two.
- For pure future upgrade-ability, of the two listed, the FX-8350's AM3+ socket will win.
- For the strongest gaming experience in this price-range, allowing for currently available hardware, Socket-1150 and an i5-3670K or i7-4770K are by far the best options.
- For a combination of what you're asking for from both of the original processors at hand, Socket-1150 and an i5-4670 or i7-4770K wins in terms of gaming power and future upgrade paths.

Ultimately either the Ivy Bridge i5-3570K on socket 1155, the Hasell i5-4670K on socket 1150, or the FX-8350 on socket AM3+ will all fit your budget, current gaming needs, and provide you with capable gaming systems - although as mentioned before the 1155 platform is at its end for upgrade-ability. I'd suggest 1150 with an i5-4670K, personally.

Best of luck!
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2013 12:44:24 AM

^ Epic response is epic. You sure know how to clear up some BS. Best answer right there, OP.
June 9, 2013 3:04:33 AM

Something you guys forgot to take into consideration is the operating system. Multi core threading has been implemented into windows 8 which means games will be running more efficiently specially on the 8350. You guys drool over which system offers the best frame rate in games but here's a little tip I will give you. Your eyes will not notice anything above 40 frames per second. You also mention about future proofing, so lets look at how many times intel has changed sockets in the last 5 years. 3-4 times I believe. 775, 1155, 2011 and now 1150. I don't know about you, but I'd like future motherboards to be backwards compatible. To answer the OPs question, the gaming performance between amd and intel is so little it doesn't matter. If you went AMD, you would probably get more future proofing then intel and you would be getting about the same performance for a lower price.
June 9, 2013 3:28:21 AM

adamlee06 said:
guitarman77k said:
The amd chip out performs that i5, and to my understanding the fifth gen intel chips will be on the socket 1150, so I would get the 8 core.


This guy literally has no idea what he's saying.

The i5 dominates the 8350 in gaming. Get your misinformation straight before advising someone on how they should spend their money.

Speaking of socket 1150, which Haswel does indeed use, that also covers your "future-proofing" needs. It really depends on your budget. If you can afford it, shoot for the new 4th gen Intel's. If you're near a Microcenter, I'd recommend making the drive as they have great deals on them right now, which you can even pair with an 1150 motherboard and save even more. I personally drove 3 hours to Atlanta to pick up an i7-4770k with a GYGABYTE GA-Z87X-UD4H. That's a $350 flagship Haswel i7 with a fully equipped 16-phase highly-overclockeable $200 motherboard for $430. They also have deals with the i5-4670k ($200) if you're not interested in having Hyperthreading and want to save about $70.

As far as overclocking, average chips seem to hit a thermal ceiling on air cooling/all-in-one water coolers (think H100) around 4.4/4.5GHz. While these speeds may be lower than most SandyBridge and some IvyBridge equiviliant CPU's, clock-for-clock the Haskell will outperform them; ie, a 4.4GHz Haswel performs the same or better than an IvyBridge at 4.6GHz, while providing better efficiency, new instruction sets, and an upgradeable future when new 1150 CPU's are released down then road. The 1155 socket that both Sandy and Ivy use is now considered dead in terms of processor development; the current i7-3770K is and always will be that platforms flagship. As such, going with the new 1150 socket is the obvious winner.

Ultimately its entirely up to your personal preferencs and budget. The AMD chip is fine, but is definitely behind the i5-3570K you asked about; which it in turn is behind the Haswel equivalent, the i5-4670K.

If youre wanting the strongest of those two, the answer easily leans twards the i5-3570K for performance. But combine that with the needs to "future-proof" and you suddenly move on to its newest sibblings, the socket 1150 i5-4670K and i7-4770K.

Also for reference, I am speaking from experience and not hearsay which ive read on the internet. I am currently running an i7-4770K @ 4.8GHz on 1.247v with idle/load temps of 27/76 during full synthetic stress loading. It is being cooled with an unmodified Swiftech H220 using only the stock fans in a push configurationn on automatic fan control settings, in a top-mounted intake (not exhaust) setup in a Fractal Designs Arc Midi R2.

Best of luck with your decision and new system..


Not to rain on your parade. But me and my dad have identical PC's, apart from the cpu's. He has a 3570k and i have a 8320 (both are overclocked, mine at 4.4ghz and his at 4.4ghz). Our games run and pretty much same framerate maybe a difference of 1-5 frames and i think that's because i'm limited to how much i can overclock because my PC is underneath a desk and it keeps reusing warm air.
June 9, 2013 3:37:22 AM

fojacko said:

Not to rain on your parade. But me and my dad have identical PC's, apart from the cpu's. He has a 3570k and i have a 8320 (both are overclocked, mine at 4.4ghz and his at 4.4ghz). Our games run and pretty much same framerate maybe a difference of 1-5 frames and i think that's because i'm limited to how much i can overclock because my PC is underneath a desk and it keeps reusing warm air.


How exactly did you rain on any parade? Should I bring candy?

Skunker said:
Something you guys forgot to take into consideration is the operating system. Multi core threading has been implemented into windows 8 which means games will be running more efficiently specially on the 8350. You guys drool over which system offers the best frame rate in games but here's a little tip I will give you. Your eyes will not notice anything above 40 frames per second. You also mention about future proofing, so lets look at how many times intel has changed sockets in the last 5 years. 3-4 times I believe. 775, 1155, 2011 and now 1150. I don't know about you, but I'd like future motherboards to be backwards compatible. To answer the OPs question, the gaming performance between amd and intel is so little it doesn't matter. If you went AMD, you would probably get more future proofing then intel and you would be getting about the same performance for a lower price.


Show me this 40 frames per second rule you speak of. This is 100% false, as it is based on a person by person basis. I can clearly tell the difference between 40FPS and 60FPS. Using my 120hz monitor it is also very clear to see the difference between 60fps and 120fps. The fluidity is definitely there.

Socket 775 was 2006. You're thinking S-1156 in 2009, S-1155 in 2011, and S-1150 in 2013. 1150 is already on the Intel road map for receiving updates through 2015 at least. Sockets 1366 and 2011 are not in consideration here, as those are extreme enthusiast level platforms, and not standard consumer market like those relating to the processors being discussed.

As far as socket compatibility and backwards compatibility, there is much more to consider than simply the Socket. AM3 and AM3+ are physically identical with the exception of one pin, but its a combination of Southbridge design/support and physical capabilities of the motherboard that dictate true upgrade paths. Socket AM3 was released in 2009, and AM3+ was released in 2011, yet people still think that socket's compatibility extends much further back through AM3 due to SOME motherboards being able to support the AM3+ processors with Bios Updates, but not all. Once Steamroller is released, Socket AM3+ is most likely going to be replaced.

So all in all, both Intel and AMD seem to have a roughly 2-3 life on their mainstream sockets.
2006: Intel-775, AMD-AM2
2007: AMD-AM2+
2009: Intel-1156, AMD-AM3
2011: Intel-1155, AMD-AM3+
2013: Intel-1150, guaranteed through year-2015
2014/15: Probable new AMD socket

So....Who's had more socket changes (including guaranteed support) through the years?

Upgrade paths are similar and currently available on both Intel and AMD for at LEAST the next generation.
June 9, 2013 3:39:50 AM

I'm not even going to read all that. You can make it seem like the i5 is the obvious choice if you want, and you can belittle me to try and prove it even, but fact is both are good CPUs.
June 9, 2013 3:50:28 AM

guitarman77k said:
I'm not even going to read all that. You can make it seem like the i5 is the obvious choice if you want, and you can belittle me to try and prove it even, but fact is both are good CPUs.


Ok, but make sure to point out that you're not going to read it ;) 

Belittling you and correcting your poorly thought out comments are two completely different things, and neither is needed to prove the point.

Pretty sure multiple people, including myself, have said both CPU's are good choices. It was nice talking with you :) 
June 9, 2013 4:35:49 AM

can the i5 3570k with LGA 1155 last till the 2015 ??
If yes then its obvious to buy 3570k. thanks









June 9, 2013 4:43:06 AM

Or maybe I can buy FX 6300 or fx 8320 with a good motherboard and then later upgrade to a good steamroller CPU . What do you think ?
June 9, 2013 4:50:32 AM

Did you even read anything we've posted? 1155 is over, 1150 is now here. AM3+ is another option. I don't even consider 1155 an option at this point, really.
June 9, 2013 4:55:26 AM

Yes I have read it . I have no money for Haswell, so I guess a will go with am3+ .

June 9, 2013 4:58:58 AM

If you have the money for a 3570K you have the money for Haswel. AM3+ will do you well regardless. Do your research on graphics cards now, and build that system to make you happy!

Goodluck zeMOo!!!! Have fun with it :) 
June 9, 2013 5:07:49 AM

Thank you . Its not that close, Haswell is more expensive and motherboards are more expensive too than Ivy Bridge. But never mind thanks :D 
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2013 12:16:05 PM

An Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 and FX 8350 is a good option, and will probably allow for an upgrade to Steamroller (too bad my board probably won't). However, there is no telling how Steamroller will perform and how expensive it will be. If you do decide to get an FX 8350, I wouldn't upgrade to Steamroller unless IPC is a huge jump over the current gen.
June 9, 2013 3:47:19 PM

I just got the Asus M5A99FX R2 pro with the FX8350, MSI 7870, 2x4gb corsair 1600mhz ram running on 42" tv at 80-150 fps at max settings.
June 9, 2013 5:01:55 PM

Skunker said:
I just got the Asus M5A99FX R2 pro with the FX8350, MSI 7870, 2x4gb corsair 1600mhz ram running on 42" tv at 80-150 fps at max settings.


Max settings of what? Doom 3D? Crysis 3? Context comes into play here.
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2013 5:04:18 PM

adamlee06 said:
Skunker said:
I just got the Asus M5A99FX R2 pro with the FX8350, MSI 7870, 2x4gb corsair 1600mhz ram running on 42" tv at 80-150 fps at max settings.


Max settings of what? Doom 3D? Crysis 3? Context comes into play here.


Doom 2
June 9, 2013 9:47:08 PM

The AMD would be a much better bang for your buck. The i5 would save more power and run cooler when overclocking, though. Go with the AMD, or wait until the next generation Steamrollers roll out.
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
June 10, 2013 8:55:56 AM

MaxGardener said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...

with a 10-15% increase from Ivy to Haswell and if he goes with an i7 with hyper-threading over and i5, paired with a powerful graphics card, the difference is huge, for gaming that is, get into other applications the two definitely battle with each other.


Actually, the 4770k is a minimal bump in gaming performance, and general applications the increase is about 4-6% per Tom's Hardware's review that is linked on the main forum page.

@OP:

If you're going to OC your CPU, go AMD or the 3570k. The 4th gen stuff is just too sketchy as to how "lucky" you will be for OCing.

If you want "future proof" AMD is quite a bit more future proof, socket AM3+ is going to be around until 2015 with full support and will see steamroller coming to it.

Intel changes sockets like we change socks, every 18-24 months they issue a new socket as part of their "tick/tock" strategy. There is no such thing as "future proof" with intel. Your next intel build will always be a complete overhaul if you upgrade every 2 years. With AMD, that's not necessarily the case.

There is a plethora of information out there...depending on the games you play, you may see more benefit from one CPU or the other. Choose what you like best, the top end of performance will not be dramatic enough a difference for you to even know there is a gap one way or the other. Especially considering you likely have a 60 Hz monitor, meaning that the differences will primarily occur over 60 FPS, and you wouldn't even be able to discern the difference because your monitor cannot display the frame rates over 60 anyway.

June 10, 2013 4:01:20 PM

8350rocks said:
MaxGardener said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...

with a 10-15% increase from Ivy to Haswell and if he goes with an i7 with hyper-threading over and i5, paired with a powerful graphics card, the difference is huge, for gaming that is, get into other applications the two definitely battle with each other.


Actually, the 4770k is a minimal bump in gaming performance, and general applications the increase is about 4-6% per Tom's Hardware's review that is linked on the main forum page.

@OP:

If you're going to OC your CPU, go AMD or the 3570k. The 4th gen stuff is just too sketchy as to how "lucky" you will be for OCing.

If you want "future proof" AMD is quite a bit more future proof, socket AM3+ is going to be around until 2015 with full support and will see steamroller coming to it.

Intel changes sockets like we change socks, every 18-24 months they issue a new socket as part of their "tick/tock" strategy. There is no such thing as "future proof" with intel. Your next intel build will always be a complete overhaul if you upgrade every 2 years. With AMD, that's not necessarily the case.

There is a plethora of information out there...depending on the games you play, you may see more benefit from one CPU or the other. Choose what you like best, the top end of performance will not be dramatic enough a difference for you to even know there is a gap one way or the other. Especially considering you likely have a 60 Hz monitor, meaning that the differences will primarily occur over 60 FPS, and you wouldn't even be able to discern the difference because your monitor cannot display the frame rates over 60 anyway.



High 5 to you 8350rocks. And also coupled with windows 8's ability to multi thread games it shreds intel's performance to smitherines. My LED TV is 240hz, reason I can get 80-150fps normally and sometimes up to 200. But for excellent game performance anything over 60 is a waste. 40 is playable with little lag. The last 2 intel machines I've had blew up within 2 years. Got them at same time. first lasted 2 years and 2nd lasted only 1 year. 2 year machine lasted 2 years overclocked and 1 year machine lasted 1 year not overclocked. Puts a bad taste of intel in my mouth. I have an AMD machine that I built in 07 that is still kicking but it's getting slow for todays gaming. Built a new machine with Asus M5A99FX Pro R2, MSI 7870 video card, 8gb of corsair 1600mhz ram and i'm extremely happy with it's performance. To be honest, I'm getting sick of all this Intel fanboism. We all know that AMD had problems with Piledriver. If you read around, they have fixed that problem with Vishera. They even just released a APU that is hybridable with 7xxx series graphics cards, giving crossfire performance for less then it would cost to crossfire an intel machine. On the graphics card side, you could argue that AMD doesn't support PCI-E3 yet and since intel does it's the better option. But something they don't tell you is that everything shares the PCI-E bus and your computing is going to be as slow as your weakest link. Since video cards are the only thing programmed to run on PCI-E3 interface, you would only be getting PCI-E2 speeds because of everything else. Also, video cards haven't fully utilized the pci-e2 bus. In my experience AMD lasts longer then intel.
June 10, 2013 4:04:24 PM

montosaurous said:
adamlee06 said:
Skunker said:
I just got the Asus M5A99FX R2 pro with the FX8350, MSI 7870, 2x4gb corsair 1600mhz ram running on 42" tv at 80-150 fps at max settings.


Max settings of what? Doom 3D? Crysis 3? Context comes into play here.


Doom 2


World of Warcraft, World of Tanks, World of Warplanes, Diablo III etc. Wouldn't mind getting crisis 3 but i'm not going to spend $60 on it

!