How far behind the 3570K is the AMD FX-8350?

[XJLanzaro]

I currently have an AM3+ motherboard with a Phenom II quad core. I want to upgrade to the FX-8350. How far off is the 8350 from the 3570K. The only cpu intensive games I play a lot are BF3 and Minecraft (which is a lot more cpu intensive than you might think, especially with a 512x texture pack and shaders).

 

[risaccess1]

Watch this, please. Should answer your questions. Well, at least some, anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

 

[Tradesman1]

Plenty, and most reviews don't tell the half of it, most of them show the 3570K at stock against both stock and OCed 8350s.....Take that OCed 8350 @ 47 or 4.8 and then crank up the 3570K to 4.7 or 4.8 and watch the gaps grow, Intel holds it's per performance where AMD starts to lag as the OC increase, in other words doesn't grow proportionately

 

[manofchalk]

Watch this, please. Should answer your questions. Well, at least some, anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

Watching just the beginning of that and I don't think its a very good test. He is comparing CPU's, based on their FPS at various resolutions? That is extremely GPU limited, the CPU shouldn't be that much of a factor in that kind of test.
Also he never states whether the 3570/3770k are overclocked or not, while he says on the 8350 he was dissapointed the mobo wouldn't let him hit 5Ghz... Thats a fairly big blunder if he was running a 8350 @ 4.8Ghz against a 3570k at the stock 3.4Ghz.

 

[Tradesman1]

Yep, that was the point I was making (or trying to), at least put them in the same ball field if your going to compare them

 

[L Helps]

this is a better video from Tek Syndicate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

 

[risaccess1]

L Helps is right. That is probably a better comparison.

 

[8350rocks]

I currently have an AM3+ motherboard with a Phenom II quad core. I want to upgrade to the FX-8350. How far off is the 8350 from the 3570K. The only cpu intensive games I play a lot are BF3 and Minecraft (which is a lot more cpu intensive than you might think, especially with a 512x texture pack and shaders).

The FX 8350 is actually ahead in multithreaded tasks by as much as 20% in some instances over the i5-3570k (The 3770k makes it a closer race though).

In single threaded applications the FX 8350 can be as much as about 20% slower than the 3570k at stock. If you compare maximum OC's...then you would need to compare a 5.6 GHz FX 8350 (It was technically 5.556 GHz) to a 4.8 GHz 3570k. (These are the 2 highest stable OC's for daily use I have seen for each one).

Considering that...the FX 8350 should actually close the gap some...since at stock the gap is 600 MHz (400-500 MHz if you count the 3570k runs in turbo more often), and OC'ed to maximum potential you have a gap of 800 MHz.

Though to give you an idea...

3570k @ 4.8 GHz Cinebench 11.5: 7.92 (taken from web)

8350 @ 5.556 GHz Cinebench 11.5: 9.58 (his best score to date, so far as I know)

 

[Jose Navarro Vicente]

As 8350Rock said, depends on wich software you're going to run.

Imagine you are going to work with lots of Photos in Darktables, then an Octa-core system as Fx8350 will be far better than a Quad-Core system like i5-3570K.

On the other hand if you're going to play, let's say... World of Warcraft, Intel's cpu will be faster.

If I were you I'll look for benchmarks of the software you more use and those CPUs.

 

[XJLanzaro]

Thank you all for helping. I went for the 8350, I saw them on Amazon for only $179.99 so I had to jump on the price drop. Should be a major performance increase.

 

[Tradesman1]

Can check most all reviews, the 3570K comes out ahead in basically everything, except video rendering, and if you do that for a living, then the 3770K is better and would be worth the extra money.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

A more realistic overclock on the FX-8350 would be 4.5GHz. Here are my Cinebench scores at 4.5GHz:

 

[pauldh]

From what I gather, you've already got a Phenom II X4 @ 3.8 GHz and you are upgrading specifically for games?


Well, I fear the FX-8350 wasn't the best choice there. Phenom II's run strong clock for clock, and few games scale beyond 4 cores. =(

IMO, no CPU upgrade, or Intel i5/i7, would be the two most rewarding options. Hopefully you do more than just game since you took the plunge.

edit: Sorry, but there really should have been more questions asked before "spending" someone's money. Who plays Cinebench guys? Jose was on the right track with his comment about looking for data on desired software.

 

[jaguarskx]

I currently have an AM3+ motherboard with a Phenom II quad core. I want to upgrade to the FX-8350. How far off is the 8350 from the 3570K. The only cpu intensive games I play a lot are BF3 and Minecraft (which is a lot more cpu intensive than you might think, especially with a 512x texture pack and shaders).

If games is the primary goal, then a general 500MHz or 600MHz overclock should give you the same results as a stockspeed i5-3570k / i5-4670k for most games, but not every game.

The below chart is for BF3 multiplayer. At stockspeed an i5-3570k gets 83.7 FPS vs 67.8 FPS for the FX-8350. That's about a 23.5% difference in frame rates. The simplest but unrealistic assumption is that you would need to overclock the FX-8350 by 23.5% to get the same results. That means you would need to overclock to 4.94GHz. However, that is unrealistic because there are inefficiencies to take into consideration and that clockspeed itself is not everything. For example, a 23.5% overclock may only mean a 15% increase in actual performance. The means you will have overclock the FX-8350 beyond 5.0GHz; up to 5.47GHz to be more exact.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-3-PC-221396/Specials/Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-Tipps-CPU-Benchmark-1039293/

Since Minecraft is very CPU dependent, I would expect a relatively large overclock would be necessary as well.

On the plus side if you plan on playing Tomb Raider, then you won't even have to overclock the FX-8350 at all since that game really does not care how fast the CPU is as long as it does not bottleneck the GPU.

 

[Intel God]

In gaming the 3570K is pretty far ahead but in multithreaded they're pretty even clock for clock

 

[jaguarskx]

A minor update to my original post above....

I did not notice that both FX-8350 and FX-8320 were in the performance chart. That makes estimating the required overclock to match an i5-3570k much easier and more exact.

The FX-8350 is clocked at 4.0GHz, the FX-8320 is clocked at 3.5GHz. That means the FX-8350 is clocked 14.3% higher than it's little brother.

The FX-8350 gets 67.3 FPS while the FX-8320 gets 63.2 FPS. That's a difference of 7.3%.

What the above numbers mean is that more MHz only provides a 51% increase in performance (7.3% / 14.3%); or 50% just to keep it simple. Since the stockspeed i5-3570k can achieve 84.4 FPS while the FX-8350 can only achieve 67.8 FPS that is a 24.5% increase in performance. However, to achieve a 24.5% increase in performance you need to increase the clockspeed by 49%. That means the FX-8350 would need to be overclocked to 5.96GHz (basically 6.0GHz) to be equal to a stockspeed i5-3570k when playing BF3 multiplayer.

 

[Intel God]

A more realistic overclock on the FX-8350 would be 4.5GHz. Here are my Cinebench scores at 4.5GHz:

Just for comparison sake. 4770K with HT disabled at 4.5Ghz

 

[pauldh]

I currently have an AM3+ motherboard with a Phenom II quad core. I want to upgrade to the FX-8350. How far off is the 8350 from the 3570K. The only cpu intensive games I play a lot are BF3 and Minecraft (which is a lot more cpu intensive than you might think, especially with a 512x texture pack and shaders).

If games is the primary goal, then a general 500MHz or 600MHz overclock should give you the same results as a stockspeed i5-3570k / i5-4670k for most games, but not every game.

The below chart is for BF3 multiplayer. At stockspeed an i5-3570k gets 83.7 FPS vs 67.8 FPS for the FX-8350. That's about a 23.5% difference in frame rates. The simplest but unrealistic assumption is that you would need to overclock the FX-8350 by 23.5% to get the same results. That means you would need to overclock to 4.94GHz. However, that is unrealistic because there are inefficiencies to take into consideration and that clockspeed itself is not everything. For example, a 23.5% overclock may only mean a 15% increase in actual performance. The means you will have overclock the FX-8350 beyond 5.0GHz; up to 5.47GHz to be more exact.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-3-PC-221396/Specials/Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-Tipps-CPU-Benchmark-1039293/

Since Minecraft is very CPU dependent, I would expect a relatively large overclock would be necessary as well.

On the plus side if you plan on playing Tomb Raider, then you won't even have to overclock the FX-8350 at all since that game really does not care how fast the CPU is as long as it does not bottleneck the GPU.

Actually, certain parts of Tomb Raider are very CPU dependent, it's just most sites fail to test these locations, or even rely on the in-game benchmark. Good news, most modern processors capable of juggling 4 threads do just fine:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-16.html