Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel i5 4670k or AMD FX-8350 (8 vs 4 Cores for Next Gen)

Tags:
  • Computers
  • Next Generation
  • CPUs
  • Intel i5
Last response: in CPUs
Share

Which CPU will be better?

Total: 8 votes

  • Intel i5 4670k
  • 63 %
  • AMD FX-8350
  • 38 %
November 16, 2013 4:04:14 PM

I'm going to build a computer soon and I can't decide between these 2 CPUs. According to CPU benchmark the 8350 is faster but the i5 can be overclocked further. I'm also taking into consideration the next gen consoles which have 8 cores, will that give the 8350 greater performance in next gen games?

By the way this computer will mostly be used for gaming.

More about : intel 4670k amd 8350 cores gen

a c 161 à CPUs
November 16, 2013 4:15:08 PM

Hardly. The FX-8350 has higher stock clock speed than the i5. The FX-8350 has more cores, but each individual core is less powerful.

For gaming, I would go with the i5-4670K. But the FX-8350 is also a great choice. It can help with running lots of apps, multi-tasking, video/audio encoding apps, a good CPU for gaming, and a good overclocker.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2013 5:08:26 PM

I would go with the 8350, mine at 4.5Ghz is running everything flawlessly.

You can also disable secondary cores on the 8350 to increase IPC, which would help with games that only support 4 cores.
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2013 5:21:52 PM

ignoring performance per dollar, you get more out of an i5 4670k. It doesn't matter how fast your Vishera processor is, Haswell is a more efficient architecture.
Every review i've seen seems to support this. Especially in games.
Some well threaded programs like the 8350 better, but not most games
November 16, 2013 5:37:06 PM

As far as I know the AMD processor runs much hotter so if I overclock both of them as far as I dare, can I expect to see a more noticeable gap in performance between the two? I don't plan on spending a lot on the Heat Sync.
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2013 5:48:00 PM

arges86 said:
ignoring performance per dollar, you get more out of an i5 4670k. It doesn't matter how fast your Vishera processor is, Haswell is a more efficient architecture.
Every review i've seen seems to support this. Especially in games.
Some well threaded programs like the 8350 better, but not most games


https://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-oc-vs-i5-35...

I don't know why people think the i5 beats out the 8350 or who started this rumor, but it is blatantly false.

Yes on some games that only use 4 cores, the i5 may win, but like I said, disabling the secondary cores does increase the single core performance by a good bit.
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2013 5:57:54 PM

If you will be playing newer games such as BF3 or 4, crysis 3, Co Ghosts...etc., I recommend the 8350, as this will beat the i5 quad core. However, if you had the budget, i7's such as the 4770k, have hyperthreading which help and perform better than AMD CPU's. But i5's are struggling now.
a c 473 à CPUs
November 16, 2013 6:28:41 PM

Again, another one of these posts :p  I'll leave my standard drafts here as they may help in your decision making:

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.

For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 (might as well get the 8320, it's an 8350 clocked lower at stock which you can change) [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have caught up in performance and in some cases deliver better performance than the intel's for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks between the FX 83xx series and the i5/i7's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for nextgen, it is difficult to speculate. Next gen games may/may not be optimised for multicore cpu's such as the FX so they can get more performance. Games like Watch Dogs and BF4 are highly multithreaded but that does not necessarily speak true of all games. However, take a look at this: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/

The i5 has 4 beefy cores and the FX has 8 slightly weaker cores (please no-one start the physical/not argument). In single threaded games the i5 therefore has the advantage as they use less cores. In multithreaded games the FX catches up and in some instances performs better. In other multi-threaded apps such as those used for video editing or 3d modeling the FX is ahead. The i7's ivy/haswell would be ahead or on par with that however, but for much more cost.

Due to the extra cores available the FX has the ability to record/stream with less FPS loss (here are some links you should check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

Anyway, as I said it's pointless and relatively difficult to speculate about what the future will hold. Get what you need for right now and then upgrade in future when you need more power, or overclock! :)  Both CPU's will perform very well and games are more dependent on having a good GPU anyway.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry if there was any repetition, these are just my drafts I've saved in a .txt :p 
December 3, 2013 10:26:54 AM

Intel straight out end of story. I'm running i5-4670 it's amazing
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2013 12:57:02 PM

fx 8350 or also fx 8320, in current games fx 8350=i5 4670k/ fx 8350>i5 4670k, in future games fx 8350>i5 4670k/ in old games i5 4670k>fx 8350
http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfi... (MOH warfighter fx 8350 performs as well as i7-3960x)
http://www.techspot.com/review/601-black-ops-2-performa... (call of duty black ops 2 fx 8350 performs as well as i7-3960x)
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/... (crysis 3- fx 8350 better than i7 3770k and just below i7-3950x)
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1598/pg6/amd-fx-8... (bf3)
http://www.hardwarepal.com/batman-arkham-origins-benchm... (batman Arkham Origins fx 8350= i7 4770k after AMD's catalyst release)
http://www.hardwarepal.com/call-duty-ghosts-benchmark-c... (COD ghost Identical performance)
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-c... ( battlefield 4 ultra HD FX 8350 equal to i7-4770k)
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-c... ( battlefield4 full HD the same scenario)
http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performa... (Tomb raider 2013)
a lot of more incidents which shows these CPUs enjoy actually the same performance, in one game one beats the other, in the other game there is another scenario, but something is for sure, in crysis 3 for example i5-3570k uses 80% percent of it resources AMD fx 8350 just uses 60% in COD ghost i5 4670k uses 44% of its resources fx 8350 only uses 25%
January 20, 2014 8:23:28 PM

the fx 8350 has more cores
January 20, 2014 11:25:14 PM

More cores not to be utilized in games yes.
Go with the i5, it's no question.
January 21, 2014 3:38:03 AM

i think the fx 8350 is better because it has more cores and much cheaper most next gen games will be needing more than 4 cores
a c 93 à CPUs
January 21, 2014 3:49:52 AM

asad dab said:
i think the fx 8350 is better because it has more cores and much cheaper most next gen games will be needing more than 4 cores

No they wont, that would be weird.
Game dev want to have the most be able to play their game = Use the amount of threads the standard consumer have (4 threads).
Seen BF4, how badly threaded it is. We are talking about 2 frames going from 4670k to 8350.
Game dev on PC are lazy, compared to game dev on consoles. Consoles games require much less CPU and GPU power. (they also have a mantle-alike-API)
January 21, 2014 3:50:04 AM

More weaker cores doesn't mean more power.
January 21, 2014 7:29:45 AM


fx 8350 or also fx 8320, in current games fx 8350=i5 4670k/ fx 8350>i5 4670k, in future games fx 8350>i5 4670k/ in old games i5 4670k>fx 8350
http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfi... (MOH warfighter fx 8350 performs as well as i7-3960x)
http://www.techspot.com/review/601-black-ops-2-performa... (call of duty black ops 2 fx 8350 performs as well as i7-3960x)
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/... (crysis 3- fx 8350 better than i7 3770k and just below i7-3950x)
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1598/pg6/amd-fx-8... (bf3)
http://www.hardwarepal.com/batman-arkham-origins-benchm... (batman Arkham Origins fx 8350= i7 4770k after AMD's catalyst release)
http://www.hardwarepal.com/call-duty-ghosts-benchmark-c... (COD ghost Identical performance)
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-c... ( battlefield 4 ultra HD FX 8350 equal to i7-4770k)
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-c... ( battlefield4 full HD the same scenario)
http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performa... (Tomb raider 2013)
a lot of more incidents which shows these CPUs enjoy actually the same performance, in one game one beats the other, in the other game there is another scenario, but something is for sure, in crysis 3 for example i5-3570k uses 80% percent of it resources AMD fx 8350 just uses 60% in COD ghost i5 4670k uses 44% of its resources fx 8350 only uses 25%
January 21, 2014 7:32:28 AM


Darkresurrection is right


a c 473 à CPUs
January 21, 2014 7:43:47 AM

Many of those benchmarks don't add up unfortunately.

On MOH Warfighter the 8350 is outperformed by a far worse 4170 with only a little higher clockspeed. A similar story for BO2. If you're going to argue that a 4170 matches a 3960x you're insane.
Crysis 3 is one of a few games where an FX can outperform a far more expensive intel chip, granted.
At a resolution as huge as is shown in that batman test it's more of a GPU bottleneck than a CPU one.
CoD ghosts is a terrible console port, I won't even bother looking at that benchmark as it has the value of a potato.
Notice how in BF4 when you're not maxing out the GPU the FX 8350 performs worse? CPU bottleneck I'm afarid, the 8350 performs worse in that scenario.

AS much as I supported darkresurrection when he was active on the forums these things don't really add up. The FX is by no means a bad chip, it's just that the intels generally perform better. In real life scenarios you often can't tell the difference, sometimes you can.
January 21, 2014 7:44:53 AM

a lot of more incidents which shows these CPUs enjoy actually the same performance, in one game one beats the other, in the other game there is another scenario, but something is for sure, in crysis 3 for example i5-3570k uses 80% percent of it resources AMD fx 8350 just uses 60% in COD ghost i5 4670k uses 44% of its resources fx 8350 only uses 25%

Darkresurrection is right

a c 93 à CPUs
January 21, 2014 7:53:53 AM

Havent read the benchmark, but darkress normally used incorrect or beta/early realese of games as example, where games didn't utulize different extensions.

a c 473 à CPUs
January 21, 2014 8:04:45 AM

asad dab said:
a lot of more incidents which shows these CPUs enjoy actually the same performance, in one game one beats the other, in the other game there is another scenario, but something is for sure, in crysis 3 for example i5-3570k uses 80% percent of it resources AMD fx 8350 just uses 60% in COD ghost i5 4670k uses 44% of its resources fx 8350 only uses 25%

Darkresurrection is right



You literally didn't respond to a single thing I said. What does the usage% matter when the benches are flawed?
January 21, 2014 9:48:39 AM

It's really simple actually. There isn't a single reason why you choose the i5. Wanna know why?

Because you wante something future proofed. People don't seem to get this when someone asks for "future, not current". Yeah, in most games, at the current time, the i5 is either the same speed or faster than the 8350. But this situation will not be same 1-3 years down the line.

As you can see, on stock frequencies, the 8350 is on or faster than the i5 4670k. And that is happening in current-games. In 1-3 years, system reqs for games and optimization will skyrocket. Exactly like it happened when we tranzitioned from the PS2 era to the PS3 era, from games that know of single-core 1.5 GHz CPus to beasts with 3 Ghz+ quad-cores and 4GHz+ 8-cores.

It does NOT matter that the 8350 has individual cores weaker than the i5. It has DOUBLE the cores the i5 have. In future games, which will properly utilise multithreading, you can expect the FX to be anywhere from 20% to 50% faster than the i5 in the long run.

You said the i5 can OC easily. The FX can too. Just from that benchmark you can see that 1 GHz increase to the 8350 (the 9590 basically) is already 15 frames faster at 1080p.

If you want now to be as future proofed as possible either get a 3770k/4770k/obviously the 3930/4930k or get the FX 9590, while significantly more expensive than the 8350 (and 25% faster), it was a higher TDP and can be OCed way higher than the 8350.

Let's think about this "faster" definition of people. In the long run, what do you think will be faster, an i7 4770k with 4.5 GHz or so or the 9590 with 5.5-5.7 Ghz?



Also, do check out @koreanoverlord's video: http://youtu.be/4et7kDGSRfc

It's one of the best representations of AMDs CPU raw power. From my personal experience I can say that games like ARMA II/III and Crysis games LOVE CPU power. In Crysis 1 and 2 your average framerate IS you minimum framerate. In Crysis 3 your performance will increase with 20-30% more because of the more cores (same thing happens with the performance if you compare the i5 with the i7s in this game)
!