Question: FX 8350 vs i5 4670K/4690k

[Alexp10v2]

My first thread on Tom's Hardware.

I will be getting a new computer soon and have decided I will build it rather than buy it pre-built.
Here is the question, same as the title really, FX 8350 or the i5 4670K/4690K?

I know the FX is ageing a bit compared to the newer Intel chips (almost 2 years old) and as so, is missing newer features such as SATA Express. The FX is an 8 core vs the i5's 4 cores but the i5 is better in single threaded performance than the FX. The FX also puts out more heat due to it having a higher wattage, 125W vs 88W.

So far it seems to be no comparison between the two chips. But I don't need the SATA Express, and don't really care about the extra heat as I tend to keep my room relatively cold (around 15-20 Celsius) and will most likely either by an AIO or a cheap kit from Alphacool.

As for the Graphics card, I have been looking at the R9-290 4GB or the GTX 970 4GB, probably going to be either one of them for 1080p.

As for what I will be using this computer for,
Gaming
Programming
Website development
Some Animation (simple such as Flash and heavy such as Maya)

But here's the kicker, my budget is around £1250-£1300 for the whole set up (monitor, peripherals, ect) so around £1100 for the system. The FX is £125 while the i5 is on the closer side of £170.

What are your opinions on the matter, which would you chose?

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I5 and 970 I would go with. I will admit the R9-290 has better GPU performance slightly than the 970, but nevertheless the 970 is not a power and heat hog, and still performs spectacularly. Also, I'd take an Intel CPU any day over AMD. The I5 will have better single-core performance, more instructions per clock, and require less electricity and give off less heat than the AMD.

 

[mdd1963]

The AMD 8350 is just now beginning to match the moderate-res gaming performance of a stock i5 2400...from 3.8 years ago....

Despite the numbers of 'cores' in AMD's offering, I'd still much prefer the Intel-based rig, as ever since the (Conroe!) Core series of processors in late 2005, AMD has been between 2-4 years behind in CPU performance.

However, the higher res you intend to game at, the less impact the weaker CPU really has on the framerate anyway. (However, most games still scale nicely with increased cpu clockspeed/IPC at 1920x1080)

ABout the only way I'd select the AMD is if it was bundled as part of a MASSIVE barebones sale, for instance, CPU and MB for $100/60 British pounds?

 

[Alexp10v2]

I5 and 970 I would go with. I will admit the R9-290 has better GPU performance slightly than the 970, but nevertheless the 970 is not a power and heat hog, and still performs spectacularly. Also, I'd take an Intel CPU any day over AMD. The I5 will have better single-core performance, more instructions per clock, and require less electricity and give off less heat than the AMD.

That was a fast response. Thanks for your opinion on the matter.

 

[sanzhbz]

imo it all depends on your budget. r9 290 is $100 cheaper than gtx 970, the same goes for amd fx vs intel. if you got the money go for the 4690k and gtx 970.

 

[Alexp10v2]

imo it all depends on your budget. r9 290 is $100 cheaper than gtx 970, the same goes for amd fx vs intel. if you got the money go for the 4690k and gtx 970.

I mentioned my budget in the post, £1100 (~$1750)

 

[LookItsRain]

i5 4690k and gtx 970, i5 is faster, less heat, 970 is equal but uses much less energy and puts out less heat.