AMD FX8350 vs i5 4670K?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Prydaxify_1997
#1 Posted by Prydaxify_1997 (51 posts) -

I am stuck here at the moment. I am falling towards Intel now but still cannot decide. First off I know about how next gen consoles are using 8 core CPUs but does that mean that AMD will be more future proof? Should I just wait until more cores are actually used and then buy a CPU becuase I guess Better CPUs will be out for that specific reason. 

My PC will be mainly be for Gaming on games like Skyrim, Battlefield, Minecraft, Bishock, Oblivionm Watch Dogs and GTA V etc.

Anyways... These are my specs and the two combos with each CPU

 

Intel

4760k

Gigabyte Z87-HD3

 

AMD 

FX 8350

Asus M5A97 R2.0

 

PC Rig:

 

GPU: MSI GTX 760 2GB

RAM: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (1600MHz)

HDD: Seagate 2TB SATA III

Cooler: Hyper 212 Evo

Case: Zalman Z11 Plus

Avatar image for commander
#2 Posted by commander (14205 posts) -
choose intel
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#3 Posted by 04dcarraher (22802 posts) -
Tough choice... in one hand you have modern and future games making use of all the cores/threads of the FX8350 allowing it to surpass i5's then you have the games where they only use 1-4 cores where the i5's beat the AMD 8 core's. Overclocking changes the favor for i5 vs the fx 8.
Avatar image for tabris91
#4 Posted by Tabris91 (7779 posts) -

Intel; faster and more efficient. As there's only an £18 difference there's not really any reason to buy the 8350. Not saying the 8350 is bad, though.

Avatar image for horgen
#5 Posted by Horgen (116620 posts) -
Atm I am going to say Intel...
Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#6 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

Avatar image for NEWMAHAY
#7 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3824 posts) -
Depends. If steamroller is going to be am3+ then go AMD and upgrade later.
Avatar image for tabris91
#8 Posted by Tabris91 (7779 posts) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

GummiRaccoon
Knew what it was before I clicked. I wish he'd redo the test properly.
Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#9 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (24605 posts) -

testing cpu performance at 22fps

his results don't match with any other website either

get the 4670k

 

He doesn't he play at a lower resolution and checks how cpu performance actually makes a difference without gpu limitations. I am sure most people play at 22pps.

 

Later he starts using xsplit, when he could just be using obs which now has quick sync support and performs way better on Intel cpus.

Avatar image for tabris91
#10 Posted by Tabris91 (7779 posts) -

I find it hard to believe Logan after he reviewed the 7970 without realizing his card was obviously faulty.

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#11 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

testing cpu performance at 22fps

his results don't match with any other website either

get the 4670k

 

He doesn't he play at 800x600 and see how cpu performance actually makes a difference.

JigglyWiggly_

"take this car offroad to see how it will do on the freeway"

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#12 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (24605 posts) -

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

testing cpu performance at 22fps

his results don't match with any other website either

get the 4670k

 

He doesn't he play at 800x600 and see how cpu performance actually makes a difference.

GummiRaccoon

"take this car offroad to see how it will do on the freeway"

So what? I play at 1280x960(or 1437x1080 if the game lets me) for multiplayer. I want to get 144+fps (150+)
120hz users want to get 120+ fps (140 range+)

and 60hz users should always want 60+ fps (80 range+)


AMD hardware will not let you do that for any game, especially a game like Tera which is only dual core threaded and runs bad on my 2600k @ 4.6ghz.

 

 

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#13 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

testing cpu performance at 22fps

his results don't match with any other website either

get the 4670k

 

He doesn't he play at 800x600 and see how cpu performance actually makes a difference.

JigglyWiggly_

"take this car offroad to see how it will do on the freeway"

So what? I play at 1280x960(or 1437x1080 if the game lets me) for multiplayer. I want to get 144+fps (150+)
120hz users want to get 120+ fps (140 range+)

and 60hz users should always want 60+ fps (80 range+)


AMD hardware will not let you do that for any game, especially a game like Tera which is only dual core threaded and runs bad on my 2600k @ 4.6ghz.

  

lol

 

You are such a tiny market segment, I don't see how you think that your needs are even remotely close to that of others.

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#14 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (24605 posts) -

how?
120hz/144 users are coming up everywhere

it's not hard to run a lot of games at high framerates, you just need an extremely fast cpu.

It still makes sense to get the 4670k because it's better and you can overclock it to 4.5ghz if he really wanted too

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#15 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

how?
120hz/144 users are coming up everywhere

it's not hard to run a lot of games at high framerates, you just need an extremely fast cpu.

regardless, it still makes sense to get the 4670k because it's better and you can overclock it to 4.5ghz if he really wanted too

JigglyWiggly_

 

it's not better though, all the websites get intel skewed results because they enable/disable settings based on what performs best on the intel cpus.  If they did the same thing for AMD, AMD would dominate.  

 

One of the biggest signs that a website does this is they will have a bunch of different games in their cpu review with each game running on different settings.

 

Avatar image for tabris91
#16 Posted by Tabris91 (7779 posts) -

What GPU does Logan use in his review?

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#17 Posted by 04dcarraher (22802 posts) -

What GPU does Logan use in his review?

Postmortem123
HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870
Avatar image for tabris91
#18 Posted by Tabris91 (7779 posts) -

Meh, should have used something more powerful. I'd like to see him do the same tests with a 7970 crossfire setup or something. 

When I had that setup I found I was CPU limited in most games I played. Would be nice to see who comes out on top in such a situation.

Avatar image for Bikouchu35
#19 Posted by Bikouchu35 (8200 posts) -

inb4 teksyndicate link...

Avatar image for tabris91
#20 Posted by Tabris91 (7779 posts) -

inb4 teksyndicate link...

Bikouchu35
Way too late :P
Avatar image for Cyberdot
#21 Posted by Cyberdot (3928 posts) -

Intel.

Always choose Intel.

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#22 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

Intel.

Always choose Intel.

Cyberdot

Says the guy with a 3470 non-k, 27" 1080p monitor and a 1000W psu with just one graphics card.

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#23 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

Postmortem123

Knew what it was before I clicked. I wish he'd redo the test properly.

 

Same here.  Such a horrible test.  Also knew what it was before I clicked it.  

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#24 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

[QUOTE="Postmortem123"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

hartsickdiscipl

Knew what it was before I clicked. I wish he'd redo the test properly.

 

Same here.  Such a horrible test.  Also knew what it was before I clicked it.  

It was aliens.

Avatar image for commander
#25 Posted by commander (14205 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cyberdot"]

Intel.

Always choose Intel.

GummiRaccoon

Says the guy with a 3470 non-k, 27" 1080p monitor and a 1000W psu with just one graphics card.

so you don't even have a gaming pc
Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#26 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Cyberdot"]

Intel.

Always choose Intel.

evildead6789

Says the guy with a 3470 non-k, 27" 1080p monitor and a 1000W psu with just one graphics card.

so you don't even have a gaming pc

How is an 8350 and 6950 not a gaming PC?

Avatar image for nicecall
#27 Posted by nicecall (528 posts) -
Tough choice... in one hand you have modern and future games making use of all the cores/threads of the FX835004dcarraher
this may be true, with the next gen systems coming out, games should start using more cores, up to 8 threads hopefully so the amd cpu may actually be good at that point... but its hard to say right now... all my games i play use no more then 4 threads/cores usually or sometimes less.
Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#29 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6711 posts) -

there are alot of fanboys in this thread, ignore them all, get the fx 8350, its superior.

Avatar image for jhonMalcovich
#30 Posted by jhonMalcovich (7090 posts) -

It´s a very simple choice. If you go with Nividia GPU, then you are better off with an Intel processor. If you go with ATI GPU, then you are better off with an AMD. ;)

Avatar image for kraken2109
#31 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

It´s a very simple choice. If you go with Nividia GPU, then you are better off with an Intel processor. If you go with ATI GPU, then you are better off with an AMD. ;)

jhonMalcovich
wat is this i don't even
Avatar image for wis3boi
#32 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

It´s a very simple choice. If you go with Nividia GPU, then you are better off with an Intel processor. If you go with ATI GPU, then you are better off with an AMD. ;)

jhonMalcovich
shit-tier trolling
Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#33 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6711 posts) -

It´s a very simple choice. If you go with Nividia GPU, then you are better off with an Intel processor. If you go with ATI GPU, then you are better off with an AMD. ;)

jhonMalcovich

 

i go with whatever offers most performance per buck for my needs.  That means intel processor and AMD graphics card....dunno where you pulled that Intel/nvidia bs out of.

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#34 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

there are alot of fanboys in this thread, ignore them all, get the fx 8350, its superior.

blaznwiipspman1

 

:lol:

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#35 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

It´s a very simple choice. If you go with Nividia GPU, then you are better off with an Intel processor. If you go with ATI GPU, then you are better off with an AMD. ;)

jhonMalcovich

 

No.

Avatar image for jhonMalcovich
#36 Posted by jhonMalcovich (7090 posts) -

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

It´s a very simple choice. If you go with Nividia GPU, then you are better off with an Intel processor. If you go with ATI GPU, then you are better off with an AMD. ;)

blaznwiipspman1

 

i go with whatever offers most performance per buck for my needs.  That means intel processor and AMD graphics card....dunno where you pulled that Intel/nvidia bs out of.

Yeh. I forgot that ATI GPU works well with an Intel CPU, too. Anyway, what I am talking about is that there is an optimization that syncronizes CPU with GPU for a better communication between both and hence, a better performance. 

As AMD and ATI is the same company, so it´s logical to expect that AMD CPU worked woderful with an ATI GPU. Intel could have more power, but AMD-ATI combo could have a better optimization.

The worst combo I think would be AMD CPU and Nivida GPU.

I myself was confronted with the TC´s dilema, and in the end I choosed Intel, because I already had an Nvidia GPU, and because of the following reasons:

1.  AMD FX8350 is an 32 nm old tech vs 22nm of Intel. As a result AMD FX8350 consumes almost twice as much of power. So if one goes with AMD FX8350, he would probably need to invest into more powerful power supply and refrigeration.

2. Haswell has better, more advanced set of instructions, and it´s still the most powerful line-up of CPUs on the market.

3. Crysis 3 performs better on I5 4670k by a margin of some 10fps. AMD FX8350 had beaten older versions of I5/7s, but not new Haswell line-up.

4. Next gen consoles won´t use all 8 cores in gaming. As it was explained before, one core will go for OS, another one for background services, leaving only 6 cores for gaming. And I am not even sure if multiplats will use those 6 cores, and not only 4, to keep better compatibility with a huge quad-core user base. As we know, game developers optimize their game for the lowest common denominator.

Even if devs use all 6 cores, don´t forget that those are pretty weak, mobile tech cores.

Quadcore of Intel >>>>>>>>>>>  console  CPU´s 6 cores.

So the conclusion is this:

You are better off waiting for a next gen multi-core 22nm AMD cpu, which maybe will take a year or so to arrive, or go with i5 4670K.

AMD FX8350 is not beating Intel quadcores now, it won´t beat them a year later either.

It´s either waiting 6-12 months for a next AMD cpu or getting an i5 4670K right now. 

 

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#37 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

It´s a very simple choice. If you go with Nividia GPU, then you are better off with an Intel processor. If you go with ATI GPU, then you are better off with an AMD. ;)

jhonMalcovich

 

i go with whatever offers most performance per buck for my needs.  That means intel processor and AMD graphics card....dunno where you pulled that Intel/nvidia bs out of.

Yeh. I forgot that ATI GPU works well with an Intel CPU, too. Anyway, what I am talking about is that there is an optimization that syncronizes CPU with GPU for a better communication between both and hence, a better performance. 

As AMD and ATI is the same company, so it´s logical to expect that AMD CPU worked woderful with an ATI GPU. Intel could have more power, but AMD-ATI combo could have a better optimization.

The worst combo I think would be AMD CPU and Nivida GPU.

I myself was confronted with the TC´s dilema, and in the end I choosed Intel, because I already had an Nvidia GPU, and because of the following reasons:

1.  AMD FX8350 is an 32 nm old tech vs 22nm of Intel. As a result AMD FX8350 consumes almost twice as much of power. So if one goes with AMD FX8350, he would probably need to invest into more powerful power supply and refrigeration.

2. Haswell has better, more advanced set of instructions, and it´s still the most powerful line-up of CPUs on the market.

3. Crysis 3 performs better on I5 4670k by a margin of some 10fps. AMD FX8350 had beaten older versions of I5/7s, but not new Haswell line-up.

4. Next gen consoles won´t use all 8 cores in gaming. As it was explained before, one core will go for OS, another one for background services, leaving only 6 cores for gaming. And I am not even sure if multiplats will use those 6 cores, and not only 4, to keep better compatibility with a huge quad-core user base. As we know, game developers optimize their game for the lowest common denominator.

Even if devs use all 6 cores, don´t forget that those are pretty weak, mobile tech cores.

Quadcore of Intel >>>>>>>>>>>  console  CPU´s 6 cores.

So the conclusion is this:

You are better off waiting for a next gen multi-core 22nm AMD cpu, which maybe will take a year or so to arrive, or go with i5 4670K.

AMD FX8350 is not beating Intel quadcores now, it won´t beat them a year later either.

It´s either waiting 6-12 months for a next AMD cpu or getting an i5 4670K right now. 

 

nope

Avatar image for jhonMalcovich
#38 Posted by jhonMalcovich (7090 posts) -

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

 

i go with whatever offers most performance per buck for my needs.  That means intel processor and AMD graphics card....dunno where you pulled that Intel/nvidia bs out of.

GummiRaccoon

Yeh. I forgot that ATI GPU works well with an Intel CPU, too. Anyway, what I am talking about is that there is an optimization that syncronizes CPU with GPU for a better communication between both and hence, a better performance. 

As AMD and ATI is the same company, so it´s logical to expect that AMD CPU worked woderful with an ATI GPU. Intel could have more power, but AMD-ATI combo could have a better optimization.

The worst combo I think would be AMD CPU and Nivida GPU.

I myself was confronted with the TC´s dilema, and in the end I choosed Intel, because I already had an Nvidia GPU, and because of the following reasons:

1.  AMD FX8350 is an 32 nm old tech vs 22nm of Intel. As a result AMD FX8350 consumes almost twice as much of power. So if one goes with AMD FX8350, he would probably need to invest into more powerful power supply and refrigeration.

2. Haswell has better, more advanced set of instructions, and it´s still the most powerful line-up of CPUs on the market.

3. Crysis 3 performs better on I5 4670k by a margin of some 10fps. AMD FX8350 had beaten older versions of I5/7s, but not new Haswell line-up.

4. Next gen consoles won´t use all 8 cores in gaming. As it was explained before, one core will go for OS, another one for background services, leaving only 6 cores for gaming. And I am not even sure if multiplats will use those 6 cores, and not only 4, to keep better compatibility with a huge quad-core user base. As we know, game developers optimize their game for the lowest common denominator.

Even if devs use all 6 cores, don´t forget that those are pretty weak, mobile tech cores.

Quadcore of Intel >>>>>>>>>>>  console  CPU´s 6 cores.

So the conclusion is this:

You are better off waiting for a next gen multi-core 22nm AMD cpu, which maybe will take a year or so to arrive, or go with i5 4670K.

AMD FX8350 is not beating Intel quadcores now, it won´t beat them a year later either.

It´s either waiting 6-12 months for a next AMD cpu or getting an i5 4670K right now. 

 

nope

? :?

AMD FX-8350

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284

  • 32 nm Vishera 125W

 i5-4670K Haswell

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116899

  • 22 nm Haswell 84W


Avatar image for The_Animator420
#39 Posted by The_Animator420 (262 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

Yeh. I forgot that ATI GPU works well with an Intel CPU, too. Anyway, what I am talking about is that there is an optimization that syncronizes CPU with GPU for a better communication between both and hence, a better performance. 

As AMD and ATI is the same company, so it´s logical to expect that AMD CPU worked woderful with an ATI GPU. Intel could have more power, but AMD-ATI combo could have a better optimization.

The worst combo I think would be AMD CPU and Nivida GPU.

I myself was confronted with the TC´s dilema, and in the end I choosed Intel, because I already had an Nvidia GPU, and because of the following reasons:

1.  AMD FX8350 is an 32 nm old tech vs 22nm of Intel. As a result AMD FX8350 consumes almost twice as much of power. So if one goes with AMD FX8350, he would probably need to invest into more powerful power supply and refrigeration.

2. Haswell has better, more advanced set of instructions, and it´s still the most powerful line-up of CPUs on the market.

3. Crysis 3 performs better on I5 4670k by a margin of some 10fps. AMD FX8350 had beaten older versions of I5/7s, but not new Haswell line-up.

4. Next gen consoles won´t use all 8 cores in gaming. As it was explained before, one core will go for OS, another one for background services, leaving only 6 cores for gaming. And I am not even sure if multiplats will use those 6 cores, and not only 4, to keep better compatibility with a huge quad-core user base. As we know, game developers optimize their game for the lowest common denominator.

Even if devs use all 6 cores, don´t forget that those are pretty weak, mobile tech cores.

Quadcore of Intel >>>>>>>>>>>  console  CPU´s 6 cores.

So the conclusion is this:

You are better off waiting for a next gen multi-core 22nm AMD cpu, which maybe will take a year or so to arrive, or go with i5 4670K.

AMD FX8350 is not beating Intel quadcores now, it won´t beat them a year later either.

It´s either waiting 6-12 months for a next AMD cpu or getting an i5 4670K right now. 

 

jhonMalcovich

nope

? :?

AMD FX-8350

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284

  • 32 nm Vishera 125W

 i5-4670K Haswell

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116899

  • 22 nm Haswell 84W


It doesn't consume anywhere near twice as much power, doesn't need a more powerful PSU, and definitely doesn't need any extra "refrigeration". The stock cooler is fine for most people, OCers are usually fine with only a CM 212 Evo, same as Intel.
Avatar image for kraken2109
#40 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

It´s a very simple choice. If you go with Nividia GPU, then you are better off with an Intel processor. If you go with ATI GPU, then you are better off with an AMD. ;)

jhonMalcovich

 

i go with whatever offers most performance per buck for my needs.  That means intel processor and AMD graphics card....dunno where you pulled that Intel/nvidia bs out of.

Yeh. I forgot that ATI GPU works well with an Intel CPU, too. Anyway, what I am talking about is that there is an optimization that syncronizes CPU with GPU for a better communication between both and hence, a better performance. 

As AMD and ATI is the same company, so it´s logical to expect that AMD CPU worked woderful with an ATI GPU. Intel could have more power, but AMD-ATI combo could have a better optimization.

The worst combo I think would be AMD CPU and Nivida GPU.

I myself was confronted with the TC´s dilema, and in the end I choosed Intel, because I already had an Nvidia GPU, and because of the following reasons:

1.  AMD FX8350 is an 32 nm old tech vs 22nm of Intel. As a result AMD FX8350 consumes almost twice as much of power. So if one goes with AMD FX8350, he would probably need to invest into more powerful power supply and refrigeration.

2. Haswell has better, more advanced set of instructions, and it´s still the most powerful line-up of CPUs on the market.

3. Crysis 3 performs better on I5 4670k by a margin of some 10fps. AMD FX8350 had beaten older versions of I5/7s, but not new Haswell line-up.

4. Next gen consoles won´t use all 8 cores in gaming. As it was explained before, one core will go for OS, another one for background services, leaving only 6 cores for gaming. And I am not even sure if multiplats will use those 6 cores, and not only 4, to keep better compatibility with a huge quad-core user base. As we know, game developers optimize their game for the lowest common denominator.

Even if devs use all 6 cores, don´t forget that those are pretty weak, mobile tech cores.

Quadcore of Intel >>>>>>>>>>>  console  CPU´s 6 cores.

So the conclusion is this:

You are better off waiting for a next gen multi-core 22nm AMD cpu, which maybe will take a year or so to arrive, or go with i5 4670K.

AMD FX8350 is not beating Intel quadcores now, it won´t beat them a year later either.

It´s either waiting 6-12 months for a next AMD cpu or getting an i5 4670K right now. 

 

For a start, ATI no longer exist, which kinda shows how behind you are.

There is no evidence showing that AMD/AMD is any better than AMD/Nvidia or Intel/AMD.

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#42 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

It´s a very simple choice. If you go with Nividia GPU, then you are better off with an Intel processor. If you go with ATI GPU, then you are better off with an AMD. ;)

jhonMalcovich

 

i go with whatever offers most performance per buck for my needs.  That means intel processor and AMD graphics card....dunno where you pulled that Intel/nvidia bs out of.

Yeh. I forgot that ATI GPU works well with an Intel CPU, too. Anyway, what I am talking about is that there is an optimization that syncronizes CPU with GPU for a better communication between both and hence, a better performance. 

As AMD and ATI is the same company, so it´s logical to expect that AMD CPU worked woderful with an ATI GPU. Intel could have more power, but AMD-ATI combo could have a better optimization.

The worst combo I think would be AMD CPU and Nivida GPU.

I myself was confronted with the TC´s dilema, and in the end I choosed Intel, because I already had an Nvidia GPU, and because of the following reasons:

1.  AMD FX8350 is an 32 nm old tech vs 22nm of Intel. As a result AMD FX8350 consumes almost twice as much of power. So if one goes with AMD FX8350, he would probably need to invest into more powerful power supply and refrigeration.

2. Haswell has better, more advanced set of instructions, and it´s still the most powerful line-up of CPUs on the market.

3. Crysis 3 performs better on I5 4670k by a margin of some 10fps. AMD FX8350 had beaten older versions of I5/7s, but not new Haswell line-up.

4. Next gen consoles won´t use all 8 cores in gaming. As it was explained before, one core will go for OS, another one for background services, leaving only 6 cores for gaming. And I am not even sure if multiplats will use those 6 cores, and not only 4, to keep better compatibility with a huge quad-core user base. As we know, game developers optimize their game for the lowest common denominator.

Even if devs use all 6 cores, don´t forget that those are pretty weak, mobile tech cores.

Quadcore of Intel >>>>>>>>>>>  console  CPU´s 6 cores.

So the conclusion is this:

You are better off waiting for a next gen multi-core 22nm AMD cpu, which maybe will take a year or so to arrive, or go with i5 4670K.

AMD FX8350 is not beating Intel quadcores now, it won´t beat them a year later either.

It´s either waiting 6-12 months for a next AMD cpu or getting an i5 4670K right now. 

 

 

There is no magic or optimization that makes an AMD GPU work better with an AMD CPU.  They work just as well with Intel CPUs.  

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#44 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (22623 posts) -

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

 

i go with whatever offers most performance per buck for my needs.  That means intel processor and AMD graphics card....dunno where you pulled that Intel/nvidia bs out of.

hartsickdiscipl

Yeh. I forgot that ATI GPU works well with an Intel CPU, too. Anyway, what I am talking about is that there is an optimization that syncronizes CPU with GPU for a better communication between both and hence, a better performance. 

As AMD and ATI is the same company, so it´s logical to expect that AMD CPU worked woderful with an ATI GPU. Intel could have more power, but AMD-ATI combo could have a better optimization.

The worst combo I think would be AMD CPU and Nivida GPU.

I myself was confronted with the TC´s dilema, and in the end I choosed Intel, because I already had an Nvidia GPU, and because of the following reasons:

1.  AMD FX8350 is an 32 nm old tech vs 22nm of Intel. As a result AMD FX8350 consumes almost twice as much of power. So if one goes with AMD FX8350, he would probably need to invest into more powerful power supply and refrigeration.

2. Haswell has better, more advanced set of instructions, and it´s still the most powerful line-up of CPUs on the market.

3. Crysis 3 performs better on I5 4670k by a margin of some 10fps. AMD FX8350 had beaten older versions of I5/7s, but not new Haswell line-up.

4. Next gen consoles won´t use all 8 cores in gaming. As it was explained before, one core will go for OS, another one for background services, leaving only 6 cores for gaming. And I am not even sure if multiplats will use those 6 cores, and not only 4, to keep better compatibility with a huge quad-core user base. As we know, game developers optimize their game for the lowest common denominator.

Even if devs use all 6 cores, don´t forget that those are pretty weak, mobile tech cores.

Quadcore of Intel >>>>>>>>>>>  console  CPU´s 6 cores.

So the conclusion is this:

You are better off waiting for a next gen multi-core 22nm AMD cpu, which maybe will take a year or so to arrive, or go with i5 4670K.

AMD FX8350 is not beating Intel quadcores now, it won´t beat them a year later either.

It´s either waiting 6-12 months for a next AMD cpu or getting an i5 4670K right now. 

 

 

There is no magic or optimization that makes an AMD GPU work better with an AMD CPU.  They work just as well with Intel CPUs.  

The same also holds true for an AMD CPU paired with an NVidia GPU having adverse effects. Although every single BSOD I've had that can be attributed to a video card have been while using an Nvidia product, they've been isolated cases and also occurred while the Nvidia video card was paired with an Intel CPU.

My overall experience with using an AMD CPU/Nvidia GPU combo has been good overall. I think Nvidia just happens to push their video cards more than AMD.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#45 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6711 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

It´s a very simple choice. If you go with Nividia GPU, then you are better off with an Intel processor. If you go with ATI GPU, then you are better off with an AMD. ;)

jhonMalcovich

 

i go with whatever offers most performance per buck for my needs.  That means intel processor and AMD graphics card....dunno where you pulled that Intel/nvidia bs out of.

Yeh. I forgot that ATI GPU works well with an Intel CPU, too. Anyway, what I am talking about is that there is an optimization that syncronizes CPU with GPU for a better communication between both and hence, a better performance. 

Sorry sir, that is incorrect, there is no evidence that supports that logic.  Maybe you're right in saying that AMD cpu and an AMD gpu will work better together, since they're the same company products, but there is no way in hell that an intel cpu will work better with an nvidia gpu than an AMD gpu.  Intel despises nvidia much more than AMD (who they don't even consider competitors), and there is no way intel and nvidia have an agreement for better performance together. 

If anything, Id say intel prefers AMD over nvidia and the intel/AMD combo would work better.  Nvidia just pisses everyone off.

As AMD and ATI is the same company, so it´s logical to expect that AMD CPU worked woderful with an ATI GPU. Intel could have more power, but AMD-ATI combo could have a better optimization.

The worst combo I think would be AMD CPU and Nivida GPU.

This may be true, but I don't think there is any real evidence to support that claim.

I myself was confronted with the TC´s dilema, and in the end I choosed Intel, because I already had an Nvidia GPU, and because of the following reasons:

1.  AMD FX8350 is an 32 nm old tech vs 22nm of Intel. As a result AMD FX8350 consumes almost twice as much of power. So if one goes with AMD FX8350, he would probably need to invest into more powerful power supply and refrigeration.

2. Haswell has better, more advanced set of instructions, and it´s still the most powerful line-up of CPUs on the market.

3. Crysis 3 performs better on I5 4670k by a margin of some 10fps. AMD FX8350 had beaten older versions of I5/7s, but not new Haswell line-up.

4. Next gen consoles won´t use all 8 cores in gaming. As it was explained before, one core will go for OS, another one for background services, leaving only 6 cores for gaming. And I am not even sure if multiplats will use those 6 cores, and not only 4, to keep better compatibility with a huge quad-core user base. As we know, game developers optimize their game for the lowest common denominator.

Even if devs use all 6 cores, don´t forget that those are pretty weak, mobile tech cores.


1) yes, intels process is ahead of AMDs process and therefore AMD does consume twice as much power.  Also AMD has 8 cores while intel only uses 4.

2)intel is definitely more advanced

3)yes this is also true

4) Next gen consoles will definitely use all available cores to optimize the best performance.  Maybe not at the start but they will do it later on in the cycle.  Devs won't do as you say and only use 4 of the cores, that is dumb.  Compatibility my ass, if that were true then we'd be still using single cores.

Quadcore of Intel >>>>>>>>>>>  console  CPU´s 6 cores.

So the conclusion is this:

You are better off waiting for a next gen multi-core 22nm AMD cpu, which maybe will take a year or so to arrive, or go with i5 4670K.

AMD FX8350 is not beating Intel quadcores now, it won´t beat them a year later either.

It´s either waiting 6-12 months for a next AMD cpu or getting an i5 4670K right now. 

 I personally agree with you there, intels CPU's are much better than AMD's currently.  Hopefully AMD will catch up and can cut down the power usage, but im not holding my breath.  Go with whatever is best now, not possibly what could be the best 1 year from now.  I think everyone learned their lesson while waiting for the hardcore FLOP that was the bulldozer....LOL, i still feel sorry for those dudes who were waiting that long.

Avatar image for Prydaxify_1997
#46 Posted by Prydaxify_1997 (51 posts) -

Thanks everyone! I this was a pretty big thread. I am going for the i5 4670k cause my budget stretches that far. Good luck to anyone else who are also building a rig ;P

Avatar image for PfizersaurusRex
#47 Posted by PfizersaurusRex (1116 posts) -

I am stuck here at the moment. I am falling towards Intel now but still cannot decide. First off I know about how next gen consoles are using 8 core CPUs but does that mean that AMD will be more future proof? Should I just wait until more cores are actually used and then buy a CPU becuase I guess Better CPUs will be out for that specific reason. 

My PC will be mainly be for Gaming on games like Skyrim, Battlefield, Minecraft, Bishock, Oblivionm Watch Dogs and GTA V etc.

Anyways... These are my specs and the two combos with each CPU

 

Intel

4760k

Gigabyte Z87-HD3

 

AMD 

FX 8350

Asus M5A97 R2.0

 

PC Rig:

 

GPU: MSI GTX 760 2GB

RAM: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (1600MHz)

HDD: Seagate 2TB SATA III

Cooler: Hyper 212 Evo

Case: Zalman Z11 Plus

Prydaxify_1997

If you still didn't decide, just keep in mind that you need a better mobo for 8350. M5A97 is only good for stock, for OC you need at least the Pro or Evo version. You also need a proper CPU cooler and good airflow in your case. But don't go with AMD anyway, go with Intel, or wait to see what Steamroller can do (and then go with Intel :D).

edit: woops, didn't see the last post

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#48 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (22623 posts) -

[QUOTE="Prydaxify_1997"]

I am stuck here at the moment. I am falling towards Intel now but still cannot decide. First off I know about how next gen consoles are using 8 core CPUs but does that mean that AMD will be more future proof? Should I just wait until more cores are actually used and then buy a CPU becuase I guess Better CPUs will be out for that specific reason. 

My PC will be mainly be for Gaming on games like Skyrim, Battlefield, Minecraft, Bishock, Oblivionm Watch Dogs and GTA V etc.

Anyways... These are my specs and the two combos with each CPU

 

Intel

4760k

Gigabyte Z87-HD3

 

AMD 

FX 8350

Asus M5A97 R2.0

 

PC Rig:

 

GPU: MSI GTX 760 2GB

RAM: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (1600MHz)

HDD: Seagate 2TB SATA III

Cooler: Hyper 212 Evo

Case: Zalman Z11 Plus

PfizersaurusRex

If you still didn't decide, just keep in mind that you need a better mobo for 8350. M5A97 is only good for stock, for OC you need at least the Pro or Evo version. You also need a proper CPU cooler and good airflow in your case. But don't go with AMD anyway, go with Intel, or wait to see what Steamroller can do (and then go with Intel :D).

edit: woops, didn't see the last post

It's academic. But, what makes the M5A97 R2.0 unsuitable for overclocking? Every single AMD motherboard (including the cheapest Biostar) I've seen have fairly decent overclocking capabilities.

Avatar image for PfizersaurusRex
#49 Posted by PfizersaurusRex (1116 posts) -

[QUOTE="PfizersaurusRex"]

[QUOTE="Prydaxify_1997"]

I am stuck here at the moment. I am falling towards Intel now but still cannot decide. First off I know about how next gen consoles are using 8 core CPUs but does that mean that AMD will be more future proof? Should I just wait until more cores are actually used and then buy a CPU becuase I guess Better CPUs will be out for that specific reason. 

My PC will be mainly be for Gaming on games like Skyrim, Battlefield, Minecraft, Bishock, Oblivionm Watch Dogs and GTA V etc.

Anyways... These are my specs and the two combos with each CPU

 

Intel

4760k

Gigabyte Z87-HD3

 

AMD 

FX 8350

Asus M5A97 R2.0

 

PC Rig:

 

GPU: MSI GTX 760 2GB

RAM: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (1600MHz)

HDD: Seagate 2TB SATA III

Cooler: Hyper 212 Evo

Case: Zalman Z11 Plus

jun_aka_pekto

If you still didn't decide, just keep in mind that you need a better mobo for 8350. M5A97 is only good for stock, for OC you need at least the Pro or Evo version. You also need a proper CPU cooler and good airflow in your case. But don't go with AMD anyway, go with Intel, or wait to see what Steamroller can do (and then go with Intel :D).

edit: woops, didn't see the last post

It's academic. But, what makes the M5A97 R2.0 unsuitable for overclocking? Every single AMD motherboard (including the cheapest Biostar) I've seen have fairly decent overclocking capabilities.

Well it has a humble 4 phase VRM (with a nice looking heat spreader, I'll admit) and we know that 8350 draws a lot of power when pushed hard. I'd rather play it safe.