amd fx 8350 or i5 3570k !

[monther2]

hello
im wondering which cpu is the best for gaming....many says that the i5 is better
but i think because of the 8 cores in the fx 8350 it will be more future proof especialy that the coming consoles are 8 core...i think that upcoming games will use mor than 4 cores !? ...so im asking wich one is better for games and for future ...cause maybe i wont apgrade for the coming 2 years !

 

[idkfa]

My personal opinion? Go with the i5. 2 years is by far not enough time to see games actually using 8 cores. Not sure if all games today even really use all 4 cores.

 

[Mandrake4565]

monther2, welcome the the forums. You want a gaming machine that you'll be able to use for a few years without the need to upgrade? Get the I5 3570k and an Asrock Z77 Extreme 4 motherboard.,most games are gpu dependent. If you don't want to have to upgrade in the near future then get yourself a good GPU.

 

[Ajay57]

OP to go with the FX 8350 would in my opinion be a bad choice! Why because you will need a high grade Mobo with a strong VRM Section to provide the Voltage and current a 8*** Series Core needs! As for your other choice a, much more sensible way to build a gaming PC also for everyday use. Go with Mandrakes suggestion of a Asrock Z77 Extreme 4 or 6 with the i5-3570k that would last you a good few years. And try to buy the best GPU Card you can afford as well! AJ.

 

[manu2b]

^This.

 

[tym64]

Both AMD and Intel are good gaming chips. There really is no clear winner. The good about the AMD 8350, it offers a better long term value. They really dont change socket sets like Intel, The CPU is less expensive.

The Bad, is the 8350 does run Hot. When I built mine, I put in a closed loop water cooler.

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-...s-3820-gaming-and-xsplit-streaming-benchmarks


I did forget to add. With desktop computers becoming a thing of the past. I think both AMD and INTEl will concentrate on mobile devices and we, IMHO, wont see any big jumps in cpu's from either company like we have in the past. I think we will see small improvements, that is just MY opinion.

 

[kmo_9000]

I would get the 8350. And you don't need to spend a lot to overclock it, get a GA-990FXA-UD3 which has 8+2 VRMs.

Something like a Hyper 212 Evo should get you at least to 4.5Ghz. And most AAA games coming out now do support at least 4 cores, many support up to 8 threads. Even BF3 is a game known to support this many cores/threads.

The 8350 and the 3570k are pretty much on par with each other in real world gaming performance, I see no reason to favor the i5 over AMD.

 

[manu2b]

Something like a Hyper 212 Evo should get you at least to 4.5Ghz.

No way, unless you get a golden chip doing 4.5GHz@stock vCore (let's say below 1.35v).

I like both AMD and Intel. AMD for having enough guts to stay in the game, and Intel for performance.

Anyway, get any of those and you'll be happy.

Agreed on the Gigabyte board: the only one n a decent price range being able to sustain the FX current greed!

Personnaly, I'd go with the next gen i5 Haswell (due on the 5th of June). Even with its USB3 wake up bug.

When you realize that an i7 950, which is 4 years old, games better than a FX8350, you know where to place your bet.

AMD CPU's are pretty fun to OC though. Much funnier than last gens Intel, where you just have to increase multi and vCore until you reach volts limit.

 

[kmo_9000]

No way, unless you get a golden chip doing 4.5GHz@stock vCore (let's say below 1.35v).

I like both AMD and Intel. AMD for having enough guts to stay in the game, and Intel for performance.

Anyway, get any of those and you'll be happy.

Agreed on the Gigabyte board: the only one n a decent price range being able to sustain the FX current greed!

Personnaly, I'd go with the next gen i5 Haswell (due on the 5th of June). Even with its USB3 wake up bug.

When you realize that an i7 950, which is 4 years old, games better than a FX8350, you know where to place your bet.

AMD CPU's are pretty fun to OC though. Much funnier than last gens Intel, where you just have to increase multi and vCore until you reach volts limit.

It's stock speed is 4.0Ghz, 4.5 is only a 500mhz overclock (300mhz if you consider the 4.2ghz turbo). You're over exaggerating how hot it runs, they're not that bad that they can't reach such a modest overclock with a 212 Evo. And the i7 950 does not game better than a 8350, that's entirely subjective.

For educational purposes I will post this here:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8mG-RkN2uTzThDLOVYT6e0WpVz_0-dRc

If everyone here hasn't seen the tech syndicate videos, those are still worth a look too. The fact that Linus tech tips did similar tests and came to the same conclusions should settle anyone trying to discredit Logan.

If I were building right now I would get an 8350 with the already mentioned GA-990FXA-UD3. It's also cheaper than comparable 3570k + motherboard combos when you compare motherboards feature to feature. The cheapest 8 phase VRM AM3+ motherboard is only 100$, if you wanted to drop to a 970 chipset with a GA-970A-DS3. To the OP, the 8350 is a fine CPU and it is a great alternative to the 3570k. The 3570k is not the be all and end all.

 

[manu2b]

My Megahalem Push/Pull was not allowing a further OC than 4.4GHz with my 8120.
I doubt a 212 can take a 8350 to 4.5.

 

[EarthDog]

Both AMD and Intel are good gaming chips. There really is no clear winner. The good about the AMD 8350, it offers a better long term value. They really dont change socket sets like Intel, The CPU is less expensive.

The Bad, is the 8350 does run Hot. When I built mine, I put in a closed loop water cooler.

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-...s-3820-gaming-and-xsplit-streaming-benchmarks


I did forget to add. With desktop computers becoming a thing of the past. I think both AMD and INTEl will concentrate on mobile devices and we, IMHO, wont see any big jumps in cpu's from either company like we have in the past. I think we will see small improvements, that is just MY opinion.

LOL...

It really is a 6 of one, half dozen of the other situation. As was mentioned before, but you seem to ignore, in order to overclock such a beast in the 8350, you need a more robust (and costly) motherboard and cooling solution to support that CPU properly.

I like how you copy/paste your replies though and blatantly ignore other people questioning the information in your post. Quite bot like.

 

[kmo_9000]

My Megahalem Push/Pull was not allowing a further OC than 4.4GHz with my 8120.
I doubt a 212 can take a 8350 to 4.5.

The 8350 is a better cpu than the 8120. And what motherboard are you using? As the above post points out you need to ensure your motherboard has a proper VRM setup to supply these things with efficient power. The two gigabyte boards I already mentioned are good cheap options for this though.

 

[Caviman2201]

Lets not forget that the FX-8xxx series chips are not really full 8-core processors anyway. They are 4-core proc's with an extra 4 integer units. This is why the Sandy/Ivy Bridge quads perform so favorably against them; they are far, far faster in single-threaded processing and have essentially the same processing resources.

The FX processors have a great marketing scheme; they are essentially hardware-implemented HyperThreading. An FX-4xxx is a dual-core w/ hardware HT, an FX-6xxx is a tri-core w/ hardware HT and an FX-8xxx is a quad-core w/ hardware HT. They are absolutely not 4, 6 and 8 core processors.

Bottom line, go with Intel for performance or AMD to support the underdog. There's nothing wrong with either approach. I did the latter for a long time and recently did the former. MOST applications today and even in the next few years benefit far more from single-threaded performance than many threads.

 

[Johan45]

The FX processors have a great marketing scheme; they are essentially hardware-implemented HyperThreading. An FX-4xxx is a dual-core w/ hardware HT, an FX-6xxx is a tri-core w/ hardware HT and an FX-8xxx is a quad-core w/ hardware HT. They are absolutely not 4, 6 and 8 core processors..

This isn't quite accurate. They are seperate cores with their own integer units . The Achilles heel is the floating point scheduler which is shared between 2 cores. Hence the moniker modules.

 

[manu2b]

The 8350 is a better cpu than the 8120. And what motherboard are you using? As the above post points out you need to ensure your motherboard has a proper VRM setup to supply these things with efficient power. The two gigabyte boards I already mentioned are good cheap options for this though.

It had nothing to do with the board, as it was running 4.9'ish/1.5'ish when watercooled.

What do you mean by better CPU? Better IPC? Sure, 5 to 10%.

Heatwise and voltwise, they behave the same.

 

[EarthDog]

Their IPC is also the same... its the same CPU just clocked (a lot) higher...same cache etc. Right?

 

[manu2b]

I believe PD has better IPC than BD, but I might be mistaking...

 

[EarthDog]

I thought they were both PD chips... if they are different, you are correct.

 

[manu2b]

Yep, was talking about 8120, not 8320

 

[Caviman2201]

This isn't quite accurate. They are seperate cores with their own integer units . The Achilles heel is the floating point scheduler which is shared between 2 cores. Hence the moniker modules.

My post was accurate - I stated that there were 4 extra integer units but an integer unit does not a core make. What makes them essentially quads with an extra integer unit is that they share not only the FPS, but also the L2 cache, instruction decoder, etc. See the block diagram HERE or more details. I admit I was over-simplifying it by saying it was "hardware HyperThreading", but the point is that they are NOT 8-core processors in the sense that they do not have 8 standalone, individual cores with exclusive resources. The single-threaded performance of Sandy/Ivy absolutely decimates Bulldozer/Piledriver and most applications are not heavily multi-threaded - that is the "Achilles heel".