ADM or Intel

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

Moses148

Honorable
Mar 4, 2013
77
0
10,640
I've decided to build a gaming desktop instead of buying one as it is cheaper but I cant decide what processor. I have found the latest "AMD piledriver 8350, 8 core, 4.00 Ghz, 8MB cache" for £150, which seems amazing but lots of people are saying inter are better even if it is like £50 more, only 4 core and has 3.00 Ghz. Can someone help me?
 
Depends on your budget. Going with the cheaper FX 8350 would allow money to be spent on a better graphics card. Yes, an i5 will probably be faster in games. But, as an example, An 8350 and an HD 7870 would be faster in games than an i5 3570k and an HD 7850. If you can afford to go all out, the i5 is the way to go.
 


Actually i found out that a recommended motherboard for the intel you mentioned is £50 cheaper then the AMD one, what would you recommend
 


Most games don't use 8 cores. Not even close - they're just starting to run nicely on 4 cores. That means it's not a disadvantage to have 4 cores vs 8. (It's not a "true" 8-core anyways - it has four modules, and without going into the architecture, will act as an 8-core CPU for Integer scheduling, but only as a 4-core CPU for floating point operations.)

As for "3.00 Ghz," this is a common mistake people make. That number is ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS. The only time it's an accurate comparison of speed is between 2 chips of the same series. (two quad core ivy bridge cpus, for example.)

An Intel ivy bridge chip at 3.0 GHz will be 10-15% faster than a sandy bridge chip at 3.0 GHz... that's the two closest series of chips you can get, but the architecture between them is different, so the number isn't an accurate comparison.

Now if we try to compare Intel and AMD... not only are their architecture TOTALLY different, they compute differently. Currently, using brand new CPUs, an AMD chip needs somewhere between 130-150% of the clock speed of an Intel chip to be comparable.
 
I think the 8350 is probably not the most budget friendly choice. You should either get the 3570K (costs more) or the AMD 6300. conversely you could get an I5-3XXX that is non -k (and means you can't overclock it) which would also be a very good choice and probably closer in cost to the 8350.

I think the best choice is probably an FX-6300 and a Motherboard with the 970 naming (not 990). This is based on an assumption that you will be buying a single graphics card that is like a GTX660 or 7870 LE or lower

As for motherboards you get what you pay for (AMD tends to be slightly cheaper for the same features but not always). Also many have features you may not want. I always pay more to get full SLI / Crossfire support (both at 16X). This costs me maybe like $50. However, I have never done it so I am probably just throwing my money away on that feature.

Just as a full disclosure I have an AMD FX-8320 and have a number of reasons for why I would by AMD. That being said Intel chips will better support high end gaming. By high end I mean you are going spend $300+ on video cards. The difference is very negligible even at 300 its not until you get to like $500 in grpahics power that it seems to hold you back in some games.


 
Intel has faster single-core performance. Most games only utilize 2-4 cores. That is why Intel rules the gaming plane of CPUs.

AMD FX 8350 has 8-cores, as it is right now not many other than Crysis 3 uses 8-cores still, an FX 8350 overclocked to 4.7 GHz is slower than a stock i5-3570k which has less cores and lower clock speeds.

Actually AMD FX 8350 isn't a "real" 8-core CPU. It has 4 modules which each consist of 2 cores. So, it acts kinda like an i7, with hyper-threading.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1364211/pclab-more-crysis-3-cpu-benchmarks - Here is the benchmarks which I was talking of. :)

 


What a load of hog wash you speak there my friend, and those benchmarks you posted have already been discredited on so many other sites. The 3570k and FX8350 have there strengths and weaknesses in different areas, and therefore are evenly matched when all is said and done, the intel has stronger single core performance and the AMD has the stronger multi core performance, both CPUs will serve you very well indeed the choice is yours.

You want a true opinion ask here..
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/642/bench/CPU_03.png
http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/official-fx-8320-fx-8350-vishera-owners-club
 
i5 will be better for gaming, FX 8350 will probably last you longer (unless you overclock the i5). When at the same clock rate, the i5 3570k and FX 8350 are about the same in terms of multithread performance, yet the i5 destroys the FX 8350 in per core performance. A Hyper 212 EVO and i5 3570k+Z77 board would run about $350 however, so be careful.
 
As one that has been on both sides I can say for sure that the AMD FX-8350 can keep up with a i5 3570K in everything you will ever want to run on it. I have a AMD FX-8120 AMD FX-8350 and a i5 3570K rig and both of my AMD rigs have no problems running my games every bit as will as my i5 and I was really hoping to see a performance increase with the i5 but at last it just was not there.

That is not to say the i5 is bad because it is good it is just that the AMD FX-8350 is much better than people seem to make it out to be.
 


But the 8350 bottlenecks a high end sli or crossfire like 7950cf
 


Bad comparison in Crysis 3, which only speaks against what you say. Crysis 3 can utilize 8 CPU cores, while the i5-3470 is nipping at it toes, which just shows how bad the performance of the 8 cores are. :non:

Also, why is it "a load of hog", I don't see where those benchmarkes aren't linked to the reality of the performance of the CPUs? I do agree that the multi-tasking performance in the review isn't the most accurate, but that isn't even mentioned in my answer to which CPU is better.

Both CPUs does have their pros and cons, but in a gaming point of view Intel is simply better. Why do you think that only Intel CPUs are recommended in the "Best gaming CPUs for the money" by Tomshardware every month? Not for fun I can tell you.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,review-32634-4.html

ALSO this benchmark by Tomshardware speaks the truth about Crysis 3

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,review-32644-9.html

"Our benchmark sequence revealed a huge bottleneck that required a Core i5 or i7 just to maintain a 30 FPS minimum frame rate. Although AMD's FX-8350 achieved an average frame rate equivalent to the Core i5-3550, its minimum dips to 21 FPS, causing us to back off from awarding a full recommendation."
 
@Lostgamer you truly are lost. You're speaking like an Intel fanboy *suspicious*
Uther is absolutely correct. The Intel has better per core performance and the AMD has the better multi-core performance.
But I'd suggest go with the 6300 and put a buckload of money on the GPU. otherwise go for the Intel if you're only for gaming and not editing or anything.
If you're a value for money type of person go with the AMD and if you want sheer single core performance go with the Intel.
But the Intel is better than the AMD at gaming. It's upto you, get a cheaper AMD and better GPU or expensive Intel and a less better GPU.

@Mustafa
THE AMD FX-8350 DOES NOT BOTTLENECK TWO GRAPHICS CARDS.
Get your facts straight: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407.html
This was done with two 7970's and still the AMD does not bottleneck. Stop spreading such petty rumors
 
The FX actually outperforms an i5 when dual gpu's come into play.
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/crysis-3-test-gpu/graficheskaya-chast.html
Check the CPU Scaling chart on the second page at the bottom.
It's done with a GTX 690 and the FX outperforms the i5 2500K which is about 4% slower than the 3570K.

But Crysis 3 is a well optimised game.
If you're used to playing indie games and other low-profile games, the Core i5 will likely be the better choice.
Still can't argue that the FX 8350 is a very capable gaming CPU.
 


Still looking at the benchmarks it's another story. Crysis 3 is an excellent example of just that. FX 8350 doesn't pull ahead even though the game supports 8-cores.
 
I suggest wait for haswell which will be released in June this year or go for FX and later upgrade to a steamroller CPU which will hit the market in 2014. If you bur Ivy processor and wish to upgrade to haswell you'll have to get a new motherboard as it uses 1150 socket.

The thing is:
i5 Pros: Better single core performance Cons: Expensive than FX
FX 8350 Pros: Better mutli-core performance,Cheaper then i5 Cons: single core performance not better than i5.

Basically i5 gives similar performance in tasks and the FX-8350 is good at something bad at something; it is like a rollercoaster ride.
So if I had to choose between an i5-3570k vs FX-8350, I'd choose the FX. that because I'm a renderer and the FX suits my needs.

It just goes down to what you need; single core or multicore performance, and your brand preference.
 


Then elaborate why Tomshardware doesn't recommend the CPU as it is right now? Because I have more reliability in Tomshardware than you.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407-9.html

"The only way we can make AMD's FX-8350 look like a better gaming value than Intel's Core i7-3770K (specifically in the games and at the settings we used to test) is if the rest of the system is free"

"We were hoping that AMD's Piledriver update would break that trend, but even a handful of impressive advancements aren't enough to match the effectiveness of AMD's graphics team."

Here it's shown by Tomshardware that FX 8350 actually has worse value than an i7-3770k, which is priced way higher than an i5-3570k, which delivers almost similar performance in gaming.
 



OMG ! I GIVE UP !! :pfff:
 
The 8350 is for budget gamers, not high end gamers. If you are on a limited budget, the 8350 is a better buy than an i5 3570k. (Unless you have a Microcenter nearby. 😀) AMD's boards tend to be cheaper than a similarly equipped Intel board for the budget minded crowd. If money is not option, then, of course you are going to go Intel.
 
Moses. Target a resolution. Then target the minimum fps (highest and avrage do not matter). e.g 1080p minimum 40 fps. go through benchmarks and reviews available on the cpu's and gpu's you are intersted in. Pick out the cpu and gpu combo's that can get you your target fps. Pick whichever is cheapest.

None of these AMD/Intel threads ever see one perfect answer because there is none.

A slight direction can be had from: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
all cpu's from the top three tiers are good gaming units.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html
pick a GPU from the top six tiers.

Finally know your game. Metro and Crysis will hammer your hardware the best they can. F1 and Dirt apparently suffer from some memory controller issue on FX Piledriver (the strangest allegation, poor optimization IMO). Some game plays will stream better(online) with FX architecture. Skyrim is considered heavily slanted towards Intel architecture.

 
Oh man this CPU hierarchy is making me question to get an FX-8350. :/
The FX 8350 competes against the i7 1st generation!? this is madness! 🙁
By the way satyam, those skyrim benchmark were made when the processor were just released. Skyrim now has a performance patch for the FX piledriver users!
 
^ I did not know when did Skyrim received a patch but it's great to hear that. The review is not old. Piledriver was launched in october last year. I am refering to a review dated 24th January: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407.html

As for the hierarchy, like I said all cpu's from the top three tiers cut it. and 8350 is same as a gen1 i7 so what? I see no point in comparing 100 fps with 75 or 93 or 157.
A 60Hz monitor will still cap it all at 60. And everyone's still going to see fluid motion.

Anyone imagining that 8350 can't push sli/cfx while 3770K can, must go through the metro bench in that review. at the highest settings 1080p, neither cpu's could deliver the 60 fps.

an 8350 is a great cpu as is a 3770K. Neither cpu will disappoint an avid gamer unless one spends half the time looking at what fraps is saying.

Know your game. Get the cheapest cpu that can play it at your choice of rez and min fps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom