AMD FX-4170 vs Intel Sandy Bridge i5

[rEdsKu11z]

Hello i was wondering what cpu would be better for gaming the AMD FX-4170 or the Intel Sandy Bridge i5? i noticed that the i5 is more used in gaming rigs but the FX-4170 seems to have better performance then the i5 (4.2 ghz to 3.6 ghz).

Sorry if this is an easy question but i do not know processors as much as i thought.

Thank you, for you time to read this

Steve

 

[sarinaide]

Essentially as owner of Intel and AMD builds which include SB and BD builds the perfromance is tangible, Intel is faster but is that really the determinable factor when both setups offer copious performance yields?

If you consider that the 8150/8120 hang pretty well with the 2500K which is Intels best chip pound for pound and value wise, then it is really not that big a deal, It is made a deal by haphazzard reviewers and the developed myopia against the FX when in fact it is a good enough chip.

 

[braincruser]

well said man... i really hate, when someone opens a thread asking for which AMD CPU to buy and here and there guys suggesting intel rolf...

IN MY LIFE A HAVE REALIZE THAT ITS NOT WHATS GIVE YOU MORE FPS... IMPORTANT THING IS... WHAT GIVE YOU MORE FOR YOU MONEY AMD ALL THE WAY....

with that being said... whats the difference in framerate? 10fps or 15fps? beyond the 60-70fps that doesnt even matter INTEL FANBOYS

Here is his question:

Hello i was wondering what cpu would be better for gaming the AMD FX-4170 or the Intel Sandy Bridge i5? i noticed that the i5 is more used in gaming rigs but the FX-4170 seems to have better performance then the i5 (4.2 ghz to 3.6 ghz).

Here is the answer to him:

Computers performance is not measured like that, Ghz in one procesor is not the same as Ghz in another processor, and between these two, the intel i5@3.6 is a lot faster than amd FX @4.2 . This is caused by diferences in the internal architecture of the CPU itself.

While both procesors are good in games, the intel i5 based on SandyBridge was proven to be very fast in games with enough gain to displace even the i7-Extreme chips from just a year ago. Also giving it a sizable advantage over AMD's current processors.

On the other hand AMD's FX series were somewhat in paralel with their previous processors when it came to games. While still fast enough to be good for most games, these are not faster than intel's I5 and thus making the i5 favorite processor when it came to games.

 

[rishiswaz]

honestly BD is not bad, I have messed around OCing FX chips and they overclock like a breeze (the world's fastest overclock is currently held by AMD with one of their 8 core chips). I own at this point in time only intel rigs, but when the phenom IIs came along I jumped on that train and never regretted it. If you are looking for high benchmarks and high framerates past 60fps go with intel, If you are not benchmarking and not interested in anything really above 50-60fps along with bang for your buck go with AMD

Sorry for digging this from the grave did not see the last post date

 

[esrever]

generally the i5 will be better but the performance isn't much unless you have a lot of graphic processing power.

Generally all quad core CPUs give resonables FPS in most new games.

I wouldn't say the i3 is much better than the FX. Really depend on the game and workload.

 

[braincruser]

I wouldn't say the i3 is much better than the FX. Really depend on the game and workload.

Yes in a current game they are the same because they are limited, but what will happen when more powerfull games arrive, who will get a bottleneck by the cpu first, the bulldozer or the sandybridge?

P.S. Also try not to revive old threads, last time i have seen this was months ago.

 

[rishiswaz]

Yes in a current game they are the same because they are limited, but what will happen when more powerfull games arrive, who will get a bottleneck by the cpu first, the bulldozer or the sandybridge?

P.S. Also try not to revive old threads, last time i have seen this was months ago.

Yeah I did not check the date on the last post before I posted. Sorry

 

[melikepie]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103996
Read the reviews for yourself.
I know it seems confusing but in all the 2500k is better but is it worth paying the biiger price?
The FX is not that bad because i have it and the reson why people say it's bad is beacause they look at benchmarks not
testing it for themselfs as i did.
The 4100 is just a lower stock clock as i suggest buying this and overclocking it.
Im sure you would be glad with either but in all with my experience take the advice from someone who knows it and
understand bulldozer sucks at 256 bit floating points which is in a lot of benchmarks.
In english no matter what people say i have a bulldozer CPU and i have NO complaints.

 

[cyansnow]

im sorry this reply will be short because this warzone is extremely hot and i would like to exit immediately:
fx-4170 will get the job done, but its not better than an i5 2500k in any circumstance. if you wanna save some cash if you dont upgrade in the future just get the 4170 over the i5 for your wallets sake.

 

[rishiswaz]

im sorry this reply will be short because this warzone is extremely hot and i would like to exit immediately:
fx-4170 will get the job done, but its not better than an i5 2500k in any circumstance. if you wanna save some cash if you dont upgrade in the future just get the 4170 over the i5 for your wallets sake.

The FX-4XXX series was made under the idea of the programs coming in the span of the chips' lives to be heavily threaded and that is what they are designed to handle. They can chop through anything heavily threaded without 256 bit floating points ( as said by melikepie) but most benchmarks even if they are threaded to take advantage of high end BD 8 core processors they use 256 bit floating points and BD just can not take that as well. each module in BD has 2 cores and 256s are passed through on a per-module level and not per-individual core.

 

[jpardo2]

Haters gonna hate, lol. Before anyone writes anything negative about this post, read the post. I use a FX-4100 overclocked to 4.3ghz on a 990FX board with 8 gigs of vengeance ram @ 1600mhz, GTX 670, and a intel 256 ssd. Ready for the kicker?
No seriously are you ready????



I run Battlefield 3 maxed out, all day, literally. Never any problems with lag or this and that.

I know the question is which is better for gaming, well this one is the better value. Even though it shits the bed when doing simple tasks, it still manages to give me 60 fps constantly for hours on end.

Im not an AMD fanboy, I respect that Intel makes the best processors out there without question. I just liked seeing that extra $100 in my bank account after I hit the buy button on newegg xD.

 

[rockstar_7]

Haters gonna hate, lol. Before anyone writes anything negative about this post, read the post. I use a FX-4100 overclocked to 4.3ghz on a 990FX board with 8 gigs of vengeance ram @ 1600mhz, GTX 670, and a intel 256 ssd. Ready for the kicker?
No seriously are you ready????



I run Battlefield 3 maxed out, all day, literally. Never any problems with lag or this and that.

I know the question is which is better for gaming, well this one is the better value. Even though it shits the bed when doing simple tasks, it still manages to give me 60 fps constantly for hours on end.

Im not an AMD fanboy, I respect that Intel makes the best processors out there without question. I just liked seeing that extra $100 in my bank account after I hit the buy button on newegg xD.

Well said, what youve done there is commendable. AMD definitely brings out the value-factor and has been doing the same since a long time.

However, isnt the extra $100 better being used of for a processor that has cooler temps, better reliability and all-round function for a wide-array of applications and tasks rather than mainly games? I wish to think that, those $100s could become a better investment, in the long run, if spent on a well-balanced CPU.

Just wanted to add on to the topic...

 

[rishiswaz]

I use a FX-4100 overclocked to 4.3ghz on a 990FX board with 8 gigs of vengeance ram @ 1600mhz, GTX 670, and a intel 256 ssd???



I run Battlefield 3 maxed out, all day, literally. Never any problems with lag or this and that.
.

BF3 is more GPU bound than CPU, but still that just shows that this is probably the best bang for your buck quad core out there.

Before anyone brings up that whole BS argument that it is not a quad core, AMD legally can not advertise/label it as a quad core if it is not a quad core. The CPU is 4 cores split into 2 modules, to process 256 bit integers it uses 1 module which is 2 cores. Granted that is not the best architecture structure but still does the job needed and can get most of the things you need done. The FX-8150 is where the true disappointment is because it is 8 cores but for a person who would need 8 cores generally would be processing 256 bit integers frequently so they get 4 256 bit modules rather than 8. For most applications you will be fine but for things like benchmarks, 3D rendering, and vector manipulation is where 256 bit values are used.

 

[EchoOne]

if Bd fails against 2500k so bad... then explain my video here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw4lZKCwK4c&feature=plcp

and my picture here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw4lZKCwK4c&feature=plcp

 

[cbrunnem]

if Bd fails against 2500k so bad... then explain my video here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw4lZKCwK4c&feature=plcp

and my picture here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw4lZKCwK4c&feature=plcp

t
dude go away. we should not have to disprove an out liar and a very inaccurate one at that. that was a piss poor attempt at proving the impossible.

 

[cbrunnem]

if Bd fails against 2500k so bad... then explain my video here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw4lZKCwK4c&feature=plcp

and my picture here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw4lZKCwK4c&feature=plcp

t
dude go away. we should not have to disprove an out liar and a very inaccurate one at that. that was a piss poor attempt at proving the impossible.

plus and this is important so ill use CAPS.

HE HAD 2GB OF VRAM COMPARED TO ONE. GTA4 USED A *** LOAD OF VRAM. PROVE TO ME THE OTHER GUY DIDNT RUN OUT OF IT.

 

[rishiswaz]

Ok the reason why people think that BD is terrible is because the truth is that it has 17% less efficient FPUs nut 10% more efficient ALUs. Also the whole core i series has 2 pipelines that are shorter whereas AMD has 4 longer pipelines which for 8 cores really bogs things down. One way the AMD processors do jump ahead of intel is with much better overclocking. AMD FX 8150 currently holds the record for the worlds highest stable overclock. At the end of the day AMD has lower prices and still has APUs, Phenom IIs, and FX series which all have lower prices and with Phenom the price/performance is well worth it and FX should be brought up by piledriver refresh. K10 was a great architecture and AMD shot themselves in the foot by trying to reinvent the wheel

 

[cbrunnem]

Ok the reason why people think that BD is terrible is because the truth is that it has 17% less efficient FPUs nut 10% more efficient ALUs. Also the whole core i series has 2 pipelines that are shorter whereas AMD has 4 longer pipelines which for 8 cores really bogs things down. One way the AMD processors do jump ahead of intel is with much better overclocking. AMD FX 8150 currently holds the record for the worlds highest stable overclock. At the end of the day AMD has lower prices and still has APUs, Phenom IIs, and FX series which all have lower prices and with Phenom the price/performance is well worth it and FX should be brought up by piledriver refresh. K10 was a great architecture and AMD shot themselves in the foot by trying to reinvent the wheel

piledriver has already shown to be a fail in the laptops trinity apus. it actually went backwards.

and there you go again saying BD has 8 cores. no one buys the "amd couldnt sell it as a 8 core if it wasnt". if you truly believe that look up the HP of you car then go dyno it then tell me if the numbers are even close. also car manufactures sell cars based on a make believe number, horsepower. so yes if it is a "half truth" they can sell BD on that.

 

[braincruser]

How was piledriver shown to be a fail? it was reported that it increased Performance clock-for-clock for 15%, with a small clock speed increase it could be again a viable CPU, it will not perform better than ivy bridge but it will get much closer to it than buldozer.

 

[rishiswaz]

and there you go again saying BD has 8 cores. no one buys the "amd couldnt sell it as a 8 core if it wasnt"

The bulldozer architecture has 4 pipelines, 1 integer scheduler, 2 ALUs, and 2 AGUs per core. Each module has 2 FMAC 128 bit FPUs and 1 FP scheduler. A CPU core is an area on the chip that has the circuitry needed for data manipulation and dedicated cache. So BD cores have data manipulation, L1 D cache, and WCC cache.

BD core= a real core.

For more effecient multi-threaded applications 256bit floating point integer calculations are handled on a module basis to allow other processes to continue on each core. L2 cache is more stressed on those because L2 is shared among the 2 cores that make up 1 module and the 2 FMAC FPUs.

 

[amuffin]

BD core= a real core.

LOL

 

[$hawn]

The bulldozer architecture has 4 pipelines, 1 integer scheduler, 2 ALUs, and 2 AGUs per core. Each module has 2 FMAC 128 bit FPUs and 1 FP scheduler. A CPU core is an area on the chip that has the circuitry needed for data manipulation and dedicated cache. So BD cores have data manipulation, L1 D cache, and WCC cache.

BD core= a real core.

For more effecient multi-threaded applications 256bit floating point integer calculations are handled on a module basis to allow other processes to continue on each core. L2 cache is more stressed on those because L2 is shared among the 2 cores that make up 1 module and the 2 FMAC FPUs.

^ I support u brother Had the same argument a week ago
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-337397_28_50.html

ATTENTION:- Only attempting to have a technical discussion here, not a war

 

[cbrunnem]

The bulldozer architecture has 4 pipelines, 1 integer scheduler, 2 ALUs, and 2 AGUs per core. Each module has 2 FMAC 128 bit FPUs and 1 FP scheduler. A CPU core is an area on the chip that has the circuitry needed for data manipulation and dedicated cache. So BD cores have data manipulation, L1 D cache, and WCC cache.

BD core= a real core.

For more effecient multi-threaded applications 256bit floating point integer calculations are handled on a module basis to allow other processes to continue on each core. L2 cache is more stressed on those because L2 is shared among the 2 cores that make up 1 module and the 2 FMAC FPUs.

so if a "core" is something that can manipulate data then wouldnt that make i7's 8 cores as well because even hyperthreading manipulates data?

 

[amuffin]

By his logic, yes.

 

[rishiswaz]

so if a "core" is something that can manipulate data then wouldnt that make i7's 8 cores as well because even hyperthreading manipulates data?

A core is on the chip, I think you should read my post more carefully. i7's 8 threads come from 4 physical cores each with 2 threads running on them.

 

[amuffin]

So how does a BD Module equal a core then?