AMD FX-8320 vs Intel Core i5-3570K?

[thatfancypenn]

Before you leave a reply, make sure that you have valid information and that you don't just completely fanboy.

I am mainly going to be gaming. Plain and simple. I'm building a computer and am trying to decide between these two CPU's because the AMD one is much cheaper paired with the motherboard. Is it worth it to spend the extra $80 for an Intel CPU? Why or why not?

FYI: I am going to be running one of the two CPU's with an EVGA GTX780. Not sure if that'd help, but if it does, there it is. Let me know if you need anymore information about my build.

 

[AnEwG]

It is worth it if you want better gaming performance, especially in titles that favor stronger single threaded performance. If you play games like BF or FarCry 3 you won't notice much of a difference between the two chips, but if you play games like Thief or MMO then the single threaded dominance of the Intel chip will really show itself.

 

[lantrich]

Both are excellent CPUs. Either one will not bottleneck the EVGA GTX 780.

 

[TG_thoMz]

First off I go with the 4670k if you're going to go intel.
Well if you are looking for max fps, the 3570k will be better. Difference is about 5-10% in most games but could be as much as 20% some games. Also the 3570 uses less power. However I think you could get that $80 a little closer even with the 4670K. $275-$300 vs $250-275

 

[thatfancypenn]

I am going to be playing multiple games such as DayZ, NFS: Rivals, BF4, etc. Not really an MMO person.

 

[ewok93]

I would go with the 8320 as it will perform about as well in those games, and you will get good FPS either way. I would use that $80 for a cooler and overclock, or for an SSD. The 3570k will give better single threaded performance, but the 8320 performs better when all cores are being utilized. This is not common, but it is happening more frequently in games. You will get over 60 fps in just about any game either way, so it won't matter much.

 

[thatfancypenn]

I would go with the 8320 as it will perform about as well in those games, and you will get good FPS either way. I would use that $80 for a cooler and overclock, or for an SSD. The 3570k will give better single threaded performance, but the 8320 performs better when all cores are being utilized. This is not common, but it is happening more frequently in games. You will get over 60 fps in just about any game either way, so it won't matter much.

Already getting an H80i and a 120GB SSD. I'll just save the money

 

[ewok93]

Yeah, the 3570k is definitely better, but honestly it is just not necessary. It's $80 more for a maximum of maybe 10 fps on some games, and the 8320 pulls even on quite a few current games.

 

[thatfancypenn]

Yeah, the 3570k is definitely better, but honestly it is just not necessary. It's $80 more for a maximum of maybe 10 fps on some games, and the 8320 pulls even on quite a few current games.

About how many frames could I get while playing BF4 on high/ultra? Because if I get at least 60 frames with the 8320 then I would not really mind the difference.

 

[coolcole01]

Hmmm if a bargain is what you are looking for then the fx 8320/8350 are awesome will give you great performance no question in90% of games. If you spend more for a 3770 or higher you will get very similar performance in the majority of games but cheaply threaded games like planetside 2 or saints row 4 the fx chip will be weak. And the Intel chip will be good in everything. It's all abouts the moneys.

 

[coolcole01]

I get about 160 fps with mantle using my crossfire hd 7950's and my overclocked 8350 in bf4 so it can handle it. In multiplayer maxed everything.

 

[ewok93]

Yeah, the 8320 will definitely give you over 60 fps.

 

[TG_thoMz]

I would go with the 8320 as it will perform about as well in those games, and you will get good FPS either way. I would use that $80 for a cooler and overclock, or for an SSD. The 3570k will give better single threaded performance, but the 8320 performs better when all cores are being utilized. This is not common, but it is happening more frequently in games. You will get over 60 fps in just about any game either way, so it won't matter much.

I get about 160 fps with mantle using my crossfire hd 7950's and my overclocked 8350 in bf4 so it can handle it. In multiplayer maxed everything.

What res is that at? Or do you mean max fps? I didn't average that @1080 with my old 7970's not even close.

 

[thatfancypenn]

Yeah, the 8320 will definitely give you over 60 fps.

Thanks! I'll actually just go with an 8350 so I can get a good overclock 😀

 

[ewok93]

The 8320 is the same chip as the 8350 with a factory overclock, so the 8320 is definitely the better choice if you're overclocking it.

 

[thatfancypenn]

The 8320 is the same chip as the 8350 with a factory overclock, so the 8320 is definitely the better choice if you're overclocking it.

Alright well more money for games then! 😀

 

[ewok93]

Factory underclock, rather. The 8320 is great if you're going to overclock. Sometimes the 8350 uses better silicon, but it's going to be a 1-3mhz difference on the best motherboard with the best cooling at best.

 

[coolcole01]

Battlefield 4 1080p in multiplayer with mantle max everything depends on the map but the average across all is about 130 max 183 min 65 in extremely heavy areas. Its crazy how much mantle helps my rig in this game. In direct x I get about 90fps avg

 

[ewok93]

Yeah, so you're not going to have issues with FPS with an 8320.

 

[coolcole01]

I have two fx8320s in two computers each has an hd 7870ghz in then and they play Bioshock infinite maxed at 60fps.

 

[pud469]

I have both, 1 rig all AMD, CPU: 8320 and 2x r9 280x 3GB crossfire. The other Intel/NVidia CPU:i5 3570k and 2x GTX 770 4GB SLI. All this while running eyefinty/surround (I have also tested with only 1 gpu), both CPUs have aftermarket coolers, but running stock speeds for comparision. I only really play COD Advanced Warfare and Titanfall, but have spent a bit with watchdogs. I have not documented the frames per second, only from memory, also the video cards have some effect on performance between the 2, but they pretty much trade blows with each other. So with my experience........ Titanfall hands down works better with the intel rig, with the exception of the NVidia cards (only in SLI) producing a flicker with lens flare. Loading times and FPS were lower in the AMD rig with the same settings, also had some micro stutter in crossfire. Advanced warfare is about the same on both machines. (The AMD had much usage on all 8 core while playing, making me think that it optimized for 8 cores, but I could not find any information on this) Be sure if using AMD cards you get the latest Omega drives for Advanced Warfare, they sure improved everything. Watchdogs had the better experience with the AMD rig, which is also "optimized" (if you call it that, for 8 cores). If you are short on change the AMD route seems the way to go, if you have a few bucks to burn, I'd shoot for and i7 3770k, or Haswell equivalent. Watch dogs does preform much better on the i7 than the i5 in benchmarks even though its 4 cores, but hyperthreaded. There is nothing wrong with the i5 and I'm happy with it, just wishing I would have spent the money for the i7 for the scenarios that would take advantage of its ability. So to answer the question, I would have just went with the 8320 to save the money. As of the time of writing, AMD has released a new line of FX 83xx series CPUs with lower wattage (95 watts), I have had no experience with them, but spec wise, should really be similar to the 8320/8350.