AMD fx 8350 vs intel i5 4570

[Mazen Atef]

majority Graphics softwares ( photoshop, after effect 3d max , .... etc )
Secondary usage for heavy games like BF 4 , Gta 5

 

[i7Baby]

As CPUs, overall they are about the same.

But see http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html - for gaming, the i5 is a step above the amd cpu.

GTA V - http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=1308&game=Grand%20Theft%20Auto%20V - either would run GTA V at high settings.

 

[rmpumper]

i5 all the way:

 

[Mazen Atef]

i5 all the way:

the problem that there is no k version in egypt

 

[kwa-e]

The 4460 is fairly powerful enough.

 

[i7Baby]

Then why did you ask about them?

 

[kwa-e]

Although the 8350 is superior in threaded workloads, the processing power you can get for the price is really good.

 

[Mazen Atef]

Then why did you ask about them?

i typed (K) by mistake

 

[Vaggos]

go with 8350 bcs you want the extra cores for the tasks besides gaming and with directx12 you ll be able to take advantage of all your cores including gaming

 

[DeathRabit]

Witcher 3 is benefits from extra cores 1080P Ultra Titan Z
(low/avg)
Core i7 4790K – 65.0/84.4
Core i5 4690K – 52.0/79.2
Core i3 4130 – 38.0/68.9
G3258 at 4.5GHz OC – 27.0/63.8
FX 8350 – 56.0/75.2
FX 6300 – 45.0/69.6

Source: http://wccftech.com/witcher-3-cpu-benchmarks-fx-63008350-i7-4790ki5-4690ki3-4130g3258-oc/

 

[maddogfargo]

It's really going to depend on the games and apps you use.

In well threaded apps and games the FX 8350 will perform like an i7.

In older or poorly optimized apps and games that don't use all CPU cores, an i5 will be faster than an 8350.

 

[Vaggos]

if you re on a bugdet go with 8320(same chip with the 8350,lower speed, piece of cake to oc) but if you have no cash problem go with an i7 bcs its not worth the extra bucks for the i5

 

[DubbleClick]

Is it not? An I5 4590 on a cheap motherboard will cost the same as a fx 8350 on a cheap motherboard and outperform it in 99,9% of all games.

When talking about your other mentioned workloads, you need to check benchmarks for the exact software you use and decide which tasks are most important to you. If you happen to mostly work with an application that works better on the fx but the I5 wins in most other scenarios (which is quite likely), the fx is the better choice. If you're however using all applications evenly often with the same priority, the choice is an I5 clearly.

 

[Vaggos]

no need to buy the 8350. non K may be better but when u oc the 8320 its the same if not better(depending the oc) and u can't oc that i5 so with less/same money u have more powerful rig and u can multitasking better. moreover dont forget the dx12 which will help th 8 cores more than 4 cores

 

[DubbleClick]

Directx 12 will have no direct effect on games performance - and in the case of specifically using it's features that allow for better optimization the fx wouldn't suddenly outperform an i5. But even then, directx12 changing anything is highly unlikely. You can code games so well there exist literally no performance issues at all and spread workload very even with dx11, dx10 or even dx9. The overhead introduced by the api is usually small.

Also, a fx 8320 can not multitask better than an i5, I have no idea how people get to that assumption. There's a strong difference between multitasking and running a well threaded application designed to fully use all resources.

What you get with the fx 8320/50 is a cpu that's better in selected applications - but in the majority (and all games) the i5 outperforms it for the same money.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1261?vs=697

If there's a heavy need for both, there's also the option of an i7, though.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1260?vs=697

(Keep in mind not all scores are "higher is better").

 

[Vaggos]

dx12 will 'enable' all cores in gaming, so it's no more single core or 2-4 core games. dx12 will change a lot of things. i never said 83** is better..besides everyone knows that intel>amd(at least for now ). try playing a game while streaming and record and listening to music with a 4 core and u ll see the difference. yes the i5 putperforms the 83** in all games for 1/3 more money (at least here) and for what? 10+- fps more.unless u re an fps freak it s not worth it, for me always

 

[DeathRabit]

From current info dx 12 scale well up to six threads, mantle still scale well 8+ threads. FX 6300 for gamers choices
http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/mt_scaling.PNG.png

In short on DX12 you can go cheap CPU + High end GPU and not see any bottleneck
Long version DX12 need lees CPU power to do this same, an in addition can benefit with additional cores.

 

[Vaggos]

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4570-vs-AMD-FX-8350

 

[kwa-e]

Cpuboss.com makes horrible comparisons.

 

[Vaggos]

not really. it depends the product
check the net for these two cpus. the amd one is better to choose from t least in this case scenario

 

[DubbleClick]

dx12 will 'enable' all cores in gaming, so it's no more single core or 2-4 core games.

No. It will not. It doesn't change anything of the actual background code running in a game, it only changes how the gpu reacts to cpu calls and what calls the cpu can make.

dx12 will change a lot of things.

It will allow to lessen the api overhead, partially by forcing developers to manually manage memory, which will be a big putoff for some.

i never said 83** is better..besides everyone knows that intel>amd(at least for now ). try playing a game while streaming and record and listening to music with a 4 core and u ll see the difference. yes the i5 putperforms the 83** in all games for 1/3 more money (at least here) and for what? 10+- fps more.unless u re an fps freak it s not worth it, for me always

The i5 is however not more expensive, contrary, it's cheaper when factoring in power consumption.

 

[kwa-e]

50w difference between the 8350 and the i5 is likely only got to bring about a 5USD every year, or just about a quarter and a dime extra every month. (still cheaper than the i7 in rendering, only about 10-15USD extra per year over the Intel HT quad core.)

On another completely off topic note:
And what if AMD mantle was just a test run of DX12?, and that MS and AMD is working together? :OOOoooOOooO

(They're similar enough, to similar it seems)

Edit: I expect the potential performance gains of DX12 to lower "bottlenecks" to be quite high, though. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2900814/tested-directx-12s-potential-performance-leap-is-insane.html

But I digress, we should get back on topic before this thread derails itself into one horrible wrecked mess.

 

[Vaggos]

we ll see how it rolls when it comes out.. power consumption is not a thing. you have to keep the cpu for about 5-7 years to get even for the difference in the price. and the 8350 is better than the 4570 and 4690 in other hand is better than 8320

 

[Mazen Atef]

dx12 will 'enable' all cores in gaming, so it's no more single core or 2-4 core games. dx12 will change a lot of things. i never said 83** is better..besides everyone knows that intel>amd(at least for now ). try playing a game while streaming and record and listening to music with a 4 core and u ll see the difference. yes the i5 putperforms the 83** in all games for 1/3 more money (at least here) and for what? 10+- fps more.unless u re an fps freak it s not worth it, for me always

we ll see how it rolls when it comes out.. power consumption is not a thing. you have to keep the cpu for about 5-7 years to get even for the difference in the price. and the 8350 is better than the 4570 and 4690 in other hand is better than 8320

Dont forget that amd fx8*** contains simulated cores while intel not

 

[Vaggos]

u cant see any difference though