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

 

[DubbleClick]

You obviously can, that is proven by all benchmarks. i5 4460 > fx 9590 for gaming.

And power consumption is a non issue? With the pc running 4 hours a day you'll spend about $10 extra a year (fx 8350 instead of i5), given electricity is dirt cheap where you live. Actually more like $35 in Germany.

 

[crispytheone]

You will get AMD fanboys, and Intel Fanboys, read the posts, the ones who say things like AMD wrecks your power bill, Intel, Those who say AMD 8350 is better at gaming that an I5-4690k, AMD

Reality

FX-8350 is a very good processor, it does some things very well, some heavily threaded tasks can be accomplished in about the same time as an I5-4690k and at times it does better. For multitasking, like recording video, recording audio and gaming, it is really amazing for the price.

For Gaming, the I5-4570 that you mentioned, is a BEAST, it is better than the 8350, DX12 won't change that, but it will help the 8350 a tiny bit more than the I5, but in reality, it will help both.

People are going to bash AMD or Intel because there is a team mentality, its dumb, but there is, I do own both, Like both, If I was able to afford it I would be rocking an I7-4690k, but I can't I have some audio and video production stuff I work on, and choose the 8350, it has been great, it games well, and handles the work load I throw at it well.

Be wise, research, understand what each CPU does well, and make an informed purchase

 

[DubbleClick]

You seem to have literally no idea how games work or how the gpu works together with the cpu.
Only one core being able to communicate with the gpu is a non issue, really. And the api does not change anything about a games backend code either. If a game does heavily rely on a two threads doing the main work, an api allowing to have 8 cores communicate will do absolutely nothing.
If you have your game well running - the visualization api is a choice of preference mostly. You can create a well scheduled game and it will run flawlessly on anything from directx9 to directx12. Yes, newer apis do reduce api overhead, which will help all cpus the same (due to graphical computations being done more efficient on new gpu parts). Deny it all you want, an I5 4460 is superior to a fx 9590 in games now and it will likely stay that way forever. Just as a fx 9590 will absolutely kill an I5 4460 when it comes to well threaded applications handeling forseeable work. There might and will happen minor tweaks helping one side more than the other, but that won't completely turn the table.

As for power consumption, fx cpus don't screw your power bill, but it is going to be considerably higher than with an I5. Especially when having a fx 8350 overclocked to ~4.8ghz. I think we can all agree that 380w versus 80w are a ridiculous difference.

Edit: No, a fx 8350 at 5.0ghz does not close the difference in single core performance to an I5 4590. Not even close to. The latter turbos to 3.6/3.7ghz by the way and to match that the fx would need to be clocked at 7.0-7.2ghz for scenarios with less than 5 threads being used, so that the piledriver modules can dedicate all resources to one core.

 

[crispytheone]

You seem to have literally no idea how games work or how the gpu works together with the cpu.
Only one core being able to communicate with the gpu is a non issue, really. And the api does not change anything about a games backend code either. If a game does heavily rely on a two threads doing the main work, an api allowing to have 8 cores communicate will do absolutely nothing.
If you have your game well running - the visualization api is a choice of preference mostly. You can create a well scheduled game and it will run flawlessly on anything from directx9 to directx12. Yes, newer apis do reduce api overhead, which will help all cpus the same (due to graphical computations being done more efficient on new gpu parts). Deny it all you want, an I5 4460 is superior to a fx 9590 in games now and it will likely stay that way forever. Just as a fx 9590 will absolutely kill an I5 4460 when it comes to well threaded applications handeling forseeable work. There might and will happen minor tweaks helping one side more than the other, but that won't completely turn the table.

As for power consumption, fx cpus don't screw your power bill, but it is going to be considerably higher than with an I5. Especially when having a fx 8350 overclocked to ~4.8ghz. I think we can all agree that 380w versus 80w are a ridiculous difference.

Edit: No, a fx 8350 at 5.0ghz does not close the difference in single core performance to an I5 4590. Not even close to. The latter turbos to 3.6/3.7ghz by the way and to match that the fx would need to be clocked at 7.0-7.2ghz for scenarios with less than 5 threads being used, so that the piledriver modules can dedicate all resources to one core.

All you seem to do is go into these threads and do your best to BASH AMD, a 9590 vs a 4460, come on, I would bet some good money that the 9590 would do better in say, Witcher 3, considering an 8350 is right behind the 4690k, thats a safe bet, and that is NOW, not last years games, no, now, the games that are being made that are optimized for multicore CPUs, mostly because BOTH gaming consoles are what, oh yeah 8 CORE AMD.

And if look at the passmark scores, the 9590 is fairly close in single core(i5-4460 = 1959 FX-9590 = 1723), but obliterates the I5 in multi core(i5-4460 = 6673 FX-9590 = 10298), and it beats it in every Geekbench benchmark.

Now how is an overclocked 8350 overclocked to 4.8ghz = 380watts, when a 9590 is 220 watts at 5ghz, same processor, and that's what I'm talking about. you skew the facts to favor Intel

You do not need to do that, Intels I5-4690k is the best gaming CPU right now, it can stand on its own, it certainly does not you to exaggerate its performance capabilities or try to trivialize AMD's performance.

I have to admit to taking a casual approach to DX12, So I took some time to read up on what some trusted sites are saying, and yeah, it could be a boon for the 8 core AMD chips, and really give them quite a boost, looks promising, but I will wait for, you know, it to be released, and tests done before I try to blow a trumpet that does not currently exist.

 

[Mazen Atef]

Well, i have got completely confused

 

[Mazen Atef]

Guys i need simple answer will Amd i5 4570 will do the task i need or the fx ............. I updated the title of this post because therre is no K versions in egypt

 

[kwa-e]

If video editing is the main priority get the 8350

If gaming is the main priority get the i5, Simple as that.

 

[Vaggos]

if both are main priority get the FX just to be sure. more future proof with the Dx12 coming

 

[DubbleClick]

How a fx 8350 can draw 380w power when a fx 9590 draws 220w? Well, easy. The fx 9590 does not only draw 220w power, it has a tdp of 220w. Thermal design power and power consumption are two different things. An I7 4770k draws above 120w too at 4.4ghz even when the I7 4790k is a 88w tdp chip.

Aside of that - The Witcher 3 is one very optimized game (see how you don't need dx12 for that?). Look at all games released in the last few years, there are only a couple where amds fx cpu perform about as good as I5's and even then the latter still win.


http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5
http://blog.ibuypower.com/blog/2015/01/06/best-800-streaming-pc-part-3/
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/06/19/intel-core-i7-4790k-devil-s-canyon-review/5
etc etc. etc.

 

[DubbleClick]

@Vaggos: And what if most programs he's using are going to run on single threads - which is a quite reasonable possibility?

"Screw research, screw benchmarks, recommend amd" seems to be your motto.

 

[Vaggos]

Last few years??? u can't get it, right? u ll see in the 2016 games when the quad cores won't be enough

 

[Vaggos]

no my moto is buy the best u can get. intel is the right now. if i had the money i would have bought an i7.am not a fan boy.i just want the best for the money i spent. in this case the fx is better. rendering and editing programs tend to work better with more cores and dont forget about multitasking. u need a cpu to handle many tasks at the same time not just render or playing

 

[Mazen Atef]

no my moto is buy the best u can get. intel is the right now. if i had the money i would have bought an i7.am not a fan boy.i just want the best for the money i spent. in this case the fx is better. rendering and editing programs tend to work better with more cores and dont forget about multitasking. u need a cpu to handle many tasks at the same time not just render or playing

mmmmmm do you know that summer in egypt its avg temp. is 40 so i think amd would be exploded with overclocking ?

 

[kwa-e]

OC @40c ambient isn't a good idea unless you're airconditioned, Wait until temps drop to 30-35 before you try to OC.

 

[Mazen Atef]

OC @40c ambient isn't a good idea unless you're airconditioned, Wait until temps drop to 30-35 before you try to OC.

So i think i would buy amd to use 3D Softwares and some games till i buy new gfx

 

[Vaggos]

if u go with amd then u re gonna need an aftermarket cooler like the evo 212. here where i live the temps are 40 degrees also and more sometimes. always for a better gpu than a better cpu

 

[kwa-e]

Stock cooler is sufficient for stock clocks, even @40c ambient it will likely be enough, but be a tad more noisier. (Provided you have good airflow in your case)

You'll also need a graphics card for the AMD setup, The 8350 has no onboard GPU.

 

[Mazen Atef]

Stock cooler is sufficient for stock clocks, even @40c ambient it will likely be enough, but be a tad more noisier. (Provided you have good airflow in your case)

You'll also need a graphics card for the AMD setup, The 8350 has no onboard GPU.

i will buy cpu , 8gb ram , Motherboard. iam gonna delay gfx for a while i dont have enough $$ to buy a good one if a bought gfx now iam gonna buy cheap one ,,,,, i have amd radeon 6450 HD its awful ......

 

[Mazen Atef]

i heard that amd contains 4 actual cores each cores splited into 2 simulated, not all cores are built in software

 

[kwa-e]

Saving up for a GPU is a good option, but you won't be able to use the computer for a while.

Just wait until you have the money to buy all the parts in order to avoid any problems with RMA's and damaged parts.

 

[Mazen Atef]

and may be i change my mind and buy intel as my friends ( they are little exprienced ) say that intel is better

 

[Vaggos]

Intel is better in general. not in this case. the op said he already has a gpu but sucks

if u planning on oc in the future go with the 8320 to save some money. the stock cooler is as bad as it can be. my 8320 at stock speed with the stock cooler hits 80C while playing and it was november or December

 

[Neutr1n0]

Cut all the crap. Do yourself a favour and get the i5. Especially with the high ambient temps you have...

 

[Vaggos]

intel fanboy finally revealed himself... its crap when amd is better than intel in multitasking and multithreding applications. pff

 

[Vaggos]

http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1194&pid2=1140&compare=core-i5-4570-3-2ghz-vs-fx-8350