AMD FX 8370E vs intel i3-4370 in gaming

[immafrog1337]

AMD FX 8370E vs intel i3-4370 in gaming

 

[geofelt]

No contest, the i3 will be better.
Here is a review :
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8427/amd-fx-8370e-cpu-review-vishera-95w/3

 

[immafrog1337]

hmmm its seems so

 

[FALC0N]

Unless you overclock. Then then the advantage is neutralized and the FX being faster in non-gaming situations. Overclocking on the 4370 is locked.

 

[cowboy44mag]

Let me ask you something: do you want to play games from 2012-2014 or are you interested in playing games in 2015 and beyond? There are A LOT of Intel fanboys and AMD haters all over these forums and the web in general these days, and a lot of what they are saying either isn't true or is based upon facts from yesteryear.

Fact is most games made during the hay-day of Intel gaming superiority were the products of ports from the last generation of consoles, mainly the Xbox 360 as it was the easier to port from the tricky coding of the PS3. The Xbox 360 had 3 cores therefore most games only ran on 1-3 cores, usually only utilizing 2. So if you want to only play those games the i3 is a great choice as most games only ran on 2 cores and like any Intel the cores are very powerful.

Now going into 2015 and beyond game developers are making games for PS4 and porting to PC. The PS4 has 8 weaker AMD Jaguar cores running a max 2.0Ghz. To be able to produce next gen games using the hardware developers are going to have to produce games that are highly multithreaded and spread the workload to as many of those weaker cores as possible. Some new titles are a prelude into what gaming is going to look like in the future. Take for example Shadow of Mordor: minimum requirement i5 quad core computer recommended i7 (for Intel builds) minimum requirement Phenom II 965 quad core recommended FX 8320 (for AMD builds). The reason is it is more multithreaded requiring more than 2 cores to run it smoothly. Now this game is a first try at multithreading for the next gen console, and has limitations as well, more than likely because it is also available for the outdated Xbox 360 and PS3 at the lowest settings with Nemesis system disabled. The point is at this early stage of developing for the next gen consoles we already have an example of where a dual core can't even be recommended. I have read reports of i3 being able to run Shadow of Mordor at the lowest settings, and with glitches, but is that how you want to game?

The main difference between AMD and Intel processors is AMD makes processors that do very well in multithreaded applications and Intel processors have the most powerful cores and thus handle single and dual threaded applications better than any AMD processor can. Most benchmark tests take advantage of this single core domination to make it look like AMD processors can't do anything, however in benchmarks that will test the entire cpu (not just one or two threads) FX processors fair much better. For example my FX 8370 @ 4.5 Ghz scores 725 on Cinebench R15 which is better than i5 4690K @ 4.5Ghz reported scores of 690-700 cpu benchmarking. Now in any benchmark that will only test one or two cores / threads of course the Intel will out benchmark the AMD. Point is that as games and other software become more and more multithreaded the i3 and even the i5 aren't going to be superior to the FX 8 core lineup. That is a fact that no one in the Intel fanboy club want to admit or face.

So if you want a gaming platform for the future and not the past, if your budget will only place you in the FX 8320 - FX 8370(E) line or Intel i3 - i5 lineup I would suggest the FX 8370(E). Its cheaper than the i5 4690K, yet when the entire cpu is able to be benchmarked it will outperform the much vaunted, more expensive i5 4690K. We already have examples of games that require at minimum i5 quad core or Phenom II quad core to run them. Games by the end of 2015 going into 2016 will require more than i3 dual core processors. The very best choice would of course be i7 quad cores with 8 threads or the very expensive i7 8 core processor, however if your budget won't allow for the i7 then I believe that the FX 8 core lineup is the best choice going forward. I know Intel fanboys will post many benchmarks and games that i5s dominate the FX line, but again we are just getting into games that are multithreaded, Even Shadow of Mordor only utilizes 6 cores on my FX 8370, and I've never seen it go above 60% on any of the cores. Once games are optimized better for multiple cores (and to run on PS4 they will have to be) and utilize 6-8 cores at 80, 90, or even 100% your not going to hear about FX processors bottlenecking GPUs and your going to see it as a much stronger gamer than it currently is (and currently there isn't any game I can't max out on with my Sapphire R9 290). No matter what the Intel crowd says there are games right now that have the i5 listed as the bare minimum suggested to run them. Intel fans say the FX is a dead socket- it is true, but keep in mind that the next gen of Intel is also going to be on a new socket, so that is a dead socket too. Broadwell won't use the same socket as Haswell so neither Haswell or FX sockets will have future development.

In short if you want to try to have a system futureproofed between i3 and FX 8370E go for the FX 8370E. Only a true Intel loving fanboy would suggest an i3 when there are games being released that an i3 can't even run.

 

[TwistedFury]

Cowboy is right, games are starting to take advantage of Multi-Thread technology more now, and if you're planning on playing more modern games, go with the 8370E

 

[DKFish]

I3's > are much faster in real world gaming than any other fx proccesor ( at least skylake ones )

Fx render better due to their more cores but who cares aint nobody care fo dat ) *and then i7 and i5 walk in *

 

[Ecky]

i3 wins in most games at stock, but with a healthy overclock, the FX is still a respectable chip and will play most games smoothly. There are a few games that are very single-thread limited, such as Arma3, which will run considerably better on an i3 than even an FX-9590, but you'll see better average framerates with an FX (by a little) in games that are well-threaded such as the Battlefield series. The i3's performance in games is more consistent, really, which is why I give it the nod, but the FX will be a lot better in anything that can load up all of its cores, such as decompression and encoding that aren't GPU accelerated, which is less and less common as time goes on.

More importantly, the i3 has the drop-in upgrade of an i5 or i7 available, while AM3+ is a dead-end, and will draw 1/3 to 1/2 of the power while performing similarly or better in games.

 

[DKFish]

i3 wins in most games at stock, but with a healthy overclock, the FX is still a respectable chip and will play most games smoothly. There are a few games that are very single-thread limited, such as Arma3, which will run considerably better on an i3 than even an FX-9590, but you'll see better average framerates with an FX (by a little) in games that are well-threaded such as the Battlefield series. The i3's performance in games is more consistent, really, which is why I give it the nod, but the FX will be a lot better in anything that can load up all of its cores, such as decompression and encoding that aren't GPU accelerated, which is less and less common as time goes on.

More importantly, the i3 has the drop-in upgrade of an i5 or i7 available, while AM3+ is a dead-end, and will draw 1/3 to 1/2 of the power while performing similarly or better in games.

 

[stinkybird]

Ecky summed it up perfectly. My broken down system (waiting for new parts), was an AM3+ motherboard with a Phenom II x6 1090t. I did not feel I could justify spending $150 for an 8350 on a dead end platform, so I was going to wait for Zen.

Anyway my motherboard died last month, and this gave me an excuse to move over to Intel, and start with an i3 6100. When I get more money I will sell the i3 and get an i5 or i7. AMD single core performance cannot compare to Intel.