AMD processor that beats i3-3220

[TTGZDOG]

I currently have an i3-3220 and i am looking for something a bit faster. I do mild gaming and a bit of multitasking. I plan on overclocking alot too. I need a good Motherboard that allows high overclock if you guys would recommend me one of these too. something arpund 150$ for the Processor and around 80 for the motherboard.

Thanks Guys!

 

[TTGZDOG]

I cant decide on that amd build or upgrading to a i5-3570K and overclocking. Which would be more efficient. im spending around 100$ either way.

If you can save 60$ more, I will suggest you to buy 4690K and ASUS Z97-A. 4690k is better than 8350.

Thanks alot for all your help guys. Im going to continue our research and ill decide later. I want to make the best decision with my money.

 

[shiva92]

I cant decide on that amd build or upgrading to a i5-3570K and overclocking. Which would be more efficient. im spending around 100$ either way.

If you can save 60$ more, I will suggest you to buy 4690K and ASUS Z97-A. 4690k is better than 8350.

Thanks alot for all your help guys. Im going to continue our research and ill decide later. I want to make the best decision with my money.

Good decision. Think before you do

 

[mlscrow]

An i5-4670k would require an upgraded motherboard. There are Intel fans and AMD fans, I am an AMD fan to the core and can and will defend them in all areas, with logic and reason, but even I, being and AMD fan will admit, that in terms of performance, Intel is currently the king. If you are after strait up performance, go find ani5-3570k, delid the thing, phase change liquid metal alloy, and OC that puppy to 4.6 - 5.0GHz.

If you are heart-set on AMD, to support the underdog and an interesting and unique architecture, although it is much less efficient, then go with an FX-8370(E). I like the "e", cuz when you aren't gaming, it'll use a lot less power than the standard 8350/70, however, you can still OC that bad boy to 4.6-5.0GHz as well, and it's not a bad CPU at all, regardless of what Intel fans say. It'll kick ass at multi-threaded situations that can use over 4 cores. It, contrary to what Intel fans like to believe and what AMD marketing idiots like to embellish as a selling point, it only has 4 cores. Each AMD "module" has two half cores sharing the same resources. A single Intel core is equivalent to a single AMD module, which is why the FX-8350/70 is constantly head to head with the i5 quad cores rather than an i7 or above (hex cores, etc.), and with the FX, costing about 50% less than its i5 counterpart, it ends up being better on the price/performance ratio. Yeah, it'll use more power, but since you're talking about a desktop and battery life isn't a concern, power consumption doesn't really matter.

You're okay with either option you go with, Intel or AMD. If you can save money going with AMD and that is what you're trying to do, go for it imo. Especially with Mantle, and DX12 in the near future, bringing so much performance out of AMD CPU's, they are actually becoming viable options.

Good luck!

 

[TTGZDOG]

An i5-4670k would require an upgraded motherboard. There are Intel fans and AMD fans, I am an AMD fan to the core and can and will defend them in all areas, with logic and reason, but even I, being and AMD fan will admit, that in terms of performance, Intel is currently the king. If you are after strait up performance, go find ani5-3570k, delid the thing, phase change liquid metal alloy, and OC that puppy to 4.6 - 5.0GHz.

If you are heart-set on AMD, to support the underdog and an interesting and unique architecture, although it is much less efficient, then go with an FX-8370(E). I like the "e", cuz when you aren't gaming, it'll use a lot less power than the standard 8350/70, however, you can still OC that bad boy to 4.6-5.0GHz as well, and it's not a bad CPU at all, regardless of what Intel fans say. It'll kick ass at multi-threaded situations that can use over 4 cores. It, contrary to what Intel fans like to believe and what AMD marketing idiots like to embellish as a selling point, it only has 4 cores. Each AMD "module" has two half cores sharing the same resources. A single Intel core is equivalent to a single AMD module, which is why the FX-8350/70 is constantly head to head with the i5 quad cores rather than an i7 or above (hex cores, etc.), and with the FX, costing about 50% less than its i5 counterpart, it ends up being better on the price/performance ratio. Yeah, it'll use more power, but since you're talking about a desktop and battery life isn't a concern, power consumption doesn't really matter.

You're okay with either option you go with, Intel or AMD. If you can save money going with AMD and that is what you're trying to do, go for it imo. Especially with Mantle, and DX12 in the near future, bringing so much performance out of AMD CPU's, they are actually becoming viable options.

Good luck!

Thanks alot. Ive been doing some research and found that the i5 doesn't pass the 8350 in many ways at all in the gaming aspect. im pretty sure with the 8350 i can run lets say 5 minecrafts at one better or have 20 google chrome tabs open and still play games. that's what ive gathered so far and i hope im moving in the right direction. I have allways been a fan of overclocking and allways wanted to do it. Please correct me in my errors guys. Thanks alot agian!

 

[DubbleClick]

The best solution was already given, an I5 3450 would make the most sense by far. For a fx 8350 to match it in st benchmarks or overall common performance, you'd need to drive the fx 8350 to 5ghz, which will likely require a $100 cooler, a $180 motherboard and the $180 fx 8350 itself. You'll go a lot out of budget and may end up needing to upgrade your PSU as well. Not to mention your power bill which would literally explode (expect >200w average power draw instead of ~50w). And that is just to MATCH the locked I5 3450. If you are so set on overclocking (for whatever reason, it isn't worth the price point usually) you can get an I5 3570k and get it to ~4.4ghz rather easily. That still goes cheaper than the fx + board, which would now need to be clocked on ~7ghz to match the single thread performance of the I5.

 

[DubbleClick]

As or your last post, no idea what benchmarks are showing a fx 8350 ahead of an I5 3450. The only I know is the one from teksyndicate and that is faked so badly and contrary to every other benchmark there is that noone who spent 2 minutes of google would believe it.
As for running 5 minecraft games at the same time, either would result in unplayable lag battles. Don't just think the fx would do better because it has "8 cores". Two of those share resources and roughly match one core of an I7 (which has hyperthreading which is essentially useless in games). About 20 google chrome tabs at the same time, neither would take any penalty by that. You could have a BILLION of tabs open and wouldn't se any performance decrease. You have on active tab, the rest are simply freezed while not active. Media players work around by that, but I doubt you really want to have 20 different songs playing in the background at once.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5

An I5 3450 is roughly 5-10% slower than the I5 4690. An I5 3570k at 4.4ghz would be around I7 4790k at stock.

Edit: Oh, two sites before the dGpu gaming benchmarks you can also see synthetic ones.

 

[TTGZDOG]

As or your last post, no idea what benchmarks are showing a fx 8350 ahead of an I5 3450. The only I know is the one from teksyndicate and that is faked so badly and contrary to every other benchmark there is that noone who spent 2 minutes of google would believe it.
As for running 5 minecraft games at the same time, either would result in unplayable lag battles. Don't just think the fx would do better because it has "8 cores". Two of those share resources and roughly match one core of an I7 (which has hyperthreading which is essentially useless in games). About 20 google chrome tabs at the same time, neither would take any penalty by that. You could have a BILLION of tabs open and wouldn't se any performance decrease. You have on active tab, the rest are simply freezed while not active. Media players work around by that, but I doubt you really want to have 20 different songs playing in the background at once.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5

An I5 3450 is roughly 5-10% slower than the I5 4690. An I5 3570k at 4.4ghz would be around I7 4790k at stock.

Edit: Oh, two sites before the dGpu gaming benchmarks you can also see synthetic ones.

how well can i oc the 3570k with a ga b75m

 

[shiva92]

Don't think about 3570k..... If you plan to buy i5, get 4690k and ASUS Z97-A mobo.

 

[Tanner Fredrickson]

I also have no idea how you think an FX-8350 is faster than an i5, but it's not true. I'm not going to find it since I have to leave in 3 minutes, but there's a benchmark floating around here that shows the FX-8350 matching or losing to i3s in games like Dragon Age Inquisition or Far Cry 4.

Here's your i3-3220 beating the FX-8350 in Thief, since I remember the source of this benchmark. AMD CPUs are so unsuited for gaming it's hilarious.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/787/bench/CPU_01.png

If you have an HD 7770 (you said that, right?), you will not see a significant performance increase in games from upgrading your CPU.

For multitasking, switching to an SSD would help more than switching CPUs.

 

[TTGZDOG]

Don't think about 3570k..... If you plan to buy i5, get 4690k and ASUS Z97-A mobo.

Thats starting to get way out of my range. Why is the 4690 so much better than thr 3570?

 

[Tanner Fredrickson]

The difference between an i5-3570 and an i5-4690 is negligible. Not worthwhile if it would force you to switch motherboards. These elitists who assume everyone is made of money just annoy me so much.

 

[TTGZDOG]

Because ive looked at alot of bechmarks and seen that the 4690 isnt too far ahead of the 3570. But is it worth the pricedifference to upgrade mt mobo and buy a 240$ cpu when i can get a 3570 for 170$ and a decent oc mobo for around 110$

 

[TTGZDOG]

im also seeing how the 2500K is also a great and very cheap chip to get. for he price i dont think its much worse than either of the other i5 processors especially for a 80-120$ difference.

 

[LucoTF]

I don't know why anyone in this thread is suggesting anything other than an upgrade to an i5 in his existing motherboard.

the i5 3570k is a rock solid gaming CPU. Even the non OC i5-3570 is solid.

 

[Tanner Fredrickson]

@LucoTF

I agree.
He could even stick an i5-3570k in his current board and not get an overclocking board until he needs it...

But his heart seems set on overclocking right away. Even though there's nothing wrong with his i3-3220 and he'd still get better gaming performance replacing his GPU or better multitasking by adding an SSD.

Lots of misleading information and guesswork floating around this thread.

 

[TTGZDOG]

Im prety set on an ivy i5 at this point and probably getting a better mobo at some other point. Thanks alot guys.

 

[DubbleClick]

Im prety set on an ivy i5 at this point and probably getting a better mobo at some other point. Thanks alot guys.

That kind of defeats the whole purpose of the ivy i5, though. You can just stay with your current mobo and get an i5 3450/3570k and do a fair oc of 400mhz to the first or probably up to 1ghz to the latter (cpu and mobo dependant, so no way to say that now).