AMD Vishera FX-8350 Black Edition 4.0GHz or Core i5-4590

[poohge123]

The price at my country for these CPUs are quite close to one another (Amd being less expensive than Intel)

I plan on gaming at ultra settings on a 1080p display and I am set to purchasing a GTX 970.

My question is should i go AMD or Intel?

 

[camohanna]

Intel has stronger per-core performance so it will perform better than the 8350. I would recommend the intel i5.

 

[TechyInAZ]

Intel defiantly, and not just for the performance. With intel haswell you have the ability to upgrade to broadwell CPUs on all 9 series chipset motherboards.

 

[poohge123]

It doesnt matter if the AMD has 8 cores and has a higher clock speed? Ive been reading a lot on forums and reviews and i always end up getting confused.

 

[bgunner]

If it is in your budget get the i5 as it is much more powerful than the AMD FX 8350. You will not bottleneck the GPU with Intel but in some games the AMD CPU will hold back the GPU you have selected.

 

[poohge123]

If it is in your budget get the i5 as it is much more powerful than the AMD FX 8350. You will not bottleneck the GPU with Intel but in some games the AMD CPU will hold back the GPU you have selected.

I see, is there any instances why the AMD Cpu would be a better pick than the i5?

 

[bgunner]

Only if you run heavily threaded applications will the AMD 8 core beat the i5. There are only a few applications that you would use in normal everyday computing that are very well threaded where the 8 core would be the best choice. Because Intel CPU's have better single core performance only applications that can fully use all 8 cores of the AMD CPU will see better performance on AMD CPU's. ( The AMD's would need to be overclocked as well. ) Also Because of the single core performance they have Intel holds very well even sometimes surpassing an Overclocked AMD 6 core CPU's in well threaded applications. 7 zip being a well threaded application as an example.

 

[camohanna]

If it is in your budget get the i5 as it is much more powerful than the AMD FX 8350. You will not bottleneck the GPU with Intel but in some games the AMD CPU will hold back the GPU you have selected.

I see, is there any instances why the AMD Cpu would be a better pick than the i5?

Raw power e.g. unzipping files. Games only use ~4 cores so this is why the intel performs better as 1 intel core is stronger than 1 amd cores so in games 4 of the amd cores are not being used.

 

[ShadyHamster]

There are very few situations where the 8350 would be a better pick.
If you are streaming/recording gameplay.
If game can fully utilise 8 cores (very unlikely).
Maybe 3d editing/video rendering?
Want to save a few $$.

That's all i can think of.

 

[bgunner]

If it is in your budget get the i5 as it is much more powerful than the AMD FX 8350. You will not bottleneck the GPU with Intel but in some games the AMD CPU will hold back the GPU you have selected.

I see, is there any instances why the AMD Cpu would be a better pick than the i5?

Raw power e.g. unzipping files. Games only use ~4 cores so this is why the intel performs better as 1 intel core is stronger than 1 amd cores so in games 4 of the amd cores are not being used.

While your theory is sound there is an issue with your statement and that is that games only use 4 cores. This is untrue. Some games will use more than just the physical core and use the logical also. Crysis 3 being one of those games.

 

[camohanna]

If it is in your budget get the i5 as it is much more powerful than the AMD FX 8350. You will not bottleneck the GPU with Intel but in some games the AMD CPU will hold back the GPU you have selected.

I see, is there any instances why the AMD Cpu would be a better pick than the i5?

Raw power e.g. unzipping files. Games only use ~4 cores so this is why the intel performs better as 1 intel core is stronger than 1 amd cores so in games 4 of the amd cores are not being used.

While your theory is sound there is an issue with your statement and that is that games only use 4 cores. This is untrue. Some games will use more than just the physical core and use the logical also. Crysis 3 being one of those games.

Sorry, i meant that most games only use ~4 cores, and that in most instances the i5 will outperform the amd.

 

[poohge123]

I forget but i read somewhere that an AMD Cpu spreads the workload on all of it's cores. Dunno if it is true though, care to shed some light on that?

 

[camohanna]

I forget but i read somewhere that an AMD Cpu spreads the workload on all of it's cores. Dunno if it is true though, care to shed some light on that?

At the end of the day, it is mostly the gpu that depends on how well a game runs.

 

[poohge123]

So the i5 would outperform the 8350 in most cases? i wanna try to steer away from the people who favor intel and get an "unbiased " opinion but it seems to me that i5 is the clear winner.

Unless someone proves me wrong again and im back to square one.

 

[bgunner]

I forget but i read somewhere that an AMD Cpu spreads the workload on all of it's cores. Dunno if it is true though, care to shed some light on that?

this is done on both CPU's, AMD and Intel. This is accomplished by a Que order and what what is marked as high priority.

Lest say, as and example, even if the AMD could spread the work load better Intel's single core performance will get the job done in less time due to the fact each operation would finish quicker freeing up that core to do the next job assigned. Like i mentioned only apps that are heavily threaded will be faster on an OCed AMD FX 8350. Apps that can only use 4-6 cores will be faster on the i5.

 

[bgunner]

So the i5 would outperform the 8350 in most cases? i wanna try to steer away from the people who favor intel and get an "unbiased " opinion but it seems to me that i5 is the clear winner.

Unless someone proves me wrong again and im back to square one.

I am an AMD fan because of price but when the money is there, Intel is the best choice. My 2 gaming systems have AMD and so does my laptop. ( my sig can show this ) I do believe I have an unbiased opinion on this. But this is for you to decide for yourself.

 

[poohge123]

I forget but i read somewhere that an AMD Cpu spreads the workload on all of it's cores. Dunno if it is true though, care to shed some light on that?

this is done on both CPU's, AMD and Intel. This is accomplished by a Que order and what what is marked as high priority.

Lest say, as and example, even if the AMD could spread the work load better Intel's single core performance will get the job done in less time due to the fact each operation would finish quicker freeing up that core to do the next job assigned. Like i mentioned only apps that are heavily threaded will be faster on an OCed AMD FX 8350. Apps that can only use 4-6 cores will be faster on the i5.

So what I should be looking for is the single-core performance of a certain CPU?

 

[poohge123]

So the i5 would outperform the 8350 in most cases? i wanna try to steer away from the people who favor intel and get an "unbiased " opinion but it seems to me that i5 is the clear winner.

Unless someone proves me wrong again and im back to square one.

I am an AMD fan because of price but when the money is there, Intel is the best choice. My 2 gaming systems have AMD and so does my laptop. ( my sig can show this ) I do believe I have an unbiased opinion on this. But this is for you to decide for yourself.

That is all i ever wanted. I dont want to be buying something expensive and then find out i can get a less expensive CPU which can do exactly what I want. I wonder though, why did you go AMD?

 

[bgunner]

I forget but i read somewhere that an AMD Cpu spreads the workload on all of it's cores. Dunno if it is true though, care to shed some light on that?

this is done on both CPU's, AMD and Intel. This is accomplished by a Que order and what what is marked as high priority.

Lest say, as and example, even if the AMD could spread the work load better Intel's single core performance will get the job done in less time due to the fact each operation would finish quicker freeing up that core to do the next job assigned. Like i mentioned only apps that are heavily threaded will be faster on an OCed AMD FX 8350. Apps that can only use 4-6 cores will be faster on the i5.

So what I should be looking for is the single-core performance of a certain CPU?

Not necessarily. Just because how the CPU's perform now does not mean that the single core performance wont get closer between the two down the line. Then this statement will be untrue. As for now go for teh i5 CPU. because the performance is better the PC should last longer before needing an upgrade. So in that aspect you are saving money because the extra spent now will save more in the long run. This is not to mention that the Intel CPU's require less electricity to run so the wallet saves every month. If you get a 9 seires board you can upgrade the CPU down the line without upgrading the hole system. At this point all around Intel is the best choice to use even if it costs more now in the long run you will save money.

The reason I went with AMD was cost at the time. I did not have the cash to build a hole new system so I needed to use parts from my old one like the ram. So I needed a board that would still handle DDR2 ram. All Intel boards had switched to DDR3 by that time. So I got the Asrock board and the Athlon II with plans on upgrading the CPU to the 965, which I did. Then I was able to save some money and get the better board and new ram with SSD's. Now I can upgrade to an FX series CPU but After this AMD is going to change the sockets again so I will need to change the board again and get a better CPU. The way I have done it is an ever evolving machine. If I had the money to go Intel would have but the initial expense I could not afford. I have kids if that helps explain why things were that way.

 

[poohge123]

I forget but i read somewhere that an AMD Cpu spreads the workload on all of it's cores. Dunno if it is true though, care to shed some light on that?

this is done on both CPU's, AMD and Intel. This is accomplished by a Que order and what what is marked as high priority.

Lest say, as and example, even if the AMD could spread the work load better Intel's single core performance will get the job done in less time due to the fact each operation would finish quicker freeing up that core to do the next job assigned. Like i mentioned only apps that are heavily threaded will be faster on an OCed AMD FX 8350. Apps that can only use 4-6 cores will be faster on the i5.

So what I should be looking for is the single-core performance of a certain CPU?

Not necessarily. Just because how the CPU's perform now does not mean that the single core performance wont get closer between the two down the line. Then this statement will be untrue. As for now go for teh i5 CPU. because the performance is better the PC should last longer before needing an upgrade. So in that aspect you are saving money because the extra spent now will save more in the long run. This is not to mention that the Intel CPU's require less electricity to run so the wallet saves every month. If you get a 9 seires board you can upgrade the CPU down the line without upgrading the hole system. At this point all around Intel is the best choice to use even if it costs more now in the long run you will save money.

The reason I went with AMD was cost at the time. I did not have the cash to build a hole new system so I needed to use parts from my old one like the ram. So I needed a board that would still handle DDR2 ram. All Intel boards had switched to DDR3 by that time. So I got the Asrock board and the Athlon II with plans on upgrading the CPU to the 965, which I did. Then I was able to save some money and get the better board and new ram with SSD's. Now I can upgrade to an FX series CPU but After this AMD is going to change the sockets again so I will need to change the board again and get a better CPU. The way I have done it is an ever evolving machine. If I had the money to go Intel would have but the initial expense I could not afford. I have kids if that helps explain why things were that way.

Thank you very much sir. I have learned quite a lot from you and I will be going with the i5-4590.

 

[bgunner]

Good luck with your build.

 

[mdocod]

When all 8 cores of the FX-8350 are fully saturated, it can be up to ~20% faster than the i5-4590.
When workloads only actually saturate up to 4 cores, the i5-4590 is up to ~50% faster than the FX-8350.

real-time workloads have very real inter-core scaling limitations. You can lean more about this with a Google search for "amdahls law"

What this means, is that, even though the FX-8350 can achieve higher total execution throughput than the i5-4590, that performance advantage will have a very difficult time ever translating to better performance in a game engine. Real-time workloads scale better with core performance than with core count, and in this case, "clock speed" is not a useful measure of core performance as these architectures are radically different. (A piledriver "core" is tiny compared to a haswell core).

 

[poohge123]

When all 8 cores of the FX-8350 are fully saturated, it can be up to ~20% faster than the i5-4590.
When workloads only actually saturate up to 4 cores, the i5-4590 is up to ~50% faster than the FX-8350.

real-time workloads have very real inter-core scaling limitations. You can lean more about this with a Google search for "amdahls law"

What this means, is that, even though the FX-8350 can achieve higher total execution throughput than the i5-4590, that performance advantage will have a very difficult time ever translating to better performance in a game engine. Real-time workloads scale better with core performance than with core count, and in this case, "clock speed" is not a useful measure of core performance as these architectures are radically different. (A piledriver "core" is tiny compared to a haswell core).

Thank you sir that was very informative, I will be doing some more reading then. So mostly i would benefit more from an i5 since i will be using my rig mostly on gaming?

 

[mdocod]

Peehge123,

Yes, an i5 is the better CPU choice for a gaming specific rig. The arrangement of execution resources on the i5 is superior for real-time workloads.

 

[poohge123]

Peehge123,

Yes, an i5 is the better CPU choice for a gaming specific rig. The arrangement of execution resources on the i5 is superior for real-time workloads.

The way you typed my name really made me laugh xD

Anyways thank you kind sir, there is no doubt in my mind now that i should be getting an i5.
All i am gonna do is game on my rig.
Thanks!