FX 8350 vs i5 3570k futureproofing

[syrup]

As the title describes, I'm having a bit of trouble deciding between the fx8350 vs i5 3570k.

For the most part, benchmarking shows that i5 beats fx in terms of overall gaming performance and fx beats i5 in video-based stuff and multitasking.

As a normal consumer, I doubt I'll see a huge difference depending on which of the two I get since I doubt I'll be gaming/multitasking enough to "max" out each cpu. For the most part I'll probably be running programs and number crunching, streaming/watching videos, and doing some gaming. I think if I had to prioritize, gaming would come a close second to work/functionality.

What I'm wondering is which of the two would be a better pick for down-the-line? From what I've researched, it seems like the current Intel chips generation is coming to an end, with certain sockets and stuff being discontinued in favor of something else to support the new generation (after Haswell that is). Also, the fx 8core design seems to be more popular with current ps4 console games that implement 8core hyperthreading.

In deciding for a chip for long term use/function, would the fx 8350 be a better choice i5 3570k then? Since currently there's seems to be little difference between the two unless you're extremely concerned with maxing out the processors.

 

[MajinCry]

Cinebench makes use of intel's anti-competitive compiler. Info on the subject can be found here.

Using 3DMark from 2006 as well as SuperPi from 1999?

OP, I hope you see why Hafijur should be ignored.

 

[rawknob]

As the title describes, I'm having a bit of trouble deciding between the fx8350 vs i5 3570k.

For the most part, benchmarking shows that i5 beats fx in terms of overall gaming performance and fx beats i5 in video-based stuff and multitasking.

As a normal consumer, I doubt I'll see a huge difference depending on which of the two I get since I doubt I'll be gaming/multitasking enough to "max" out each cpu. For the most part I'll probably be running programs and number crunching, streaming/watching videos, and doing some gaming. I think if I had to prioritize, gaming would come a close second to work/functionality.

What I'm wondering is which of the two would be a better pick for down-the-line? From what I've researched, it seems like the current Intel chips generation is coming to an end, with certain sockets and stuff being discontinued in favor of something else to support the new generation (after Haswell that is). Also, the fx 8core design seems to be more popular with current ps4 console games that implement 8core hyperthreading.

In deciding for a chip for long term use/function, would the fx 8350 be a better choice i5 3570k then? Since currently there's seems to be little difference between the two unless you're extremely concerned with maxing out the processors.

don't listen to the neophyte's raging on "i5's". I have an amd FX 8150 that i ran with a 560 SC that i ran for a little over a year, pretty much fully maxing everything out on almost every game i played with more than playable frames, up until a month ago when i swapped the 560 for the 770 FTW.
anyway, my 8150 doesn't bottleneck anything and i'm able to run metro last light fully maxed out with v sync on and still hitting between 40-60 fps. the 8350 is a slightly better version of the 8150, so i don't think you'll have any problems using it for gaming for quite a few years. if you look at numerous benchmarks, you'll see there isn't enough of a difference in anything with the cpu's to state that the intel "blows" the fx away. if you want cost/performance ratio and still wanting to have money left over for a decent GPU, which is where it matters most, then i'd go with the amd all of the way. i have my 8150 running at 4.4 Ghz on air and my win8 scores it at an 8.0. i'd imagine i could hit atleast 4.6-4.8 on the same setup with an 8350.
i myself would have bought the 8350 if it was out when i bought my 8150, but it came out like 2 months later.

 

[rawknob]

Exactly, but that's why I'm wondering if going i5, even with their superior performance, would run into hardware based trouble when I plan on upgrading/changing stuff around in the future.

It seems like the AMD stuff, in terms of sockets/mobos, are set for a good while.

Well there's been no shortage of change there either:-

2006 = Socket AM2 & Socket F
2007 = Socket AM2+
2009 = socket AM3
2010 = Socket G34 & Socket C32
2011 = Socket FM1 & AM3+
2012 = Socket FM2
Next = Socket FM2+

Some of the + boards are mostly compatible with their name-sake, but even excluding them, there's been plenty of 12-18 month socket changes for AMD too.

It's also only a "loss" if you upgrade each generation. Socket 1156's had only one generation lifespan - I had one of those with an i3-530, but I didn't feel I lost out, because I skipped Sandy Bridge and upgraded straight to Ivy Bridge, so the board still lasted 2 generations. Given the slowdown in annual CPU speed boosts, even a lot of heavy gamers are beginning to "cool down" previous 12-18 monthly upgrades into 24-36 month upgrades, and at 3 year upgrade cycles, you'll need a new motherboard no matter what.

Oh, so regardless if I go AMD or Intel, given my time frame I'll have to replace everything anyway? (4+ years) I guess in that case it doesn't matter which I go in terms of hardware changes.

On a side note, IF I choose to go intel, would it be better to stay IB 3570k or think about spending a bit more for haswell 4670k? I'm not planning on overclocking immediately, but I may in the future to help performance (2-3+ years). I'm worried that overclocking reduces the lifespan of the PSU since I want to keep it around for quite some time

Don't listen to Hafijur. He's a complete troll; renowned for using biased benchmarks and lying.


However, with 8350rocks and Hafijur's claims about CPUs wearing out, their experiences are far too miniscule to be worth even considering.

In my family, we've had computers since the ol' Amstrad (Dunno 'bout the proccies that far back). Personally, I've used Pentium I-IV, Athlon 64, Pentium D, Core 2 Duo, Some AMD E-series thingy, AMD Phenom II x4, i3 350m. All the intels were hand-me-downs from my father's cheapo OEM computers.

Ain't had any problems with any of them, at least problems concerning the CPU. I currently use the Phenom II x4 965 BE for World Machine 2, Photoshop, 3DS Max, Blender, Cubase and gaming. Considering how it only cost me £80, I'm chuffed with it.

So in this case Hafijur, go somewhere else. 8350Rocks, try to avoid passing off personal experience as fact. Ain't good.

@OP If you're going to be doing things that require multithreading (modern games, emulators, rendering, encoding, etc.), or just doing multiple things at once (Like streaming whilst playing a game, por ejemplo), the 8350 will be perfect. The proccy is cheaper than the i5 and the equivalent motherboards are also cheaper when buying AMD.

Though, if you're using programs that have been compiled using intel's software compiler, you'd be best served by an intel processor.

as far as sockets go, a lot of the more recent older amd cpu's work in an am3+ socket. and as far as lifespan goes, i've still got a working 939 64x2 4400+ that works like a charm from a 2005 build.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

either way if you only do light gaming you probably wont have a $400+ video card and wont be able to tell the difference between either cpu. for everything else, probably no difference either unless time = money to you.