fx or i5

[Jayded]

Cant decide on i5 4670 or fx 8350. Looking for upgrade from e8500. I already have gtx 760 gpu.

I dont want to spend a ton of money but I do want it to last. Most importantly run bf4 and gta 5 when it comes out.

 

[CTurbo]

I like the FX 8350 over the non-K model i5s. You can't go wrong either way though. Don't forget to include a good cooler in your budget if you go with the FX!!

 

[CTurbo]

You would have to have a pretty nice and expensive CPU cooler to get it to beat the 4670 by a lot. If you do not plan on OC'ing at all, the 4670 is the better choice.

Absolutely.

 

[JOOK-D]

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform much better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.

For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have caught up in performance and in some cases deliver better performance than the intel's for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Here's some recent info that surprised me. Some BF4 benches, not sure if they're credible or not but worth a look:
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/4/
http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/

Either will game just fine.

 

[deadlyghost]

Yea right... non 'k' processors are good if you dont want to overclock your PC... While the FX 8350 is also good but the FX processor needs a good cooling... For that remove your wallet and take out some money for the cooler 😛 😀 ....

 

[JOOK-D]

Yea right... non 'k' processors are good if you dont want to overclock your PC... While the FX 8350 is also good but the FX processor needs a good cooling... For that remove your wallet and take out some money for the cooler 😛 😀 ....

Hyper 212 EVO will get it to 4.6-4.7 no problem as long as you have a decent board. Cheap and effective and still less than an intel setup. js. 😉

P.S not fanboy either way, it's just interesting to see which performs better for the money.

 

[deadlyghost]

Yea right... non 'k' processors are good if you dont want to overclock your PC... While the FX 8350 is also good but the FX processor needs a good cooling... For that remove your wallet and take out some money for the cooler 😛 😀 ....

Hyper 212 EVO will get it to 4.6-4.7 no problem as long as you have a decent board. Cheap and effective and still less than an intel setup. js. 😉

P.S not fanboy either way, it's just interesting to see which performs better for the money.

Hyper 212 EVO : Best cooler...

 

[Jayded]

Great response. Thankyou all for your input. Honestly at the price for the fx I cant see why I wouldnt get it. I do plan on ocing it. If I spend 100 bucks more on intel, how much fps will that really buy me. 2 maybe 3? Think id rather save for another gtx 760

 

[JOOK-D]

Great response. Thankyou all for your input. Honestly at the price for the fx I cant see why I wouldnt get it. I do plan on ocing it. If I spend 100 bucks more on intel, how much fps will that really buy me. 2 maybe 3? Think id rather save for another gtx 760

It is a lot more than that. A stock 4670 at 3.4 GHz gets over 30 FPS more on average than an overclocked 8350 at 4.8 GHz in Skyrim in 1080p with ultra settings link.

Agreed. But what's the point? Both play at above 60 FPS pretty consistently (who knows if the min. fps was a spike or lasted a few seconds) and if you're on a 60Hz monitor do you really need any more FPS other than for bragging rights? Just IMO. As I stated, the i5s are indeed better for single-threaded games but the FX runs them perfectly well.

EDIT: It even runs way over 60 at stock, so I see no issue.

 

[JOOK-D]

Oh, and in response to your text at the side u_gonna_squeal_b4_we_cookya ("I'm here to help. I could not care less about badges or other virtual pats on the back. As long as I help resolve your issue in any small way, that is all that matters. Don't you just hate people who beg for best answers?") it's not necessarily about virtual pats on the back; if the best solution is chosen, it helps people who read that thread in the future to find the most likely solution faster. It also lets others know that the soluton works and the thread is finished.

 

[JOOK-D]

Great response. Thankyou all for your input. Honestly at the price for the fx I cant see why I wouldnt get it. I do plan on ocing it. If I spend 100 bucks more on intel, how much fps will that really buy me. 2 maybe 3? Think id rather save for another gtx 760

It is a lot more than that. A stock 4670 at 3.4 GHz gets over 30 FPS more on average than an overclocked 8350 at 4.8 GHz in Skyrim in 1080p with ultra settings link.

Agreed. But what's the point? Both play at above 60 FPS pretty consistently (who knows if the min. fps was a spike or lasted a few seconds) and if you're on a 60Hz monitor do you really need any more FPS other than for bragging rights? Just IMO. As I stated, the i5s are indeed better for single-threaded games but the FX runs them perfectly well.

EDIT: It even runs way over 60 at stock, so I see no issue.

Then scroll down to Shogun 2. The stock 4670 gets 25-30 FPS while a stock 8350 gets 15-20 FPS. That is the difference between playable and barely playable. The 8350 would need to be OC'd to 4.8 GHz just to maintain a constant 20 FPS.

Fair point, Shogun 2 is a notoriously intensive game. At that point, common sense with any CPU would be to turn down the graphics settings for a better experience. Then again, there are benches like this in the 8350's favour, or set it on par with the intel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

I don't see any point in arguing about this. I know, and have mentioned, that the intel performs better in single-threaded games. I'm amazed by the performance you get for your money when going with AMD. That extra money left over could go towards an SSD or a better GPU that would yield more benefit than a better CPU.

 

[JOOK-D]

Oh, and in response to your text at the side u_gonna_squeal_b4_we_cookya ("I'm here to help. I could not care less about badges or other virtual pats on the back. As long as I help resolve your issue in any small way, that is all that matters. Don't you just hate people who beg for best answers?") it's not necessarily about virtual pats on the back; if the best solution is chosen, it helps people who read that thread in the future to find the most likely solution faster. It also lets others know that the soluton works and the thread is finished.

I still don't give a crap.

Haha ok, I was just making a point.

 

[JOOK-D]

That extra money left over could go towards an SSD or a better GPU that would yield more benefit than a better CPU.

That whole, what, $20?

8350
4670

Well yes. And motherboard costs. Or you could get an 8320 which is just a lower stock clocked one, but that may no longer be a fair comparison.
Plus, prices are different where I live to where you live, there is a bigger difference between the two. Don't assume that those prices apply everywhere lol.

 

[JOOK-D]

That extra money left over could go towards an SSD or a better GPU that would yield more benefit than a better CPU.

That whole, what, $20?

8350
4670

Well yes. And motherboard costs. Or you could get an 8320 which is just a lower stock clocked one, but that may no longer be a fair comparison.
Plus, prices are different where I live to where you live, there is a bigger difference between the two. Don't assume that those prices apply everywhere lol.

:lol: I just read your sig. No wonder you got mad at mine. You are one of those beggars. Not only that, you have an 8320. This is all making sense now. I'm going to bow out. Have fun. Hope you get that BA you need to justify your existence...

Ok, I'm not biased either way, it was more price effective for me to get an 8320 rather than an intel since I already had an M5A97 R2.0 AM3+ board. I already conceded that the intel does better in single-threaded tasks and the fx and intel trade blows in multithreaded, so I don't know why you're trying to judge me based on that. But both game perfectly fine! I don't understand why you would need more FPS if you're already over 60 comfortably while on a 60 Hz monitor.

As for the best answer thing I already explained it to you and you just shrugged it off. No decent reply.

Also, you didn't reply about the benches I linked to you. I was actually interested in your opinion and having a discussion but if you're not up for it w/e.

Well alright, I'll have fun, hope you do too. Cya

P.S: The badges are like achievements in games, similar concept. You don't have to be interested in it but don't bash others who are.

 

[JOOK-D]

Oh and sorry for hijacking your thread Jayded! D:

 

[Jayded]

Thanks for the help but the thing I'm wondering is what if say next year all the games that come out decide to use 8 cores, or even 6. Won't that make the 8320 better? fml, I can't pick and i need something better to play bf4 dammit lol

 

[JOOK-D]

Thanks for the help but the thing I'm wondering is what if say next year all the games that come out decide to use 8 cores, or even 6. Won't that make the 8320 better? fml, I can't pick and i need something better to play bf4 dammit lol

The general rule I go by is get what you need for now and don't speculate about the future, as you can't know what's going to happen. Get what is best for your needs right now because optimisation for multicore may/may not happen, we can't know. They're all capable processors.