i5 3470 vs FX 8370e for gaming.

[leaf__00]

Hi, i'm buying used cpus.Both have same price.
It's been said over and over again , high frequency i5 is favorable for gaming compared to low frequency octa core(the fx 8370e).
Youtube gaming videos suggests fx is A BIT faster, though i HIGHLY doubt the accuracy and deviations.

BUT, what is the truth?

REasonS :
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THIS IS THE MAIN CONCERN
1).Benchmarks scores of these cpus were almost SAME. BUT performance PER CORE for INTEL(4 cores) is BETTER than AMD(8 cores) !!!
HOWEVER , those benchmark includes tests like data compression, ENCRYPTION performance and others that were NOT RELATED to GAMING performance, at all !!!

IN REALITY, which is more EFFICIENT for gaming? !!!
___________________________________________________________________________________
2)Intel i5 supports AVX 2.0 where as AMD does not.Does that matter?
Cause games like QUANTUM BREAK dont run on C2Q(like q9400) for not having certain instruction set(not sure if ssse or avx) that new i3(like i3-2100) have , even though both have same performance.

___________________________________________________________________________________
3).Back in days, many(mostly from this forum) prefers high frequency CORE 2 DUO over CORE 2 QUAD.
Initially, games supporting dual core runz faster on C2D. Quads runs just fine though.

HOWEVER, TODAY, you cant game without a quad core , like FAR CRY 4.
SO, that decision turns out pretty UGLY.
I'm afraid that may REPEAT, for these i5 and Fx cpu !!!!!!!!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4).Would game developers optimize games for high clock with lesser cores ? Isn't THAT less efficient when games get "bigger" and more things to process?More data(like GTA 5) needs more cores.
,but,
GAMES LIKE GTA 5 AND WITCHER 3 SUPPORTS 8 threads BUT still runs fast on i5(subjectively).
THIS IS CONFUSING because ;

A)More cores means sets of calculation can be subject to same clock speed INDEPENDENTLY.
Other words, SPREADING LOADS ACROSS CORES, EACH load can be processed faster than few cores @higher clock.
EVEN SIMPLER , it is like 4.0ghz single core vs 3.0ghz dual core.
(though lithohraphy,binning may vary a little , in this case)


B)If a game needs 4 CORES AT MOST, 8 cores=waste.
Thus HIGHER clocks with 4 cores=MORE FPS in these case. FOR FASTER CALCULATION, clock speed matters.
~BUT are there games that cant use 8 threads nowdays???????

NOT all data(may have same size)be processed at same clock speed.Games NEED high clock speed.
Even mini games run on i7 Extreme, despite having low core usage, it still operates at highest clock speed as possible.
SO, more confusion !!!!


SO, WHICH IS BETTER, EXPLAIN.
*pls ignore about overclocking or heat or brand issue when discussing.

 

[bwinzey]

I'm not sure what you're saying. The FX-8370E comes with a higher stock frequency than the i5. Generally, individual Intel cores are better than individual AMD cores, what I mean by this is that, while the FX-8370e is an octa core processor, and the i5 is only a quad core, the i5 cores have to be almost 2x as good as each AMD core in order to have almost equal benchmarks.
This goes to what you said with games: Some games aren't optimized to use many cores, so in that case, the i5 would be a better choice, as each individual core is faster and would translate to a higher performance. In fully multi-threaded games, the FX should catch up and possibly pass the i5's performance. Also, the FX8370e, though it comes with a semi-low clock, are normally very good overclockers, and will get really high clock speeds that will definitely help with performance.

 

[13thmonkey]

i5 is better, you're asking a lot of confused questions.

each 'core' can run more than one thread, faster cores allow each thread to finish quicker or to respond to interrupts to swap threads better. Whilst a game might be multi-threaded, how much of it is? Is there a 'master thread' that needs a fast single core to be effective? farming out work to other threads and cores.

However one should not assume that 2GHz AMD = 2GHz intel, different architectures, and 'instructions per clock' mean that an intel 2GHz core is more effective than an AMD one.

AMD might, just might, cope better with the youtube crowd as the extra cores can cope with the streaming better, but id' suggest that it's very marginal.

Efficient is not a good word to use, it has a particular meaning, energy in vs results out, again intel processes the same information both faster and using less power.

 

[James Mason]

I'll use a simple analogy.

CPUs are like motor vehicles.

The number of cores a CPU has is equivalent to the number of wheels a vehicle has.
The GHz is equivalent to the MPH/KPH they can move.
The software you use is equivalent to the road you're traveling on the and the cargo you're hauling.

If all you do is commute to work at an office building, a 2 wheeled fast motor-cycle is the best vehicle for you. (Documents, web browsing, light to medium games)
If you need to transport quite a few items or people, a fast 4 wheeled sedan/a 4 wheeled truck is the best vehicle for you. (Higher end games, larger database files)
If you're hauling large freight, an 8-wheeled semi truck is the best vehicle for you. (Processing very large files, i.e. video editing).

Inversely, If all you do is commute to work at an office building, an 8 wheeled semi truck is a bad vehicle for you, but does work.

You'll also be affected by the speed limits of the road (software). If the road is of poor quality, a slow or fast vehicle will be bad for different reasons.

Some articles to read:
http://www.techspot.com/review/972-intel-core-i3-vs-i5-vs-i7/
http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/

 

[synphul]

The i5. It's not the same when comparing intel to intel as intel to amd. Amd cpu's have a different ipc, how much they're actually processing per clock. The intel cpu's are processing more data per ghz. Very few games can make use of more than 4 cores. Rather than get bogged down by benchmarks that don't apply to what you're looking for, instead consider looking at benchmarks for games you wish to play.

http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page5.html

Games like witcher do make use of extra threads but the reason why intel's quad core i5 is just as good is due to the much higher ipc. It's also due to the fact that amd's fx cpu's are sort of 8 cores. Technically they have 8 processing cores but they share other things between 2 cores. It's a 4 module cpu, each module has 2 processing cores which have some independent resources but they share l3 cache, l1 cache is shared between 2 'cores', as well as fetch, decode, l2 cache and the fpu's. Intel cores on the other hand only share the l3 cache, otherwise the cores have access to their own resources. With all the resource sharing going on inside amd cpu's it's not optimal.

In the end it doesn't have to be a matter of getting deep into details, what matters are the end results. In a few cases if the game isn't overly cpu bound the fx do well enough. In other games they lag behind and intel cpu's pull ahead by quite a bit. Something that often gets overlooked in gaming benchmarks are min fps which is when fps drops. That's pretty normal from time to time but how much it drops will affect how the game 'feels' in terms of stuttering or lagging. You might find a game where the fx seems to have close to the same average fps as the intel but the amd ends up with much lower min fps meaning steeper fps drops. The fewer fps lost during fps dips the smoother the game will feel. Dropping from 60fps to 50fps is much less annoying than dropping from 60fps to 35fps.

Comparing a 3rd gen i5 or fx 8370 to old lga 775 cpu's doesn't work, they're not the same thing. The issues that did or didn't exist almost 9yrs ago as well as games from 8-9yrs ago aren't the same as the games available now. The biggest way to avoid confusion, look up cpu benchmarks for the games you play or want to play. Preferably sites that also include min fps.

There are a lot of variables, which game (they differ in what resources they need), which cpu, which gpu, what resolution etc. Another reason for lagging and stuttering can come down to the gpu, driver optimization etc. Some games play better on nvidia gpu's, others on amd. It's not all gpu though or cpu, it's about the combination. If you pair an i7 6700k with an r5 230 gpu it will run like crud. If you pair a pentium 4 with a gtx titan it will run like crud. Balance is the key depending on the budget.