i5 4670k VS FX 8320 VS FX 8350

T1M0N6

Honorable
Jan 20, 2014
125
0
10,690
1
Hey guys, I wanted to know which processor out of these 3 is best for gaming (without needing to overclock.)
i5 4670K
FX 8320
or FX 8350
Thanks!
 

CooLWoLF

Distinguished
May 15, 2009
1,052
0
19,460
74

i5 4670K

You shouldn't even consider an FX8xxx cpu UNLESS you plan to overclock. That's where their value lies. I've got mine running stable at 4.8ghz now and its very easy to do with the right motherboard and cooling.
 

Specops125

Honorable
Dec 17, 2013
200
0
10,760
34
^ agreed. However, note that while the Intel processor here is generally better for gaming, some games are AMD optimized where the FX 8350 might perform better. Battlefield 4 is the most important example of this.
 

vmN

Honorable
Oct 27, 2013
1,667
0
12,160
131

There are 2FPS difference between the 4670k and 8350 in BF4 if I remember correctly.

to OP:
The 4670k would be better at gaming, dont even think of getting 8350.
If you go with AMD get the 8320, it's the same chip as 8350.
The 8350 is just a "overclocked" version, so you pay more for something you could do yourself.
 

Lessthannil

Honorable
Oct 14, 2013
468
0
10,860
46
The i5 4670k is the best for gaming. Even then, the 8320 is pretty good considering its around 70$ less(!) and it only lags around 4 FPS at most in more modern games. In lightly threaded games, you will see great benefit in an i5 and the FX series cant really perform there.
 

s4in7

Honorable
Feb 14, 2014
913
0
11,360
159
The i5 4670k has a 3DMark11 Physics score of 6820, whereas the FX-8350 has a physics score of 6870 so it's a tad faster in that respect.

That doesn't paint a whole picture though, and you should know that the i5 has fewer cores, but they are stronger, whereas the FX-8350 has more cores, but they are weaker. That means the i5 has better single-threaded performance and the FX-8350 has better multi-threaded performance.

In Crysis 3, Far Cry 3, and Battlefield 4 (which take advantage of as many cores you can throw at them) the FX-8350 comes out on top most of the time. However, in older games and applications that don't utilize multi-threading the i5 4670k wins out most of the time.

So there you go, both are fantastic processors and each has it's strong suits.

TL;DR go with the FX-8350 if you use a lot of multi-threaded applications, go with the i5 4670k if you use a lot of single-threaded applications.
 

s4in7

Honorable
Feb 14, 2014
913
0
11,360
159
Comparing stock clocks to stock clocks, the FX-8350 has a higher minimum FPS than the i5-2500k, which is more important than the i5's slightly higher average FPS as both are well north of the 60fps avg. mark.

Also, the 2500k has a 3dMark11 Physics score of 6220 and the FX-8350 has a score of 6870 so take that as you will.

Again, for multi-threaded applications go with the FX. For single-threaded applications and older games go with the i5.
 

kooks147

Honorable
Oct 1, 2013
173
0
10,710
11



<MOD EDIT: questionable language removed. Please keep it civil in the forums>
 

s4in7

Honorable
Feb 14, 2014
913
0
11,360
159


First off, calm down "dude".

Secondly, it's correct, factual, and relevant information therefore not spam--OP asked a question, and I answered it.

I apologize that so many people are asking the same question thus warranting the same reply.

You must have a lot of angst bottled up if you consider this spam :/
 

s4in7

Honorable
Feb 14, 2014
913
0
11,360
159


I agree 100%.

As the new generation of cross-platform games start rolling out, we'll see better and better multi-threaded implementation and optimization (because the games will be developed for 8-core x86 consoles) so it'll be interesting to see how they perform on desktop hardware.

Check it out: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/
 


Unfortunately as we start seeing these games role out in the next two years Intel will be widening the performance gap to AMD with new releases while AMD is introducing new APU's that have less CPU performance than the current FX lineup which is close to a 1 1/2 year from its latest and probably last refresh!
I buy computer parts for the now not the future and normally I keep a CPU max 4 years with a GPU upgrade in between to extend the life of it.
 

MrBoomBoom

Honorable
Jul 3, 2013
238
0
10,710
17
Don't get the 8320. Period.
The 8350 doesn't perform as well as the 4670K, but the differences in **GAMING PERFORMANCE** are so small, that the 8350 is easily the better deal. If I was in your position, I would get the 8350 just for the simple fact that it's cheaper (unless the price went up, don't know).
Also, no matter which one you get, don't use the stock cooler.... especially with the 8350.

Hope this helps :D
 

CooLWoLF

Distinguished
May 15, 2009
1,052
0
19,460
74

i5 4670K

You shouldn't even consider an FX8xxx cpu UNLESS you plan to overclock. That's where their value lies. I've got mine running stable at 4.8ghz now and its very easy to do with the right motherboard and cooling.
 

s4in7

Honorable
Feb 14, 2014
913
0
11,360
159


Curious as to why you don't recommend the 8320? It's $50 cheaper and easily overclocks to the 8350's levels. I have one at 4.2Ghz which is beyond an 8350.
 
G

Guest

Guest
i5 4670k is WAY better than both AMDs. If you're not planning to overclock, get a H87 mobo and a i5 4670 (non K). The 4670 is exactly the same as the "K" version, just not unlocked. My mobo suggestion would be the Gigabyte GA-H87M-HD3, pretty good for a fine price. Best of luck!

PS: The 4670 is like $20 more expensive than the FX-8350 for a big improvement.
 

vmN

Honorable
Oct 27, 2013
1,667
0
12,160
131

Not really.


BF4:
Two of previous generation I5s are on top of the 8350.


Crysis 3:
As we can see the i5 3550(which a 4670k should be able to outperform) is having a higher minimum framerate, it also only have 0.3 less average FPS that the 8350(which haswell improvement should fix)


This cannot classify it. As in some scenarios 8350 would do better in multi-threaded applications meanwhile in other 4670k would do better in multi-threaded applications.
 

maktovic

Honorable
Dec 31, 2013
721
0
11,360
199


Accordingly fx8350 has higher score in 3dmark11 test than 2500k and 4670k.
So buddy it is clear that this test is not indicative of performance in Gaming(Which is Title of This Thread)
Bcoz even though 2500k scores less in 3dmark11 test it performs better than fx8350 in BF4.And therefore 4670k will surely outperform fx8350 by quite a margin.
And you are constantly comparing 4670k and fx8350 by 3dmark11 test.
 

Rationale

Admirable
Mar 21, 2014
3,026
0
7,960
523


LMAO. You're the one who can't even spell inbred right.
 

maktovic

Honorable
Dec 31, 2013
721
0
11,360
199


Man atleast see the results with both eyes opened. There are both OCed and stock i5 2500k in the list.

See it here
http://media.bestofmicro.com/L/B/403823/original/CPU.png
 

Rationale

Admirable
Mar 21, 2014
3,026
0
7,960
523


The i5 2500k is the only one overclocked in that list. The rest say "stock" instead of "OC".
 

limitzvfxgoespc

Honorable
Dec 19, 2013
301
0
10,810
18


+1
It just proves he's an Intel fan boy and can't get over the fact that you need to oc to get equal performance of the fx 8350, and also how much cheaper it is? 30 dollars!. You could use that to get an even better gpu or maybe a few games!

Ultimately the AMD FX8350 is over c lockable, why isn't it overclocked in this benchmark? Because Toms-hardware is fanboys of intel, because every benchmark I see, all the intel cpu's are overclocked, but not the AMD cpu's.
 

Beezy

Dignified
Intel is better for just gaming. And I love amd I have the fx 8320 and couldn't be happier . but I model and render and game on the side. Fx 8320 has its place don't worry. For just gamers Intel makes most sense
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS