Intel Core i5 or AMD FX?

[Pultrax]

i just got my new RAM so it's time for upgrading my CPU and mobo..

Current System:
CPU: AMD Athlon X4 641
MOBO: Asrock A75M-HVS
GPU: AMD MSI R9 270X Hawk
RAM: 12GB GDDR3 @1600Mhz
HDD: WD Black 1TB
PSU: CM B600

I'm playing games like Battlefield 3/4 and Minecraft.
Minecraft is a Single Threaded game so Intel has an advantage, but can it beat a FX CPU in Battlefield?

My friend wants to swap his GPU with mine.. He has a Gigabyte GTX 760 Windforce 4GB..
I know that Mantle is going to come out soon but I would love to record my gameplays with Shadowplay.. So my next question is, should I swap my GPU?

 

[vmN]

The i5 should be able to play battlefield just aswell as any fx processor.
We dont know the performance increase on mantle so cant really say anything about it.
Which feature is more important to you: mantle or shadowplay

 

[n1ghtr4v3n]

i just got my new RAM so it's time for upgrading my CPU and mobo..

Current System:
CPU: AMD Athlon X4 641
MOBO: Asrock A75M-HVS
GPU: AMD MSI R9 270X Hawk
RAM: 12GB GDDR3 @1600Mhz
HDD: WD Black 1TB
PSU: CM B600

I'm playing games like Battlefield 3/4 and Minecraft.
Minecraft is a Single Threaded game so Intel has an advantage, but can it beat a FX CPU in Battlefield?

My friend wants to swap his GPU with mine.. He has a Gigabyte GTX 760 Windforce 4GB..
I know that Mantle is going to come out soon but I would love to record my gameplays with Shadowplay.. So my next question is, should I swap my GPU?

there is no fx cpu that can perform better in games than i5, unless you overclock fx like crazy and keep the i5 at stock.
if you compare similar priced fx8350 and i5-4670K (however 8350 is a bit cheaper) they both overclock to similar frequencies as well, and only difference is core numbers and cache capacities... and you can clearly see that fx8350 is barely performing as well as 4670K.

if it fits in your budget go for i5. its not even open for debate. and forget all the crap about "oh hey BF4 needs 8 cores..." thats all lies.
but
if you want to keep the budget tight a fx8320 or fx8350 are very good options as well... they perform close to i5-4670K.

I am also playing BF4 with my 4670K and the game doesnt even use all the cores up to their maximum, however it is true that all cores are always in use between 30% to 65%... 1st and 2nd cores are usually used more than 3rd and 4th cores...

I guess you can picture it your mind... How much you would ever need the rest of the cores in fx8350? (at least for close future I believe its not really needed)

 

[mprhead]

I think in Battlefield 4 you would get best bang for buck by buying FX-8350, or 8320 if you plan to oc. Cheaper than most i5 and BF benefits from more cores. That said, you will be just fine playing Battlefield with good i5.

 

[Pultrax]

i just got my new RAM so it's time for upgrading my CPU and mobo..

Current System:
CPU: AMD Athlon X4 641
MOBO: Asrock A75M-HVS
GPU: AMD MSI R9 270X Hawk
RAM: 12GB GDDR3 @1600Mhz
HDD: WD Black 1TB
PSU: CM B600

I'm playing games like Battlefield 3/4 and Minecraft.
Minecraft is a Single Threaded game so Intel has an advantage, but can it beat a FX CPU in Battlefield?

My friend wants to swap his GPU with mine.. He has a Gigabyte GTX 760 Windforce 4GB..
I know that Mantle is going to come out soon but I would love to record my gameplays with Shadowplay.. So my next question is, should I swap my GPU?

there is no fx cpu that can perform better in games than i5, unless you overclock fx like crazy and keep the i5 at stock.
if you compare similar priced fx8350 and i5-4670K (however 8350 is a bit cheaper) they both overclock to similar frequencies as well, and only difference is core numbers and cache capacities... and you can clearly see that fx8350 is barely performing as well as 4670K.

if it fits in your budget go for i5. its not even open for debate. and forget all the crap about "oh hey BF4 needs 8 cores..." thats all lies.
but
if you want to keep the budget tight a fx8320 or fx8350 are very good options as well... they perform close to i5-4670K.

I am also playing BF4 with my 4670K and the game doesnt even use all the cores up to their maximum, however it is true that all cores are always in use between 30% to 65%... 1st and 2nd cores are usually used more than 3rd and 4th cores...

I guess you can picture it your mind... How much you would ever need the rest of the cores in fx8350? (at least for close future I believe its not really needed)

You're right 'bout that. Battlefield 4 doesn't use all 8 cores, but maybe in futures (6 years or somthing).. New games are on the market.. Can I still use my i5 or FX then? Or do I have to buy a new one then?

 

[s4in7]

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.

Also, because the FX has more cores it's better equipped to handle gameplay video streaming and recording without taking much of a performance hit.

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 and want to stream/record your games, go with the i5 4670k if you use a lot of single-threaded applications or play a lot of older games.