Intel I5 6600k vs AMD 9350 vs AMD 8350

Those are phoney numbers. Look at real reviews.

No AMD CPU can even hope to keep up with any of at least the last 5 generations of Intel CPU's when compared across lots of workload types and games. if you want to do 1 or 2 specialized things on some AMD CPU's and nothing but those 1 or 2 things, then yes, you will be able to find cases where the AMD CPU can perform better than an Intel CPU. But overall, Intel 4 core CPU's blow away AMD 6 core and 8 core CPU's on varied workloads with or without gaming included.

I wish AMD was more competitive. We need real competition for both Intel and Nvidia to have a healthy industry. I have also loved my AMD CPU's in the past. But since Bulldozer CPU's came out years and years ago, they simply have not been competitive at all. So I have an Intel CPU in my box for only the second time in the past 2 decades. Hopefully, the AMD Zen CPU's will get AMD back into the game next year. But we will have to wait and see how that turns out.
 
Passmark is a synthetic benchmark that scales perfectly across 8+ cores, and as such plays to the only real strength the FX chips have, high core count for a low price. In practice, most applications simply don't scale nearly that well across that many cores, for games this is especially true, with most titles not scaling beyond 4 cores, and the ones that do often showing little to no improvement when you put a 4 core CPU up against a 6 or 8 core CPU.

Most of the time, the i5 6600k will be better than any AMD FX CPU due to better per core performance and most applications simply not being parallelized enough to benefit from the higher core count. If you're building a rig specifically for video encoding and not much else, then the 8 core FX chips are more attractive, though you could certainly make an argument for getting an Intel Xeon E3 instead, which will outperform the FX CPUs while costing about the same once you factor in the FX's need for a higher end motherboard with more robust VRMs and aftermarket cooling.
 
As said, cpubenchmark and cpuboss, are useless websites. Don't use that info.

Buy the i5. The 9530 was compared to a nuclear reactor in one review I read. And the 8350 has been out for what..3 years now? Get the newer and better i5-6600k and you'll have no regrets.
 

Th3-Hunter333

Reputable
Dec 15, 2014
508
0
5,060
48
No comparison here, 8350's/9590's cant come close to keeping up with a 6600k.

Choice is extremely obvious here.

If you are gaming on the cpu, do NOT go amd with a budget in the range of a 6600k.

4690k's tear apart amd's latest and greatest in gaming, guess where the newest 6600k stands?
 

Michael_35

Reputable
Sep 25, 2015
2
0
4,510
0
Cpuboss are a joke, they even claim that i7 6700k are 68% stronger than 5960x (which have more lines, threads and higher cache). Everyone that are right in their mind knows that 5960x blows 6700k out of the water, so I wouldn't trust cpuboss at all.

6600k are wat stronger than FX-9360, even a Skylake i3 would perform better than any FX-8-core when it comes to gaming.
 

verespatrik

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2011
14
0
18,510
0
Sorry for bringing up this thread. I know that Intel outperforms AMD in gaming. But what about rendering and editing?
I'm on a tight budget and I would have to reach far down in my pocket to get 6700K so I'm looking for the best cheapest alternative.

Also the 8350 can be overclocked to even 6ghz with the right cooling. That gives better performance in gaming.
 

Supahos

Champion
Ambassador
As for rendering on a budget depends on software you are using. If it is one that will use 6+ cores you'll be better off with the 8350 less than 6 the 6600k will be faster by a wide margin. Gotta research your program you intend to use
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS