Intel or AMD?

[cbarkachi]

I'm knew to pc building and I don't want to start a debate but I really don't understand what the fanboyism is all about. I don't have a preference for either. I am choosing between the FX 8350 and the Intel Core i5 4XXX.

Also, what is the Intel equivalent of the Fx 8350?

 

[patrick47018]

Some people speculate that as games utilize multiple cores that the FX 8350 will outperform the 4 Core Intel CPUs. As it stands at the moment you may get slightly better performance in games and single-threaded tasks on an i5-4670K for example. But for editing and multi-core processes you want to go with the 8350

 

[cbarkachi]

Some people speculate that as games utilize multiple cores that the FX 8350 will outperform the 4 Core Intel CPUs. As it stands at the moment you may get slightly better performance in games and single-threaded tasks on an i5-4670K for example. But for editing and multi-core processes you want to go with the 8350

Thanks for both sides of the story in simple terms for someone like me. I'm not gonna put the thread as solved just so I can hears others' opinions.

 

[ingtar33]

The i5-4xxx has about a 50% faster core then the fx 83xx cpu sports (at the same clock speed... if they both were 4ghz the Intel's 1 core would be about 50% faster then the AMDs core)... of course that's in an ideal situation, rarely will you see this big a difference.

So doing the math you can see the theoretical differences... in theory the AMD will be about 33% faster in multicored tasks (the Intel is fast enough its roughly equal to a 6 cored FX). of course that's an ideal situation... rarely will you see this big an advantage.

The current reality of computer hardware and software is a lot less clear then this. Many programs are so light on processing power no human could ever tell the speed difference between the FX and Core I cpu. Unless you have an SSD, 99.9% of the time your whole system will be bottlenecked by the hard drive and you'll NEVER be able to tell you have an intel or fx (you see this issue in laptops all the time, personally i can't tell the difference from a high end laptop or a low end one if they're both using some junky hard drive, heck i've seen $400 laptops that look better then $2000 laptops because the owner of the $400 laptop invested in an SSD; the same runs true on the desktop).

Generally speaking unless you're using an SLi/xfire setup, a monitor with higher then a 60hz refresh rate, and an SSD the chances you as a consumer will be able to tell the difference between that core i5 or the fx 8350 in day to day tasks or even gaming is almost nonexistent.

 

[babernet_1]

Actually the issue is very complex. Here's the upswing:

FX 8350 has eight cores and eight integer math units, but only four floating point math units

Intel 4670 has four cores and four integer and four floating point math units.

Intel's cores are considerably faster and lower power than AMD's

If the program can use eight cores and not too much floating point math, AMD can beat Intel

Intel's 4770K has hyperthreaded cores. That means each of it's four cores has two sets of regesters. So if one part of a core is stuck waiting for data to come in or a math result, the other regesters can load in that core area and do it's instructions. This hyperthreading can get you 30% more performance at most, but only if the software can enable 8 cores.

the FX 8350 is cheapest. the 4670K is a little more. The 4770K is about $75 more.

Overall, the 4670K is faster than the FX 8350 except for a few games/programs. HOWEVER, this is changing as more and more programs/games are enabling up to 8 cores. If the program enables 8 cores, then the 4770K will stomp the FX 8350, as it should for it costs about 40% more.

Example, in BattleField 4, the FX 8350 is a bit faster than the 4670K, but the 4770K is a full 30% faster.

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg

 

[ingtar33]

bf4 is a poor bench for the fx cpu... it's pretty obvious the game is handicapped on fx cpus... while the game was originally designed for jaguar, an AMD cpu, jaguar is a different enough architecture to give amd cpus no advantage over intels. if anything they're straight up handicapped in bf4 (amd cpus really punch bellow their weight in bf4). A better illustration would be crysis3, where the difference between the fx83xx and i7 is almost non-existent; which according to the math involved and ipc of the cpus is much closer to what you should expect... bf4 is an anomaly (no, i'm not picking and choosing benches, simply put if you run the numbers fx cpus are only getting 70% of their expected ipc in BF4, which means something is really coded wrong... that's a skyrim style handicap, and no x87 code to explain it... which means some future patch will likely fix whatever isn't working right with the fx series of chips).

 

[Gaidax]

There are fans for everything, I for example, tend to be called Intel fanboy, I don't mind really because I do prefer Intel, but only because their high end stuff is a bit higher end than that of the red team.

That said. FX-8350 direct competitor is I5-4670K. This instantly makes FX-8350 better, since it is significantly cheaper.

Main difference between the two is as people already pointed out that FX-8350 has 8 somewhat crippled cores due to the whole FPU and cache debacle, while I5 has 4 full powered cores, but only 4.

The result is that most of the games made until about start of Q4 2013 tend to work with I5 better, since they tend not to support well anything with more than 4 cores.

On the other hand, newer games just out and the future titles seem to benefit from having more than 4 cores available, meaning that FX-8350 may pull forward.

In reality both CPUs' are very close in performance give or take, which means that FX gains upper hand since it is more aggressively priced.

The extra power consumption of FX is of no concern, unless you intend to overclock by a healthy amount.

 

[cbarkachi]

There are fans for everything, I for example, tend to be called Intel fanboy, I don't mind really because I do prefer Intel, but only because their high end stuff is a bit higher end than that of the red team.

That said. FX-8350 direct competitor is I5-4670K. This instantly makes FX-8350 better, since it is significantly cheaper.

Main difference between the two is as people already pointed out that FX-8350 has 8 somewhat crippled cores due to the whole FPU and cache debacle, while I5 has 4 full powered cores, but only 4.

The result is that most of the games made until about start of Q4 2013 tend to work with I5 better, since they tend not to support well anything with more than 4 cores.

On the other hand, newer games just out and the future titles seem to benefit from having more than 4 cores available, meaning that FX-8350 may pull forward.

In reality both CPUs' are very close in performance give or take, which means that FX gains upper hand since it is more aggressively priced.

The extra power consumption of FX is of no concern, unless you intend to overclock by a healthy amount.

I'm kind of leaning toward amd but I know that the company is frowned upon by many PC enthusiasts. I just want to be 400 percent sure because if I want to switch I'll have to swap out the motherboard.

 

[Gaidax]

Well, enthusiasts frown upon AMD CPUs' exactly because there are no real enthusiasts-grade CPUs' from AMD. I7 line is generally better than anything AMD got and I7 Extreme is like an alien tech compared to AMD tech.

BUT, the level we are talking about now is not that level. At the price level you intend to invest AMD is better, really. There can be an argument made for I5-4670k being better, but it is also a bit pricier and really FX-8350 is close enough anyway, except for maybe 1-2 freak occurrences where it may tank.


Let me say this - IF you can stretch yourself to get I5-4670k without sacrificing any other components in your rig - go for it. Otherwise FX-8350 is a clear choice.

 

[babernet_1]

Going to AMD? Don't forget the forgotten step-child of AMD, their PCI-E 2.0 interface. That is, their processors have only the equivalent of a PCI-E 3.0 X 8 lane while the Intels have a full PCI-E 3.0 X 16 lane. It will make, at most a 5% difference in a top level card like the Titan and R9 290X. However, if you go crossfire or SLI, you will throttle the cards considerably since with AMD they will be running in a X4 bandwidth, And that makes a considerable difference.

You can get a special AMD motherboard that has a PLEX chip, but that's another, maybe, $100 and it won't be as fast as the pure PCI-E 3.0 X16 port of the Intel.

 

[babernet_1]

Going to AMD? Don't forget the forgotten step-child of AMD, their PCI-E 2.0 interface. That is, their processors have only the equivalent of a PCI-E 3.0 X 8 lane while the Intels have a full PCI-E 3.0 X 16 lane. It will make, at most a 5% difference in a top level card like the Titan and R9 290X. However, if you go crossfire or SLI, you will throttle the cards considerably since with AMD they will be running in a X4 bandwidth, And that makes a considerable difference.

You can get a special AMD motherboard that has a PLEX chip, but that's another, maybe, $100 and it won't be as fast as the pure PCI-E 3.0 X16 port of the Intel.

PCI-e 3 vs 2 makes no difference. When you are rolling with 130+ fps, who gives a crap about 1-5 fps difference? I sure dont. AMD boards will not run in 4x mode unless you buy a board with the 970 chip. 990X supports 2X8 and 990FX supports 2X16. Get your facts straight please.

My facts are straight, we are just using different terminology. Ever wonder why AMD boards aren't used for testing graphics cards? Especially SLI/CF?

 

[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.

 

[logainofhades]

Go FX 8320 if on a budget, so you can spend more on GPU. GPU matters more 95%+ of the time. If you can afford to go all out, you go Intel.