Switched from 8320 @ 4.8ghz to a 4690K @ 4.4ghz

[killer pc g15]

Hi!
I just switched from a 8320 to a 4690K
Both the processorseem to compare able performance wise. but I whont to share my experience with both off them.
I had my 8320 clocked at 4.8ghz while the 4690k is only at 4.4ghz but Im not done overclocking it.
In cinebench and other very multicore programs they are compair able the 8 core 8320 wins by a few points but its realy a draw. The same can be said for desktop applications.
But thats realy the problem with the 8320.
yes it is a little bit faster than a i5 but it is only faster when it can use all its 8core's. so when looking at single core appications the i5 is almost 2 times faster then the 8320.
This mean that the 8320 is not realy a gaming cpu.. an is actualy more compairable with something like a low frequency i7 / xeon. but it uses allot more power so you will need a better cooling to run the chip and a better motherboard an that will make it almost the same price..

So the conclusion for me is that the high end of amd is dead. And I think thats realy disapointing. the first pc I build was with an phenom 9950 and upgraded many times: 940 - 960t - 1055t -6300fx - 8320fx.

It is hard to say but there is no point anymore in buying the am3+ socket over the lga1150

 

[Pr3di]

Well, there actually is a point to go AMD - low budget builds.

 

[killer pc g15]

isnt a i3 or g3258 more performance for ur money?
maybe a a8 or a10 is a nice gpu / cpu combo but still..

 

[Pr3di]

Depends on what you want to do with your build.
Example: Farcry 4 will not even start on a G3258 CPU, because it doesn`t support two cores CPUs.

 

[jdwii]

Hi!
I just switched from a 8320 to a 4690K
Both the processorseem to compare able performance wise. but I whont to share my experience with both off them.
I had my 8320 clocked at 4.8ghz while the 4690k is only at 4.4ghz but Im not done overclocking it.
In cinebench and other very multicore programs they are compair able the 8 core 8320 wins by a few points but its realy a draw. The same can be said for desktop applications.
But thats realy the problem with the 8320.
yes it is a little bit faster than a i5 but it is only faster when it can use all its 8core's. so when looking at single core appications the i5 is almost 2 times faster then the 8320.
This mean that the 8320 is not realy a gaming cpu.. an is actualy more compairable with something like a low frequency i7 / xeon. but it uses allot more power so you will need a better cooling to run the chip and a better motherboard an that will make it almost the same price..

So the conclusion for me is that the high end of amd is dead. And I think thats realy disapointing. the first pc I build was with an phenom 9950 and upgraded many times: 940 - 960t - 1055t -6300fx - 8320fx.

It is hard to say but there is no point anymore in buying the am3+ socket over the lga1150

Ok, I had a couple of drinks but I will say this I see many flaws in your argument. For one your spelling is something that isn’t very desirable. 2 you are basing this off of one CPU out of all the processors? Then your third flaw is simply not stating your definition of high-end CPU’s.
Now I actually think an I5 is a better CPU overall but that doesn’t mean it’s worth 100$ more and to say so is subjective. A 8320 is only 130$ it’s a no brainer in that case Intel only offers I3’s at that price and sorry but no I3 is worth it over the 8320fx for gaming or anything else(unless you use intel quick sync). FPS and frame latency are two different things.
I built my friend an I5 haswell rig the CPU cost the same as mine and that I5 gets raped in chess and encoding as well as virtual machines however in older games my CPU loses. In newer games such as watch dogs and BF4 it’s a draw or my CPU does a little bit better. Who cares if it takes 8 cores to beat an I5 if you have software that can use all the cores all what matters is price/performance.
However overall Amd left the high-end CPUs back in 2008 this is nothing but old news for all the readers here at tomshardware who kept up with the latest CPU reviews. To call a 8350fx a high-end CPU is a joke but the same can be said for any I5 CPU.

 

[Vitric9]

That is good that your liking your new shiny core i5. I used a Sandy Bridge i5 coming from an Athlon x2 PC. I am curious to know , aside from benchmarks , streaming , games, .. ect how would you say the overall experience in day to day tasks compare to the overclocked FX 8320? , stuff like opening up your browser, CPU-Z Cinebench, stuff like that..???

 

[killer pc g15]

Hi!
I just switched from a 8320 to a 4690K
Both the processorseem to compare able performance wise. but I whont to share my experience with both off them.
I had my 8320 clocked at 4.8ghz while the 4690k is only at 4.4ghz but Im not done overclocking it.
In cinebench and other very multicore programs they are compair able the 8 core 8320 wins by a few points but its realy a draw. The same can be said for desktop applications.
But thats realy the problem with the 8320.
yes it is a little bit faster than a i5 but it is only faster when it can use all its 8core's. so when looking at single core appications the i5 is almost 2 times faster then the 8320.
This mean that the 8320 is not realy a gaming cpu.. an is actualy more compairable with something like a low frequency i7 / xeon. but it uses allot more power so you will need a better cooling to run the chip and a better motherboard an that will make it almost the same price..

So the conclusion for me is that the high end of amd is dead. And I think thats realy disapointing. the first pc I build was with an phenom 9950 and upgraded many times: 940 - 960t - 1055t -6300fx - 8320fx.

It is hard to say but there is no point anymore in buying the am3+ socket over the lga1150

Ok, I had a couple of drinks but I will say this I see many flaws in your argument. For one your spelling is something that isn’t very desirable. 2 you are basing this off of one CPU out of all the processors? Then your third flaw is simply not stating your definition of high-end CPU’s.
Now I actually think an I5 is a better CPU overall but that doesn’t mean it’s worth 100$ more and to say so is subjective. A 8320 is only 130$ it’s a no brainer in that case Intel only offers I3’s at that price and sorry but no I3 is worth it over the 8320fx for gaming or anything else(unless you use intel quick sync). FPS and frame latency are two different things.
I built my friend an I5 haswell rig the CPU cost the same as mine and that I5 gets raped in chess and encoding as well as virtual machines however in older games my CPU loses. In newer games such as watch dogs and BF4 it’s a draw or my CPU does a little bit better. Who cares if it takes 8 cores to beat an I5 if you have software that can use all the cores all what matters is price/performance.
However overall Amd left the high-end CPUs back in 2008 this is nothing but old news for all the readers here at tomshardware who kept up with the latest CPU reviews. To call a 8350fx a high-end CPU is a joke but the same can be said for any I5 CPU.

Well sorry for my spelling but I'm dutch.
And here a 8320 is 130euro's and an i5 4460 is 160euro's.
and I would care about that an 8320 needs 8cores to match a i5. it mean that most of the time you whont be able to use all the performance you payed for. and price performance would be very low.
And like I said a 8320 is better in encoding jobs like cinebench but considering the extra costs in power / cooling. it would be allot better if you get an xeon processor on a cheap motherboard.
No an i5 and 8320 are not high end. sorry for that but they are the most populair gaming cpu's.

And Im not being fancy about my ''shiny'' new i5.. I had an I7 2600k @ 5ghz an I7 950 so its nothing new or fancy for me. I just dont see any advantage in buying a 8320 any more. because the I5 give a much better gaming performance for the money.

 

[Vitric9]

No no. Did not mean fancy. just New. ..
What I meant to say is , like you said, the single threaded performance is much faster for the i5 4690k. No argument there , I think the number is like 70% faster on an average of benchmarks than the FX 8320 in single threaded applications. I just wanted to ask if you noticed a difference in very light tasks that generally cannot be benchmarked.
As i said coming from an Ahtlon II dual core to an Intel i5 2400. I was blown back by how much "Zing" or "punch" my PC had just by clicking on something.

 

[killer pc g15]

There little to no difference in running windows.. maybe a little faster but with the 8320 it was already very very fast! I have a 256gb mx100 ssd for running windows and most op my startup programs.
The real difference is that games have much better frametimes. So FPS is the same but it just runs so much better! assassin creed black flag and unity both stuttered and lagged on the 8320 but now they are buttersmooth

 

[jed]

Hi!
I just switched from a 8320 to a 4690K
Both the processorseem to compare able performance wise. but I whont to share my experience with both off them.
I had my 8320 clocked at 4.8ghz while the 4690k is only at 4.4ghz but Im not done overclocking it.
In cinebench and other very multicore programs they are compair able the 8 core 8320 wins by a few points but its realy a draw. The same can be said for desktop applications.
But thats realy the problem with the 8320.
yes it is a little bit faster than a i5 but it is only faster when it can use all its 8core's. so when looking at single core appications the i5 is almost 2 times faster then the 8320.
This mean that the 8320 is not realy a gaming cpu.. an is actualy more compairable with something like a low frequency i7 / xeon. but it uses allot more power so you will need a better cooling to run the chip and a better motherboard an that will make it almost the same price..

So the conclusion for me is that the high end of amd is dead. And I think thats realy disapointing. the first pc I build was with an phenom 9950 and upgraded many times: 940 - 960t - 1055t -6300fx - 8320fx.

It is hard to say but there is no point anymore in buying the am3+ socket over the lga1150

Ok, I had a couple of drinks but I will say this I see many flaws in your argument. For one your spelling is something that isn’t very desirable. 2 you are basing this off of one CPU out of all the processors? Then your third flaw is simply not stating your definition of high-end CPU’s.
Now I actually think an I5 is a better CPU overall but that doesn’t mean it’s worth 100$ more and to say so is subjective. A 8320 is only 130$ it’s a no brainer in that case Intel only offers I3’s at that price and sorry but no I3 is worth it over the 8320fx for gaming or anything else(unless you use intel quick sync). FPS and frame latency are two different things.
I built my friend an I5 haswell rig the CPU cost the same as mine and that I5 gets raped in chess and encoding as well as virtual machines however in older games my CPU loses. In newer games such as watch dogs and BF4 it’s a draw or my CPU does a little bit better. Who cares if it takes 8 cores to beat an I5 if you have software that can use all the cores all what matters is price/performance.
However overall Amd left the high-end CPUs back in 2008 this is nothing but old news for all the readers here at tomshardware who kept up with the latest CPU reviews. To call a 8350fx a high-end CPU is a joke but the same can be said for any I5 CPU.

Well sorry for my spelling but I'm dutch.
And here a 8320 is 130euro's and an i5 4460 is 160euro's.
and I would care about that an 8320 needs 8cores to match a i5. it mean that most of the time you whont be able to use all the performance you payed for. and price performance would be very low.
And like I said a 8320 is better in encoding jobs like cinebench but considering the extra costs in power / cooling. it would be allot better if you get an xeon processor on a cheap motherboard.
No an i5 and 8320 are not high end. sorry for that but they are the most populair gaming cpu's.

And Im not being fancy about my ''shiny'' new i5.. I had an I7 2600k @ 5ghz an I7 950 so its nothing new or fancy for me. I just dont see any advantage in buying a 8320 any more. because the I5 give a much better gaming performance for the money.

The best CPU you had was the 2600k @5ghz nothing on your list of CPU's could beat it then or now for that matter.
You could of saved yourself a lot of money and time and just stuck with the 2600k.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/698?vs=287

and here's the 2600k overclocked against the Fx 9590

http://www.headline-benchmark.com/results/c309c1f4-6f00-4def-8127-b8d679fe5989/d2e23042-10b6-47ed-94c3-a0fee6e31b15

There is nothing AMD has out today that can best the 2600k.

 

[killer pc g15]

Yes I know that I actualy won a price with it on 3dmark vantage back then but back then I realy didnt need that kind of power and bought a motorcycle from it and a new pc..
I was a full custom waterloop with MAXIMUS IV EXTREME a gtx670 and 2133mhz ram

 

[jdwii]

Yes that i7 sandy at 5.0ghz is a beast. I'm sure it can handle everything. I want a i7 4790k OC it

 

[jed]

Yes that i7 sandy at 5.0ghz is a beast. I'm sure it can handle everything. I want a i7 4790k OC it

+1

 

[mlga91]

You already said it, is not a good gaming CPU, but is a great for professional purposes, in rendering, editing, CAD, it will be between a 4690k and a 4790k in terms of performance, and costs around the half than the 4790k. Its a great bang for the buck if you plan to give it that use.