The i5-4670K or the FX-8320?

[Legolas8181]

Struggle how exactly? I can't see how a 3.5GHz 8-core COU could struggle on game from '05

 

[JOOK-D]

Struggle how exactly? I can't see how a 3.5GHz 8-core COU could struggle on game from '05

Our definitions of struggling are probably different. Any dip below 60 I see as struggling, especially on an older game. Sorry for not being clear.

And since 7 of those cores are sitting idle, and intel have much stronger per-core performance, in single-threaded games the AMD performs worse.

 

[Legolas8181]

Struggling on old stuff I see as you can't have it at 1080p on Ultra without dropping frames.

What if I were to overclock?

 

[JOOK-D]

Struggling on old stuff I see as you can't have it at 1080p on Ultra without dropping frames.

It's 1360x768 and graphics settings don't make a difference, only 27% GPU usage. Regardless, a modern CPU should be capable of keeping it way above 60.

Anyway, it's up to you, I won't hassle you any more. It's clear you've made up your mind.

Overclocking helps somewhat, difficult to say how much exactly. It's also game dependent.

 

[Legolas8181]

Struggling on old stuff I see as you can't have it at 1080p on Ultra without dropping frames.

It's 1360x768 and graphics settings don't make a difference, only 27% GPU usage. Regardless, a modern CPU should be capable of keeping it way above 60.

Anyway, it's up to you, I won't hassle you any more. It's clear you've made up your mind.

Overclocking helps somewhat, difficult to say how much exactly. It's also game dependent.

If I was to play Bully on the highest settings on the AMD chip, would I notice any stuttering or lagging or choppiness?

 

[JOOK-D]

Struggling on old stuff I see as you can't have it at 1080p on Ultra without dropping frames.

It's 1360x768 and graphics settings don't make a difference, only 27% GPU usage. Regardless, a modern CPU should be capable of keeping it way above 60.

Anyway, it's up to you, I won't hassle you any more. It's clear you've made up your mind.

Overclocking helps somewhat, difficult to say how much exactly. It's also game dependent.

If I was to play Bully on the highest settings on the AMD chip, would I notice any stuttering or lagging or choppiness?

No, I don't think you would. I was able to play GTA San Andreas at mostly over 60FPS on a laptop i3 and Intel HD 4000 graphics. So you shouldn't have any trouble.

 

[Legolas8181]

Has it just been you to experience this with old games or have others experienced it as well?

 

[JOOK-D]

Has it just been you to experience this with old games or have others experienced it as well?

Not a clue. As I said, it's mainly multiplayer single-threaded games, which tend to be old. I saw your other post and Supahos is absolutely correct - the IPC of an FX core is quite bad.

 

[Legolas8181]

Has it just been you to experience this with old games or have others experienced it as well?

Not a clue. As I said, it's mainly multiplayer single-threaded games, which tend to be old. I saw your other post and Supahos is absolutely correct - the IPC of an FX core is quite bad.

Am gonna go with the Intel Core i5-3570K. But at the same time am gonna get a new motherboard as well.

 

[Legolas8181]

AMD may be cheaper but I just cannot pass up the power Intel brings with that 3570K.

 

[JOOK-D]

I still don't understand the point of getting a new motherboard, but if you really want one go for it. :lol:

You will be happy with the 3570k.

 

[FALC0N]

3570k doesn't make sense if your getting a new board. That choice would be the newer 4670k. 3570k is a slightly older, slightly slower, version of the 4670k. You would use the 3570k if you were going to keep your current board, but not recommend with a new board.

 

[JOOK-D]

3570k doesn't make sense if your getting a new board. That choice would be the newer 4670k. 3570k is a slightly older, slightly slower, version of the 4670k. You would use the 3570k if you were going to keep your current board, but not recommend with a new board.

The 4670k and 3570k are very similar. The newer 4670k runs a bit hotter and overclocks worse though - however it is often found cheaper and has a 5-10% performance gain at stock. The IB 3570k is a certain socket dead-end whereas its possible that the Haswell 4670k has a socket that might see some new updates, though I doubt it.

In the end it's up to the OP.

 

[nikoli707]

yucky 8320… bad binning. 8350 is much better to compare the two. 8350 and a noctua nh-d12 and you got 5.0ghz. 4670k and a hyper 212 evo and you got 4.5ghz. after that then the intel being barely noticeably faster in overall gaming but the 8350 will be noticeably faster in heavily threaded workloads. say paired with an oc'ed 280x/770 the intel option will be fine with a 600w power supply but the amd option will likely need a 700w power supply. all said and done they will cost the same after cpu+cooler+power supply, but the amd will have a noticeable heavily threaded app performance advantage while barely noticeable performance disadvantage in all but the very newest heavy graphical games, where it may hold a barely noticeable advantage.

 

[FALC0N]

Very true, jlook.

For me, I would end up with the 8320. Is so darn good for so little money. Obviously people's milage varies, but so often, you can't tell the two apart in real word situations. Just the other day, somebody posted that they upgraded from the 8320 to the 4670 and couldn't see a difference and even lost performance in some games. Same thing with the controversial tech syndicate reviews last January. I couldn't bring myself to throw another $100 at such a small practical gain.

But the more I look at it, the more I wonder if its even worth it for him to upgrade. If he is really doing a lot of older single threaded games, then his current setup is actually fairly well equipped for that.

But like you said, its the OP's money.

 

[JOOK-D]

yucky 8320… bad binning. 8350 is much better to compare the two. 8350 and a noctua nh-d12 and you got 5.0ghz. 4670k and a hyper 212 evo and you got 4.5ghz. after that then the intel being barely noticeably faster in overall gaming but the 8350 will be noticeably faster in heavily threaded workloads. say paired with an oc'ed 280x/770 the intel option will be fine with a 600w power supply but the amd option will likely need a 700w power supply. all said and done they will cost the same after cpu+cooler+power supply, but the amd will have a noticeable heavily threaded app performance advantage while barely noticeable performance disadvantage in all but the very newest heavy graphical games, where it may hold a barely noticeable advantage.

The OC difference between an 8320 and an 8350 is typically around 50mhz (0.05 GHz).

 

[JOOK-D]

Very true, jlook.

For me, I would end up with the 8320. Is so darn good for so little money. Obviously people's milage varies, but so often, you can't tell the two apart in real word situations. Just the other day, somebody posted that they upgraded from the 8320 to the 4670 and couldn't see a difference and even lost performance in some games. Same thing with the controversial tech syndicate reviews last January. I couldn't bring myself to throw another $100 at such a small practical gain.

But the more I look at it, the more I wonder if its even worth it for him to upgrade. If he is really doing a lot of older single threaded games, then his current setup is actually fairly well equipped for that.

But like you said, its the OP's money.

Yeah, I tend to play old MP single-threaded games so it's not doing what i want it to, but since the OP is looking at playing SP games I see no reason why the FX 8320 wouldn't be good enough. However it makes the most sense to go intel (3570k) and stick with the current motherboard - great performance, great price, best solution, however they don't want to do that. The i5 would be the pick of the bunch for gaming CPUs right now IMO.

 

[FALC0N]

Agreed. 3570k in the existing board is what I would do too.

 

[Legolas8181]

Am gonna go with the 3570K and keep the motherboard even though am worried I'll short it when taking it out the case.

 

[FALC0N]

Could short a new one putting it into the case. Do you even need to take it out to swap the cpu on that board?

 

[Legolas8181]

I am using a new case so yes I do. Will taking out the board and putting into a new case short it out?

 

[ghost878]

4670K will do well in gaming, but the 8320 will also do the job well. Also the 8320 will perform better in multithreaded applications. Considering the price tags of both 8320 definitely.

 

[FALC0N]

I am using a new case so yes I do. Will taking out the board and putting into a new case short it out?

You could short anything out if your not careful. Not necessarily more likely just because its in a case to start with. The case/motherboard standoffs are the most obvious potential culprit.

 

[Legolas8181]

4670K will do well in gaming, but the 8320 will also do the job well. Also the 8320 will perform better in multithreaded applications. Considering the price tags of both 8320 definitely.

I am going with the 3570K because in becnhmarks it is far better and apparently the 8320 doesn't take older games too well.

I take it you guys know SSDs?

 

[FALC0N]

If you were doing new board, the real world difference between them isn't worth $100. Review websites by their own admission, use gaming scenarios that are designed to stress the cpu in ways that are largely not reflective of real world performance.

Last january, tech syndicate opened up a whole can of worms when they tested the 8350 against the 3570k and the 3770k and the 8350 beat them both 90% of the time. Even they were stunned. But tech syndicate doesn't use synthetic benches and uses only real world situations. So its not as big a gap as most users and reviews would suggest. And the FX is a whole lot cheaper.

All that said, you have the board. Your saving a lot of money there. 3570k is a no brainer in that scenario.