Why the i74770k is better and expensive than AMD FX 8350?

[Lambientan]

Why a 3.5 GHz Quad-core processor is more expensive and better than a 4.0 GHz Eight-core one?
Where can I find good information to see the why?
Also; what is the future of the 8 cores.
I bought a FX 8350 instead a i5 4670k thinking that the 8 cores worth it. I am so sad about what I am reading in some web-sites, I feel like I waste $200.

 

[leeb2013]

Firstly, you've not wasted your money, the 8350 offers great performance and value.

current Intel CPUs are much more efficient and offer greater single core performance (completely different architectures), and whilst the I7 only has 4 (very strong) cores, it has 4 hypertheading cores, which boosts performance. But, you pay $$ for the extra efficiency and performance. For a while AMD have been unable to compete on performance and efficiency, but they compete very well on value and cost.

it's like why does a 3.5l Ferrari have more power than a 6.0l V8 GM engine? Different engine make-up and cost!

 

[crisan_tiberiu]

the FX 8350 its a very good CPU, dont get overwealmed by fanboys on the internet.
Yes, the i5s per core performance is better, but in a real world situation you wont notice this. The FX wil run everything you trow at it @ a more than a decent speed.
And, because intel has the edge now in CPU performance, they abuse us with huge prices ^^

 

[Lambientan]

Firstly, you've not wasted your money, the 8350 offers great performance and value.

current Intel CPUs are much more efficient and offer greater single core performance (completely different architectures), and whilst the I7 only has 4 (very strong) cores, it has 4 hypertheading cores, which boosts performance. But, you pay $$ for the extra efficiency and performance. For a while AMD have been unable to compete on performance and efficiency, but they compete very well on value and cost.

it's like why does a 3.5l Ferrari have more power than a 6.0l V8 GM engine? Different engine make-up and cost!

Thank you for your answer.
OK, So basically the Intel have less cores, but better cores. Now, I did my homework and I started to research about the Intel i5 4670k and AMD 8350. i5 consume less energy than AMD (not a significant difference, but is a fact) and i5 has 53% more performance in single-threaded. I can get i5 4670k on amazon.com for $239.99, almost $40 more than AMD 8350. Also, some review-pages give to AMD a score of 8.0/10 (that is good) and they give like 8.7/10 to i5. Do you think that the $40 difference worth it? I can't buy another processor now, but let's say that I'm planing to buy one. Would you recommend me to get the extra $40 and buy the i5 4670k instead the AMD 8350? Be honest. By the way, I like to create videos.

 

[Lambientan]

the FX 8350 its a very good CPU, dont get overwealmed by fanboys on the internet.
Yes, the i5s per core performance is better, but in a real world situation you wont notice this. The FX wil run everything you trow at it @ a more than a decent speed.
And, because intel has the edge now in CPU performance, they abuse us with huge prices ^^

thank you for responding. Your answer made me feel better

 

[bmacsys]

the FX 8350 its a very good CPU, dont get overwealmed by fanboys on the internet.
Yes, the i5s per core performance is better, but in a real world situation you wont notice this. The FX wil run everything you trow at it @ a more than a decent speed.
And, because intel has the edge now in CPU performance, they abuse us with huge prices ^^

thank you for responding. Your answer made me feel better

I have about ten computers with AMD processors. Deneb's, Zosma, Thuban's, Vishera. I have an 8350 and its a very good processor. Just keep it and use it. But to get its full potential you should have a very stout motherboard. Good cpu cooling and good airflow in your case to cool the chipsets.

 

[leeb2013]

Firstly, you've not wasted your money, the 8350 offers great performance and value.

current Intel CPUs are much more efficient and offer greater single core performance (completely different architectures), and whilst the I7 only has 4 (very strong) cores, it has 4 hypertheading cores, which boosts performance. But, you pay $$ for the extra efficiency and performance. For a while AMD have been unable to compete on performance and efficiency, but they compete very well on value and cost.

it's like why does a 3.5l Ferrari have more power than a 6.0l V8 GM engine? Different engine make-up and cost!

Thank you for your answer.
OK, So basically the Intel have less cores, but better cores. Now, I did my homework and I started to research about the Intel i5 4670k and AMD 8350. i5 consume less energy than AMD (not a significant difference, but is a fact) and i5 has 53% more performance in single-threaded. I can get i5 4670k on amazon.com for $239.99, almost $40 more than AMD 8350. Also, some review-pages give to AMD a score of 8.0/10 (that is good) and they give like 8.7/10 to i5. Do you think that the $40 difference worth it? I can't buy another processor now, but let's say that I'm planing to buy one. Would you recommend me to get the extra $40 and buy the i5 4670k instead the AMD 8350? Be honest. By the way, I like to create videos.

Difficult to answer. Historically I've always had AMD CPUs, based on cost. This time round I went for Intel based on single core performance and efficiency (heat/power). In fact I went 1 step further and changed my I5-3570k to a Xeon for around the same price, effectively getting a stock clocked I7. Only $30 more than the FX-8350 for me, so it was worth it (when spending >$1500 on the PC). Very low power consumption and heat, very good performance.

 

[mordorrson]

Firstly, you've not wasted your money, the 8350 offers great performance and value.

current Intel CPUs are much more efficient and offer greater single core performance (completely different architectures), and whilst the I7 only has 4 (very strong) cores, it has 4 hypertheading cores, which boosts performance. But, you pay $$ for the extra efficiency and performance. For a while AMD have been unable to compete on performance and efficiency, but they compete very well on value and cost.

it's like why does a 3.5l Ferrari have more power than a 6.0l V8 GM engine? Different engine make-up and cost!

Thank you for your answer.
OK, So basically the Intel have less cores, but better cores. Now, I did my homework and I started to research about the Intel i5 4670k and AMD 8350. i5 consume less energy than AMD (not a significant difference, but is a fact) and i5 has 53% more performance in single-threaded. I can get i5 4670k on amazon.com for $239.99, almost $40 more than AMD 8350. Also, some review-pages give to AMD a score of 8.0/10 (that is good) and they give like 8.7/10 to i5. Do you think that the $40 difference worth it? I can't buy another processor now, but let's say that I'm planing to buy one. Would you recommend me to get the extra $40 and buy the i5 4670k instead the AMD 8350? Be honest. By the way, I like to create videos.

No, it would be a pretty bad decision to spend the extra money on a different processor when you already have a very good one. The gaming performance is almost identical, but the fact that you make videos means you would actually want the 8350 because it can handle more intensive tasks and multitask better, and the 4670K is also noticeably worse when playing a game that's extremely demanding, like BF4 or Watch Dogs, and those two especially since they're optimized for 8 cores.

 

[coolcole01]

for the price the 8350 is pretty awesome other than games that only use one core the 8350 will perform the same as any i5/7 in games for the most part giving very good performance its a very good little cpu. but yes of course you can always get better but you gots to pay.