8350 or 3570k for gaming?

Title says it all. Both the same price. 



How about outside of gaming? Overall performance? I'd like to know these things as well, but I think they'd both run most anything pretty well so gaming comes first. 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html this link has the amd betting out the intel

It's really weird, Logan tested and recommended the 8350, but a LOT of forums and posts elsewhere highly recommend the 3570k over the AMD. It's pretty confusing. 

depens on wich games you gonne play did you watch logans movies?

i5 3570k vs FX8350 vs i7 3770K vs i7 8320?

2 videos about it one  normal speeds one oc speeds. thatm ust give you a clear ansewr, i dont know wich games you like to play.

some games the i5 wiith  nvidia will do better some games  amd will do better job visa versa. depens how the games are builded and designed.

but to logans movies you will see, that the FX8350 beats the i5 8 out of 10 times, in diffrent games. the i7 3770k just performs a little bit better, but its realy a close call,but if younne look at streaming gaming, then the FX8350 beats both i5 and i7 its realy a beast wenn it comes to streaming gaming..

i personaly would go for the AMD just cause the i5/i7 ivy bridge is end of life, hasswell is comming so its not realy future proof, but that doesnt make  the i5 and i7 bad cpus, or bad buys, the price can be realy going down wenn hasswell comes, i dont know wenn hass well is planed.. maybe its  a good thing to wait on that. :)

but do you want the best bang for youre buck right now that is future proof deffenatly go with amd.

cause they still stay for a couple of years developing the am3+ platform.  easy to upgrade in the future.

My plan is to run this computer for 5+ years, so "future proofing" in that sense doesn't apply to me, since when I upgrade I'll probably get a whole new setup altogether. My "future proofing," which is what I'm trying to do, is to squeeze the most bang for buck I can get, which is the 8350 as far as I'm seeing. 

logans revieus to me seems more reaileble then only a forum or some  graphics on a site like hardware.info or so.

logans testd severall games  in real time, so  to make  that looks  conferdent.

i eaven saw a fx6100 yeah the old buldozer what everybody disgused everywhere on the internet,  make a draw in gameplay battlefield 3  against a I7-3770k just everywhere the same frames per second on exact the same spots in the game.. te rest of the system specs wer identical, so thats awesome for a cpu that cost 100 bucks , to a cpu thats coast 400 bucks

At the moment yes :) thats what i trying to say

cause in the future games and also aplications will more optimized for more cores, so  there will be a time that the i5s and i7s will be blowed away to this  FX cpu :P and i think than can be very fast as fast as gaming design works

Love AMD, but I doubt the fx 6100 could pull the same fps as a 3770k. They were both probably bottlenecked by the GPU or something. 

Thing is, theoretically the i5 gets more performance per core. 

yes cause it has hyper trading, but  its only interessting by single treaded aplications.

okay  little bit theorie.

intel has 4 cores with hyper trading that says it can do 8 threaths, but  the Hypertrading core, lets name it that way is ofc not a real core, and it doesnt have the performance of a real core.  its only like 12 procent of a real core, i readed that some where.

now we look at amd thats diffrent amd has no hyper trading

what they did, thay putted  4 modules in ther cpus and per module they putted in 2 real cores, so you 4 modules with a pair of cores, thats makes a total of 8 real cores,  so if you gonne look at games like bf 3 it uses 4 real cores, so in this point, it doesnt make much sence, but if the games gonne be optimized for more cores  or treaths yeah then the  intels hyper trading cores will  be blown away to the real cores from the amd

thats how i see it correct my if im wrong please.

you can see this in streaming gaming, thats why i think the amd kills both, just the real cores. you can see also some diffrence in multi threathed applications there the amd ist just faster then the intel

the best way you can see this theorie wenn you put intels i3 against amds FX4300

the i3 had 2 cores with HT so that makes 4 treaths like intels theorie 4 cores. the fx4300 has 2 modules wich each 2 cores, that make 4 real cores,  if you gonne game, like BF 3 the i3 will just fannished into smoke  compared the fx4300 with 4 real cores :) its good playeble on that cpu, the i3 wil blow :P

I agree in that if games used more than 4 cores the AMD would do better. But they dont. Right now, most games are optimized for quad core CPU, and nothing more, so theoretically with more performance per core, the intel would outperform the AMD

The second set of 4 cores in the AMD aren't used in gaming, because games only utilize 4 cores. 

she means that games in the future (and yes, probably in the next 5 years) will use more cores. ps4 will use an 8 Core cpu from amd, XBOX 720 will use a 6-core prozessor from amd. It can't get better. With the intels you will be stucked. And right now the diffrence is betwenn 5-15 frames per second.

why hasn't Logan benchmarked the FX8350 vs i7-3930k 6-core

i don t know but that would be a cool benchmark in streaming gaming i guess.

but honestley how many people gonne buy the highend sandy bride E 6 core cpu´s from 600 dollars? just for gaming?

i gues not much people.

but it could be intressting in streaming gaming.

I'd get the 8350, 8 cores, trades blows with the 3570k. Also won't be needing to switch motherboards whenever it's time to upgrade.


and- i though he said i5

ugh ahk gfh bunkakky

8350 is teh way teh go if yu urrr zeee money conciencious sole.