I have the money for both, which do you think is a much more wiser choice in terms of performance? I'm not going to buy a new CPU after 3 to 5 years. So, which CPU would be better for the long run? And yes, I'm going to use it for gaming, internet, photoshop, music, winrar, and other multitasking operations.
You've asked "in terms of performance". And the truthful answer is, they are largely the same. They trade blows. Neither is faster than the other, with any kind of absolution. I would pick Intel for some games that I play, that genuinely run better on Intel. With cross platform games, ported from console, just go with AMD. It'll be good for multi-tasking.
Intel if you gunna play older game that suck at multi core use.
Future wise erm id prolly go 8350 and hope that Mantle and the games that support it gain a boost with AMD parts :D
Mantle will be used mostly for GPUs. So the CPU really isn't an issue, besides the slight boost from the extra CPU cores.
Not all current and future games will have a boost with AMD parts. It really depends on the hardware brands that game developers partner with. This is seen mostly in PC exclusives, rather than console ports.
I've been using the 8150 for gaming, streaming, editing for quite some time. I recently made a switch from the 8150 to the I7 4770k. I choose the 4770k based on its single core performance and being the best chip out there for single core. I had only changed the motherboard and the CPU on my system. Based on this performance boost I would recommend intel to pretty much anyone with heavy usage on their pc.
I found my benchmarks before the upgrade and after were inline with cpuboss, so I recommended this site for comparing: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8350
After my upgrade the performance difference was more than double fps in the games I play most, SWTOR and minecraft (very cpu heavy, and yes SWTOR's engine is a piece of crap). I play other stuff like skyrim, orcs must die, towns and a bunch of other steam games; none of which really had issues on the 8150. One of the biggest changes was streaming in 1080P while getting 50+fps in SWTOR battlegrounds, the 8150 left me around 20 fps regardless of streaming or not.
For your situation, I would agree with berserker that overall performance is similar. I would lean more towards intel based on how big the performance gap is on single-core applciations.
I'm not an AMD apologist. I don't have anything that's AMD, currently. The 8150 is a bad chip, or so I have heard. The 8350 should be a pretty suitable option.
Mantle specifically lists 8-core support meaning there will be slight boost from the extra CPU cores (what you said).
But cheaper CPUs, like the 4350 (or i3 if you are a Intel guy), make more sense (for a gaming rid) because less CPU computation will be needed to "tell" the GPU what to render. This means the 8350 and 4670k should theoretically be equal in a system build with a GCN GPU. Thus, you might as well grab the 8350 for cheaper, faster productivity (or better yet, multithreaded CPU physics during games).
I used the 8150 for a few years, it isn't a bad chip at all.
I was careful to say "or so I have heard". I'll take your word for it.
I really liked my 8150 and i'm building a linux box with it. It just was just underperforming when it came to single core power and mostly my gameplay suffered. My cinebenchmark single core was .97 vs the 1.90 i got from the 4770k.
Edit. I brought up the 8150 in this thread because the 8350 isn't too much further ahead of it in single-core performance. cpuboss rates it at 1.11 (8350) vs 1.03 (8150). My overclocked 8150 scored lower so maybe a crap chip but I wanted to share my personal experience with the amd chips vs my new intel one.
Well compared to now, it doesn't hold up very well. But when it was released it was quite nice.
go Intel
Intel is barely faster in last gen games (as they are programed to use no more than 1-4 cores, meaning Intel and AMD theoretically use the same number of cores, and because Intel's single cores are faster, Intel wins!). As you can see with BF4, the future will start to use more cores/threads more effectively. If you want to replace your CPU every year, Intel would be the wise choice; but AMD may last just as long for cheaper.
It is really a matter of trade offs. Better per core performance or better multithreaded performance. Then lower power consumption or a lower buy in price. I personally feel like most people would be better off with a 4670k simply because the gap between i5 and 8350 in terms of single core situations is much larger then in heavily threaded situations. Then there is also all the nice motherboards available for the 4670k to consider.
i would go with AMD better price to performance in gaming, also in editing it isn´t bad, offcourse the i7 is a littlebit faster in editing, but in gaming there is not a big diffrence. the FX8350 performs close to the i7-4770K, but its $150 cheaper... so i know what i would choose for wenn it comes to gaming, just safe the 150 bucks and trow that in a high end gpu. :)
IMHO, People seem to rely to heavy on the cpu end of the build. There are just way to many other things that will dictate the speeds of your computer. I found a solid state hard drive makes a really noticeable difference. A really nice gpu will help as well.
In the end I am a AMD guy, simply because they are less expensive, and with the new generation its easier to replace, Its just a simple CPU switch.
INTEL is a very very nice cpu and will give you some great performance. But like others have said, to say one is clearly better than the other is simply wrong.
Go Intel. There is no contest really, AMD AM3+ is really only an option if you're strapped for cash. Typical desktop task are all faster on Intel. Now, if you want to build a cheap server with ECC RAM and virtualization support with full PCI passthrough, then we can talk AMD. Be aware though that current AMD Vishera/Piledriver have a horrible AVX bug that essentially makes AVX worthless on them. And the the stupid high power consumption really is an issue too for a server, but I digress.
Also to have in mind is that the AM3+ socket is pretty much a dead socket. The chipset is dated, no successor in sight (one has already been canned) and AMD themselves have said that the future is fusion, ie the FM2+ socket. I expect to see the AM3+ being dropped pretty soon. AMD has a dev summit in little over a week (nov 11), they might say something official then. But AM3+ have been completely gone from the roadmaps for some time now, that might be a not-so-subtle hint. The silly priced Centurion chips probably was the last bone.
With Haswel, the chips are less consistent, some of them will give you a hard time getting a 4.2 GHz while others will get you to 4.7 GHz with the same cooler. most of them will get you 4.4-4.5GHz with the H100i.
It used to be a good chance to get a good overclocker on the 8350, but today, because of 9000 series they bin the good chips there and that means that today you're more likely to get a less overclockable chip than before.
The bang for the buck on the 8350 is fantastic. for editing it's better than the 4670K even if you don't consider the price difference.
8350. I'm dun.