I'm pretty sure that this topic has been discussed many times on this forum but I would just like your guys' opinions on what CPU I should get. I'm planning on upgrading an old computer from 2008 and I would like to know whether I should get the AMD FX-8350 Vishera or the Intel Core i5-4670K for my processor. I am going to be using this computer for gaming, school work, occasional video editing and some coding. I'm going to be pairing it with a Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X for my graphics card and then add a 256GB SSD to the build.
Some reasons as to why I would get the AMD FX-8350 over the i5-4670K are that it has 8 cores rather than 4 and it has a much higher clock speed. Plus I know that the FX-8350 handles video editing really well. Some reasons that I would get the i5-4670K are that it has a much better single core performance compared to the 8350 and it has a lower power consumption rate.
I would like your guys' opinions on this, and I know many of you prefer AMD over Intel and Intel over AMD but I would like it if you'd rather give me your opinion on facts and stuff rather than made up stuff because you prefer a certain company.
I prefer the 8350 over the 4670k because overall it performs about 13% better and 8 core optimization is becoming closer and closer to standard. If it were just CPU vs CPU I would pick the 8350 10 times out of 10. However the 4670k has a much better integrated ram controller than the 8350 does, and intel dominates that department completely. My friend with a 2500k and identical memory to me (I have an 8350) nearly doubles my memory score in most benchmarks. The Z87 chipset is also much better than 990fx with the exception of PCI-e lanes.
An 8350 does outperform a 4670k, and offers more computer power, but the chipset and features built around the 4670k are much better.
Well It all depends on the price you can get it for. I ordered a 4670k this black friday for 210 USD. At the time the FX 8350 was still at 199 USD So in that scenario, a 4670k would have been a good buy. But now on newegg the fx 8350 is $170 and the 4670k is for $225 so I would have to go with the FX 8350.
In terms of performance, they are both similar and trade blows across games. The 8350 does require more power. And with the 4670k, you get a wider range of form factor choices. AM3+ Motherboards only come in ATX. 1150 platform motherboards can come in Micro Atx and Mini itx
I don't prefer a company over another but as of right now I would get the 8320 and overclock to 4.5ghz just get a decent cooler and the gigabyte ga-990fxa-ud3 250 or so for both of these and gaming you couldnt tell the difference between an i5
All of the micro ATX AM3+ boards are just refreshed boards originally made for Phenom II. Going by the reviews for such boards I see a lot of people having issues with these boards. They seem to have a high issue rate and very very bad support for high wattage parts. Seems they dont support FX 83XX very well if at all
Except the occasional framedrop. Average and max framerates would be nearly identical between an FX-83XX and an i5 at stock, but even overclocked it seems that every so often the FX processors have a momentary dip to very low framerates. I've seen this in the majority of real-world gaming tests I've seen comparing the FX 8350 to stuff like the 3570K, 4670K and 4770K
In a video i watched today comparing gaming performance on the 4770K to the FX 8350, they said they got a dip to 22fps with the FX 8350 regardless of the in-game settings and regardless of it being at stock speed or overclocked at a certain spot where tons of enemies come at once - so I wonder if it's an issue caused by the much lower memory performance of AMD chips that wouldn't be an issue in the majority of situations and in the majority of games?
True, true, but if you use a 6 core or 4 core AM3+ CPU, a lot of the Micro ATX boards perform adequately. Once you hit 125w, not so much, lots of CPU throttling. Just pointing out that they do exist, they just aren't the best purchase decisions. A good mobo that won't throttle your 8 core is going to cost you at least $100, but you could use them with cheaper boards, just not very effectively.
Though the 8350 has a higher clock speed and eight cores, it doesn't really set it apart from the i5 in most tasks. Each pair of cores on the 8350 share a module, which means it isn't necessarily a true eight core. I've heard all kinds of things that justify one over the other. "The 8350 is superior because all games are optimised for octa-core consoles"
Anyway, the 8350 will beat the i5 in some given tests. And the i5 will actually beat the 8350 in other tests. Your specific software suites and specific needs are going to be the determining factors.
The 8350 is a really versatile chip, you can use it for many things.
The i5 comes in a variety of form factors and has a much more up-to-date socket.
Truth is, I would take the i5 in most cases. If you're only going to do "some" editing, I would look to build a small form factor PC - which isn't available to the 8350. The i5 is still a really good editing CPU, but I would take the 8350 for heavier editing tasks.