Starting my first build, already purchased a GIGABYTE HD 7970, purely a gaming rig, torn between these CPUs, which do I go for? Ignoring cost, intersted only in performance, longevity/future-proofing etc.
IMHO, You will get more for your dollar with AMD, Nice thing about AMD is they tend to leave there socket set alone so upgrading in the future is a simple cpu swap. INTEL tends to change lots, so upgrading means new motherboard.
Problem with AMD 8350 is it does tend to run a bit hot. I went ahead and put a liquid cooler in this build. Someone With more Knowledge will have to give you the pros and cons of the INTEL, Never used the cpu, but it is a nice one.
Thanks for the reply, I'll certainly take what you mention regarding upgrading into account when I make my final decision. I wan't planning on overclocking just yet as this is my first time putting a rig together, probably something I do down the line. If I go down the AMD route, would something like a Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO surfice at stock speed?
The Hyper 212 Evo is perfect for the cause. You can also take a look at the Nzxt Respire T40.
An article about both:
"This in mind, coupled with relatively mediocre cooling performance when matched the more recent NZXT products, I'd have to say the Hyper 212 Plus' era of rule is over. Consider the T40 as a better alternative for a few bucks more."
The 8350 will beat the i5 for gaming and is also cheaper.
Both are about even, when you really start to break down the processors they go blow for blow against each other, even in editing, the choice is yours, i personally like the 3570K because 4 Strong cores guarentees more even performance on what your doing compared to 8 weaker cores.
Wrong... Why you intentionaly go full retard? Why?
FX 8350 versus i7 3570k when we compare core to core performance, FX 8350 core's are weaker but not by much that you can even say eh 3570k beats it by a bit. FX 8350 destroys the i5 3570k and competes with i7 3770k.
Since most games use 2-4 and rarely 6 cores, we dint see full potential of FX 8350 CPU's so dont trash without a real real proof from an unbiased source.
You're going to insult me, bring up an argument with no information, and then claim things you have no proof of while claming im trashing another CPU with no proof ?
I think its quite obvious whos acting retarded here.
My arguments are logical and clear, the obvious whos acting retard here is you...
So as games use 2,4 or rarely 6 cores you can see that games dont use full potential of FX 8350. When we look at results and knowing that most games use 4 cores, we can see that 4 cores that are used on AMD FX 8350 is good enough as 4 core's from i5 3570k/i7 3770k !
Main problem that some people like you don't think if lets say one game uses 4 core's and you test it on i5 3570k and FX 8350. Then you should logicaly know that the game uses 4 cores from both CPU's, nothing more nothing less from both CPU's. So you have 4 that the games not use on AMD FX 8350 and thus we know true performance of each FX 8350 core's.
Synthetic benchmarks are just don't show real results, some CPU's are better in gaming and streaming others are better in extreme calculation and compression while both of them are equal in something. As for futureproof, go with FX 8350 because you wont need to change in a long run eg 4 years because games will more and more adapt for 6 to 8 core CPU's rather than 4 core CPU's with 2 virtual(eg fake) core's.
I would go with an 8350 simply because you're going to start seeing games utilizing more cores. My reason for this being the PS4 having an 8core cpu. I think this means game dev's are going to start pushing 6-8 core games for the pc as well.
both are really good for gaming but as future proof goes the amd is the more likely candidate due to the AM3+ socket is sort of new maybe a year or two old, the Phenoms used the AM3 (not +) and they are still around.
Not only that, but I believe that in Logan's video about Chrysis 3, he said he didn't even include the 3570k benchmarks because it was beaten in every single test by the other cpus.
First off i wasnt talking strictly games, i was generalizing all tasks.
Its kind of funny how you think games max out the cores in a CPU though, even though most games are GPU bottlenecked so the 4 AMD cores maybe be at 80% load while the 4 intel cores are at 50% , a lot fo games are starting to use 8 cores, and if you actually look at benchamarks of these games again the processors go blow for blow.
And although synthetic banches dont tell the whole story, you do realize that most synthetic benches are designed to point towards the applicable performance of whatever is being run on them right ? so they do apply, just with a larger margin of error comapred to real world testing.
Come beck when you have something to actually prove that 4 cores from an 8350 are as powerful as the 4 cores of a 3570K at 100% or near 100%, instead of some mistaken logic using unclear information and the obvious bias shown in your fist post.
Again to reitirate because you;ll probably end up taking the the wrong way, im not saying one is superior to the other, just that both are equally matched (espically when the clocks are the same) and that OP should chose whatever he feels is the right choice.
IMHO, I think Liquid Cooling is a better long term investment Idea. No idea what new CPU's in the future will run heat wise, I just think might as well put a liquid cooler in it, so I dont have to much worry about future CPU issues.