Intel equivalent to 8350?

I've seen people like to say you can get an i5 at the same price with the same performance. Is this actually true? Also why do people speak of Intel chips as if all i5's ext are the same?

It seems the 3570k is the intel equivalent, but $30 more and won't get a boost from games allowing more than 4 threads

In terms of multi-threaded tasks, the equivalent would be the i7 4790K or the Xeon E3 1230 V3 (or 1240 V3 if you want a higher stock clock since Xeons can't OC and the 1230/1240 is the same as an i7 minus the iGPU). In terms of gaming, the equivalent would be the i5 4790K as well as the other three listed above.

Sorry I forgot to say for gaming.

Also the 4790k is only equivalent in numbers which would well surpass the 8350 in actual gaming performance

Edit: googling it only brought up the new i7 @4

It really depends not the game. It takes some serious power to out do an 8350,in properly multi threaded games. But for single threaded games like DayZ a the likes of an i5 will out do the 8350. 

With the direction of games, if you have an 8350 stick with it, more and more are getting properly threaded and moving away from CPU dependence. But if you really want to go Intel, yeah I would also say a 4790k or Xeon 1240v3 to safely beat out the 8350 all the time.

Bear in mind as well the the AMD CPUs can seriously over clock.

I did about thirty hours of research for which CPU I should get and here's what I found.

    In single core performance an Intel i5 and i7 tend to beat the 8350. The Intel processors also have a crap ton of features depending on which processor you buy such as hyper-threading and turbo boost. Last thing is the Intel will use a lot less wattage and produce less heat than the AMD.

    The AMD processor is cheaper, has more cores, more threads, and more cache per core. Also the AMD is unlocked right off the bat and will overclock better than a K series intel, so overall the choice is yours.

This website might be helpful but don't just look at the verdict truly read what they tested.

i7's are a waste for gaming. The hyperthreading provides no tangible benefit over the i5's in gaming. So it's more realistic to compare the 8350 with any of the i5's (but mainly the 4690K because it's overclockable like the 8350). 

For gaming, it's not so much about the number of cores or GHz, but about the overall IPC and how well a particular game will run on the architecture.

I should've mentioned I was interested in an Intel equivalent to the 8350 because I had one along with a 7970ge and was quite happy with them. My system decided its going to stutter no matter what now (including switching out each part, new drivers/old drivers etc)

The only thing that's stayed the same is AMD and Windows 7 so I've been looking at trying to match it with a new system and win8/intel/nvidia.

But dear lord AMD's cheaper. Oi

The stuttering isn't because it is AMD. It is def something to do with Windows or GPU drivers. Not the fact that you are using an AMD part. 

Really there is no reason to "upgrade" from an 8350 to a 4690k as they are broadly similar. 

Another thing, you don't need to pair Intel with nVidia. It doesn't matter. AMD CPU and nVidia GPU. Intel CPU and AMD GPU. They work fine together. It doesn't matter. 

nVidia cards are usually more money and slower. Just facts. R9 280X is cheaper than a 770 and faster 9 times out of 10. The R9 290 is cheaper than a 780 and faster 9 times out of 10. Not a fanboy either. I'm running both AMD and Intel CPUs and all nVidia GPUs. 

Its equivalent in computing power is the I7 2600, but equals most other intels in certain games. Intel has more performance per thread and core, but you are paying about 75% less and getting 75% of the  performance.(guesstamation)


Some MMO´s do run a littlebit better on intel like skyrim. But its the intel fans who getting crazy about this, they seem to forget, that all those games are still very well playable on the AMD FX. Totaly no bottleneck.

I hope that Pistol is comming with some Watchdogs benchmarks.

About the GPU market, This is just dominated by AMD, and thats indeed a fact. Okay the GTX780Ti is the fastest single gpu on the market, but in terms of the price to performance, not the best investment. also at 1440P it isn´t even that much better then the 290X, if you take in mind that a 290 performs allmost equaly to a 290X, but for alot cheaper, this is something to keep in mind.

  1. GTX780Ti > 290X
  2. 290 > GTX780
  3. 280X > GTX770 2GB
  4. 280 > GTX760

Never trust cpuboss, ever, EVER 

Well it was fine from last April until December.

AMDs support didn't understand what was going on or rather their advise was to download the latest drivers and that's it

Can you post your full system specs (CPU, Mobo, ram, GPU, storage, OS etc. the more info the better) and the problem(s) you're experiencing? We may be able to help you fix the problem so you won't have to build a whole new system. An 8350 with a 7970 should not be having any difficulty with any game.

Have you tried running CoreTemp, CPUZ and GPUZ to monitor your CPU and GPU core temps, frequency, voltage, vram frequency, etc.? 

There isn't really an equivalent Intel desktop processor since Intel doesn't offer anything with such weak cores. 

Intel CPUs have fewer "features" than AMD's, on average. Each Intel CPU supports either virtualization through VT-d or overclocking, never both, except at the very top end x-series. Any desktop AMD CPU supports both, including their APUs.

You mentioned Turbo Boost as a feature, so now I have to clear some air here. Turbo boost is not a feature. It's a marketing term for the reality of silicon today. That is, any CPU or GPU nowadays runs at the lowest frequency needed to get its workload finished as quickly as possible, but which is also within thermal and power limits, and below some arbitrary maximum. When you overclock, you are raising that arbitrary maximum. You are not saying "now this CPU runs at this speed", because it will very rarely (or never) run at that speed outside of a program like prime95. It will also almost never run at the listed "stock" speed. That is mostly there for marketing purposes (it is more useful for laptops, though).

When comparing desktop CPUs, always look at the maximum turbo frequency, ignore the stock frequency. The exact same is true of GPUs. Nvidia GPUs for a while have had "Turbo" listed as a feature. It means exactly what it means for a CPU, that the GPU runs at whatever frequency it can, up to the max turbo. Again, the stock speed is meaningless. That's why on AMD's Hawaii GPUs, they only list an "up to" frequency, because that's how CPU and GPU clocking actually works.

I think a lot of people around here kinda know all that, but don't really "get it".

Also, lets all pretend cpuboss doesn't exist, because it's useless. I hope you found better information than cpuboss after 30 hours of research.

+1 to everything said 

Or GPUBoss for that matter. 

Lets just go ahead and say that anything that ends with boss, and involves computer hardware is a big no no 

For gaming, the i5 will almost always either beat out, or match the 8350.

The 8350 has more cores, yes, but the intel cores are stronger. And if a game only supports 4 cores (which, only one or two games support more than that, if even) then you're directly matching 4 AMD cores to 4 Intel cores. And Intel will win.

AMD will shine over the i5 in things that support many, many cores. like video processing and the likes. Rendering will be much better on an 8350.

But, since you said you were gaming, the i5 is the more powerful option.

I don't necessarily agree with that statement. It is way more complicated than that as some games will do better in some benchmarks with some video cards. Tek Syndicate's own benchmarks back that statement up.

I had a 3570k and still have an 8350 with similar overclocks on them. The results were really a wash. Some games the 8350 was better some it was worse.

Really though, I don't think it matters. Both CPUs are very fast and good enough for any single GPU and really any muliGPU setup there is.