instead of providing trash talk and hot air, provide benchmarks and evidence. Maybe I am wrong, but evidence is leading my way until I see otherwise. I'll be happy to take a look at what you come up with when you are off your phone. Thanks for calling me ignorant and acting kinda deuchy.
I agree with feralshad0w.
State your ideas, criticism and evidence and that's it.
No need to add swearing, aggression or insults.
They just make you look pretentious.
Well, I did some research and found some sources with hand on experience with both and a wide range of benchmarks. The i5-4670k is better for pretty much everything, except heavy 5+ threaded tasks like I was saying...
Something that I will change my mind on, is that those situations are fewer and farther between than may be worth the hassle. And the single core performance is strong enough to be negligible in 8 thread games. In fact it is better if you have 8gb of ram or less in the system. The 8350 is pretty wasteful with its ram management.
This guy does a thorough overview, though he doesn't overclock as high as he should, and is only using 8gb of ram in the system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26UKz42uQ1Y
In short, get the i5, unless your transcoding/etc time is really killing you, but those kind of thread intensive applications are still only going to amount to a small portion of your time. The 8350 still has amazing performance to price ratio of course as well.
No.
I'll try to short it up.
ALUs are for integer instructions. FPU are for floating point.
4670k = 16 ALUs and 24 FPUs (4 ALUs per core and 3x256bit SIMD (FPU)
8350 = 16 ALUs and 16 FPUs ( 2 ALUs per core and sharing 2x128bit SIMD with the other core in the module)
meaning all cores (8 threads) needs to be heavily active on the 8350 to be even with the 4670k.
With FPU (Better called SIMD) it is not even close no matter the thread count.
ah offcoure we get those retared and biassed towards intel tech yes movies again. that dude is only talking bullshit realy.
The diffrence in gaming from ivybridge to hasswell, is not a big improvement at all. people who claim that hasswell is a huge improvement over ivy or even sandy in gaming, are realy miss informed. Elrick did a test with both ivy and hasswell chips and he gained about 3 fps. on hasswell, in both gpu and also cpu bounded games. its just bullshit the hasswell is a big improvement for gaming.
FX8350 and i5-4670K are both great chips for gaming, they perform arround the same. only a few games, that have a realy bad optimized gaming engine to use multiple cores, like ARMA DAYZ LOL WOW, those games just better perform on an intel cpu.
But all todays games, perform realy well on both chips. the GPU is still the most important factor in the gaming rig. This crap is realy starting to annoy me. I not gonne state which cpu is better for gaming, because that is a personal thing, depending on the games you play. But on most todays and futured games, Both cpu´s just perform very well. not much of a diffrence at all.
So grab what ever makes you feel the most comfortable. most important thing, what ever you choose try to make your system as balanced as possible. cpu/mobo/gpu.
Also the same thing, that people claim to go with a 4930K for gaming, because it's a "much" better cpu then hasswell or AMD FX, this so so annoying, because its totaly not true. 4930K does totaly not improve anyting in gaming. okay the 4930K can do more tasks at one time, and this is realy interessting in productivity, but in gaming, its totaly pointless. THat it can do more tasks at the same time, does not automaticly make it a faster chip clock for clock.. it just depending on what you do with it. it just has more horse power for productivity and editing. But not for gaming.
Wow! you guys made her rant.
+1. Fanboy nonsense is considered thread crapping imho.
"4670k = 16 ALUs and 24 FPUs (4 ALUs per core and 3x256bit SIMD (FPU)" 3x4=24? 3x4=12!
"8350 = 16 ALUs and 16 FPUs ( 2 ALUs per core and sharing 2x128bit SIMD with the other core in the module)" 2x4=16? 2x4=8!
Did i miss something? ;)
Yeah, the typical Intel vs AMD stuff.
I've never seen angel rant :P
This shows in the benchmarks, except that the 8350 still beats the i5 in some benchmarks. The 8350 also overclocks very well. Anyway, The i5 is the overall winner when you got the money for either.
I agree with mysteryangel that they both perform very well... but the i5 is better.. and not from a fanboy stance.. from a benchmark and overall usage standpoint. I linked a video above, but I came across similar results with lots of different websites. If you have the money, then the i5 4670k is the better buy. The 8350 is still the performance to money ratio king though, and not bad by any account.
Haswell = 3x256bit SIMD per core x 4 = 12x256 SIMD = 24x128bit SIMD.
Piledriver = 2x128bit FPU per module x 4 = 8x128bit + 2 MMX (totally forgot about this, my fault) per module x 4 = 8x128bit FPU + 8xMMX SIMD = 16 SIMD total.
I didn't explain it correctly and understand the confusion.
In doubt knock me out a question
Enough with the theoretical bs...
For the OP... the i5 is the better choice... it's significantly faster in Photoshop, won't bottleneck a R9 290, and in games that are CPU-bound, will perform better than the 8350/9370... even an i7 isn't really an upgrade when specifically talking about Photoshop... which is what the computer will be used for... if he wants to shave around $100 off the build, the 8350 is a viable option... if he wants the best performance for his build, the a k-series i5 on a nice Z87 chipset is the best solution...
I would also point out that Photoshop runs mildly better with CUDA accel... if that's a focal point of the build and if the 780 is around the 290's price range where OP lives...
Case closed :P
lol the ""i5 would not bottleneck a R9-290."" FX8350 won't bottleneck it either. thats a pointless argument.
Also about the GPU, the newer version´s of photoshop also supports open GL. so that it runs better on cuda, i think that is a bit outdated.
That photoshop will probably run better on the i5, you could maybe be right on that. Older version´s of photoshop, where all single threaded, i don't know if they improved that in theire newest version. "op" should do a research on that. Thats basicly the only reason why i voted for the i5 on the first page. But still it would also be working totaly fine on an AMD FX.
photoshop is multhreaded... but it runs better on the i5...
and the "for gaming" CPU argument is over... any processor worth a #$@$ won't bottleneck a R9 290... the GPU is nearly always the bottleneck... when you're talking about a CPU, you're talking about processing power... not FPS...
anyways.... it does support open GL... so if you had a workstation card that would run it well too :)