Im going to be building a new machine soon and i want to know if i should get a 8350 or get an i5 4670k. i wanna try to keep it in the 200 dollar range for a new processor and around another 200 for a motherboard. I could also just wait a bit longer and get an i7 but i am unsure on what i should do.
any help is much appreciated
P.S. please keep the fanboying to a minimum i want actual results here not another battle between amd and intel.
Depends what you want to do. If you want to game, you've hit the nail on the head. The octacore processors and the i5 are equally good. Splashing out $200 on a motherboard (and probably RAM in addition) will really take care of everything.
The 8350 is quite a versatile chip, but the only suitable motherboards for the AM3+ platform are all ATX.
Whereas the i5 could be placed in a mITX system.
Both are capable of editing.
The Intel platform is a little more up-to-date.
Up to you to decide if you want to stream games (AMD preference), or if you want portability (premium Intel preference).
The other deciding factor could be a specific game. There are games that can prefer either CPU. But on the whole, you won't see the difference in most games.
Amd's Ocata cores might have an advantage in future games that are developed for 8core consoles & then ported to pc, it's also a bit better regarding over-clocking.
The Intel k-parts lack some virtualization features which makes running a virtualized Windows on a Linux host system really slow in games. This might become relevant in a year or two depending on the adoption rate of SteamOs & some other factors.
The i7 has a bad price/performance in games compared to FX or i5.
Amd FX series' downside is more heat, which means bigger radiators/power-draw & like Berserker said already only full-size ATX mainboards. So midi-tower & big tower cases only.
If you want to see benchmark results there are plenty of those online. The jist is some games run faster on Amd and some faster on Intel, but the difference between equal Tier Intel/AMD systems are small & might change with updated optimizations of games. Unless you go for high-end parts there is not enough difference between AMD or INtel processors to worry about game-performance. My guess is that processor-prowess will become less important for games as time progresses.
IMHO:
What it boils down to : if you want a small portable gaming rig go INTEL, if you plan to use a full-size ATX-mainboard in a tower case anyway go AMD.
thank you guys, i do plan on gaming and doing some editing with video, and i was planning on using a full size case anyway being i wanna run two or three 290s in crossfire so i think ill go with the 8350.
If you use socket 1155 intell, you are stupid.
What exactly is wrong with Socket 1155? I assume you are going to want to recommend a Socket 2011 part (the 4820KKK as you call it or some reason) or a PowerPC chip.
Plus he was thinking about the 4670k which is a Socket 1150 chip....
So thank you for this incredibly informative and productive post. I'm so glad you have contributed to the conversation...
To answer the original question posed by the OP, both processors are incredibly good. I have both an 8350 based system and a 3570k based one and they are both excellent. In games it is pretty much of a wash with similar preformance across both CPUs. However in some games, at higher resolutions (1440p) and when using SLI or Crossfire, the 8350 does seem to pull ahead and preform better. If you are streaming the 8350 is also much better and it does seem to do way better in video editing (Using Premier CS6 in my case) and rendering. H.264 encoding is much faster than on the 3570k.
The 8350 seems to overclock better. I easily got mine to 4.8Ghz. Getting the i5 to 4.0 was a struggle. But that is also down to winning the OC lottery.
The 8350 will also use more power, especially when OCed, but it isn't that huge of a deal. The 4670k will also be more "future proof" if you can even use that when it comes to computers. It does have support for PCI 3.0, but right now that doesn't really mean too much.
The motherboard selection for 1150 is much better too. From mITX to ATX you can get a motherboard with pretty much any feature you want. That being said the motherboards are usually a bit more expensive than AM3+, however they can only be had in ATX (for a decent one).
As for the i7, there is no need. The 4770k is way overkill for gaming. Plus the price to performance ratio is no where near as good as it is on the i5 or the 8350.
Both parts are very good. I'd go with the 8350, but it is your call.
I got my 3570k to 4.5 Ghz. But it required a ton of voltage and produced a lot more heat over 4.4 Ghz (which was easy to reach) so I just dropped it down to 4 Ghz. Especially when it's hot in the summer at it would get a little too hot for my tastes.
Just wondering here, sorry to hijack the OP's thread, how do AMD chips perform using an emulator such as Dolphin (GameCube + Wii), which are very CPU intensive? I'm going to assume that the much higher overclock capabilities make it a better choice?
How much heat / noise is produced from an AMD chip in comparison to a Intel chip? If someone rather wanted a "silent" build, should they go for AMD or Intel, both of course using aftermarket heatsinks from someone like Be Quiet! or Noctua.
Just wanting to expand my knowledge. The 8320 is stupid cheap when compared to an i5, for some reason I've been using Intel only, maybe it's time to change that. 8 cores! I also read somewhere that they're abandoning the AM3+ socket, isn't it silly then to choose an FX chip if there's no upgradability?
If you're going AMD I would say go with the 8320 instead of the 8350 and overlock to 8350 speeds. Saves you ~$40.
Go AM2, AM3, LGA2011, or Socket 3072. Any other option is worthless. I recommend: for cheap builds: Athalon X2, for mid builds: 1100t, for great builds: 4930K, for amazing builds: Power8. Use of other CPU is just plain dumb. For this build, I recommend an 1100t.
For most people by the time it's worth it to upgrade a CPU there will be a new socket anyways. the FX series performs well with emulators.
AMD doesn't really have 8 cores.
8 integer cores. Four floating point cores. Each pair of integer cores shares cache with its partner core. Each core does not have its own FSB either.
Heck, X86 doesn't even have a FSB. If I remember, it's an HT link at 200MHz. Still, all of the cores share the HT link.
I just run my bus at half my CPU speed. I have one VRM, one socket, but two physical CPUs on one duaghter card with four frontside busses. Each of my logical cores is really its own CPU. Each of my logical cores has its own die. I cool with TEC direct on the dies.
Why though? You give no reasoning. At all.
The 1100t would be dumb. It has been proven using benchmarks, both synthetic and in game, that the Phenom II 965 X4 outperforms the six core.
Why is it just plain dumb? The Athlon X2? Really? Then going all the way to the 4930k? A nearly $600 CPU?
I don't think you are really understanding what this person is asking for. Your PowerPC fanboyism is blinding you.
If someone wants a 500$ build, use an Athlon X2. If someone wants a 1000$ build, use an 1100t. If someone wants a 2000$ build, use a 4930K.
Taking these in order:
1. From what I've heard, Intel is faster at Dolphin. Period. I haven't personally seen the benchmarks, though, because I don't care for Gamecube or Wii games.
2. AMD's TDPs are higher than Intel's, but that's meaningless. It is not a measure of power draw, it's a measure of the thermal energy dissipated by the cooler, and (here's the important bit) every company measures it differently. Several years back, I think it was determined that AMD measured TDP under a 100% load, while Intel used a "heavy, but reasonable" load that was not 100%. How they do it now is anyone's guess.
For actual temperatures, I've heard that FX chips stay cooler, despite using more power. To tell which would be quieter under a given cooler, you'd have to test the thermal output under the same workload (remembering that a "full load" on an i5 is not doing as much work as a "full load" on an 8350). It's reasonable to assume a quiet cooler will be quiet for both chips.
3. There are currently no public plans to make more chips on the AM3+ socket, and it's unknown whether any possible future socket will be backwards compatible. 1155 is also dead, and it's unlikely that 1150 will support the next generation of Intel CPUs. So you have 3 sockets to choose from with no upgradability. It's a wash there.
8 integer cores and 8 independent halves of four 256-bit floating-point units. The only time the floating-point unit is "shared" is in the case of AVX instructions, which are basically exclusive to synthetic benchmarks at this point, and largely useless outside scientific computing.
The spaces in between are room for RAM and GPU upgrades
So you are telling me that if I have $1000 to spend on a rig, I should buy an old less powerful processor just because it is in a Socket you like? That has no real bearing on preformance.
For $1k you can build one hell of a rig, even with a good processor. Dude stick to PowerPc.
Thanks for the info! Great comment.
Disappointed about Dolphin though. Maybe they'll update it in the future, I hear that it only utilities two cores anyway, so maybe once they get it using four cores or more, performance will be better.
Any idea when their next lineup of "FX-like" AMD CPU's will hit the market, with a new socket I'm presuming or will they use FM2+? Or are they ditching the FX series entirely and just focusing on the APU's?
I wasn't aware the LGA1150 wouldn't support Broadwell, or am I misinterpreting that, and you're actually talking about "Skylake"?
Stop your senseless trolling. You already made a thread about this, and it failed. Because you have no basis for this, and post nothing but low-quality nonsense.