• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel i5 3570k Quad Core (OC'd to 4.4GHz) or AMD FX-8 8350 Eight Core (Turbo boost 4.0GHz)?

veritiero

veritiero

veritiero

Associate
Joined
28 Aug 2013
Posts
46
Hi guys, (I'm new to the OC forums so i'm sorry if i lack technicality etc)

I am looking at buying a new gaming pc from Overclockers and have 2 different spec pc's in mind. The specification of the pc's are exactly what i'm looking for, however i am not sure on what processor will be the better choice.

The 2 processors i have in mind are:
- Intel i5 3570k 3.4GHz Quad core but Overclocked to 4.4GHz
- AMD FX-8 8350 3.5GHz Eight core (4.0GHz Turbo)

I am not sure which one is better as i have heard all different opinions so i thought who better to ask than the Overclockers forum guru's. The pc will primarily be used for gaming!

i have taken all other specs into mind i am just unsure on which processor, what would you guys choose?

Thanks guys

Again i am new to these forums so sorry if i seem very basic :confused:
 
If a game uses 4 cores or less, then the Intel will win easily. If the game uses 5+ cores, then there's a chance the AMD CPU will be better, although it's not guaranteed.

So really it depends what games you intend to play as something like World of Warcraft will favour the Intel CPU as it only uses 1 to 2 cores as far as I know, where as something like Crysis 3 or Battlefield 3/4 will possibly favour the AMD as they make use of all available cores.
 
Intel is generally the best option for gaming. Even though the amd is an 8 core CPU they are generally used multi threaded apps like video encoding. As a rule of thumb core per core amd is worse. Most games only use 4 core at max with a few exceptions. One of the major exceptions being bf4 being coded with an amd 8350 in mind.

If your budget allows for Intel then that is the way I should go.
 
Last edited:
SouthEastBlue said:
If a game uses 4 cores or less, then the Intel will win easily. If the game uses 5+ cores, then there's a chance the AMD CPU will be better, although it's not guaranteed.

So really it depends what games you intend to play as something like World of Warcraft will favour the Intel CPU as it only uses 1 to 2 cores as far as I know, where as something like Crysis 3 or Battlefield 3/4 will possibly favour the AMD as they make use of all available cores.
Click to expand...

Oh right thanks mate, that makes perfect sense. I never took how many cores the game will use into consideration *embarrassed*

I wont be playing WoW i will mainly be playing Call of Duty, and Sacred 2 and skyrim, i heard that around 70% of current game titles only use 2 cores, (obviously newer games might use more).

All in all i think i will go for the i5 based on this, thanks for all your help!

kind regards
 
swiftmetal said:
Intel is generally the best option for gaming. Even though the amd is an 8 core CPU they are generally used multi threaded apps like video encoding. As a rule of thumb core per core amd is worse. Most games only use 4 core at max with a few exceptions. One of the major exceptions being bf4 being coded with an amd 8350 in mind.

If your budget allows for Intel then that is the way I should go.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot boss, this has put it into perspective for me, i was just curious about the eight cores.

my budget will allow for Intel, i will get the i5 :D

Thank you!
 
Games designed around next gen consoles will probably show a significant advantage for AMD, as they'll be optimised for AMD's bulldozer-family CPU architecture and many cores.

Most games now show an advantage for Intel, but it's ever-diminishing.
 
pmc25 said:
Games designed around next gen consoles will probably show a significant advantage for AMD, as they'll be optimised for AMD's bulldozer-family CPU architecture and many cores.

Most games now show an advantage for Intel, but it's ever-diminishing.
Click to expand...

Why? I wasn't aware that consoles used 'bulldozer architecture' so why will we see this advantage? Where is this information coming from?
 
I've tinkered with both and currently use 8350 @ 4.8ghz
But in all honestly i'd say the intel option would offer better performance.

The difference between the two isn't INSANE. But if you want the better of the two then intel it is.
 
=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
Why? I wasn't aware that consoles used 'bulldozer architecture' so why will we see this advantage? Where is this information coming from?
Click to expand...

People who want to consider their FX8350s 'high-end'? xD

Next-gen consoles are based on a lower clockspeed, multi-core approach. So people are inferring from this that PS4/XBOne games will be optimised for multi-core performance, and as such the PC ports of these games will be too.

Whether it will show tangible differences with the hardware we have at the moment remains to be seen though, and I don't suppose you'll get a definite answer until we see the new games.
 
Personally I'd consider i7 3770k or even the 4770k for their hyperthreading capabilities, you never know when games will start to benefit from it, I think BF3 is one example that benefits from HT tech, but I will stand corrected if anyone knows otherwise, also i7 would be better equipped to handle multi GPU's if you ever decided to sli/crossfire.

i5's are very capable chips though and a 3570k, 4670k would serve you well, get the best you can afford.

Welcome to the forum.
 
Last edited:
pmc25 said:
Games designed around next gen consoles will probably show a significant advantage for AMD, as they'll be optimised for AMD's bulldozer-family CPU architecture and many cores.

Most games now show an advantage for Intel, but it's ever-diminishing.
Click to expand...
Games using 8 cores won't make the Piledriver FX8's performance better than the i5, as their individual cores are simply too slow in comparison.

According to game benchmarks, a "8 cores" FX8350 at 4.00GHz is only on par with the gaming performance of a quad-cores IvyBridge i5 at 3.20GHz in high-threaded games such as Crysis 3, Far Cry 3 etc, so an overclocked IvyBridge i5 at 4.00GHz would already matches, if not a little bit faster than the performance of a FX8 overclocked to 4.80GHz (we are not even talking about the faster Haswell i5 here), and the i5 would still have around 500-800MHz left in the tank for overclocking, which will take them beyond the overclocked FX-8.

True that with AMD bagged the consoles it would most likely benefit 8 cores CPU, but it isn't enough to push the FX8 beyond the i5's performance. If anything it is the Steamroller that might have a chance of capable of doing that, but not the Piledriver or Bulldozer CPUs.
 
Last edited:
pmc25 said:
Games designed around next gen consoles will probably show a significant advantage for AMD, as they'll be optimised for AMD's bulldozer-family CPU architecture and many cores.

Most games now show an advantage for Intel, but it's ever-diminishing.
Click to expand...

Most games now are getting GPU heavy which offsets the lower core for core performance.
Although, most new engines are optimised for more threads, which will help improve the AMD 8 cores performance, but they're not out performing the Intels, they're reaching parity to the GPU bottleneck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom