• 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.

FX-8 8350 or 3570k?

Depends what you're using it for.
The 3570K is now a generation and socket old though.

If you can get a 4670K with no sacrifices on the GPU, go for it.
If you can't, then go for an FX8320 and put the other money elsewhere.
 
The new i5 is the 4670K on socket 1150, the 3570K is last generation on socket 1155.

If you can get the 4670K without any sacrifices, then I'd check the benchmarks and decide.

I'd take the i5 4670K personally though.
 
imginy said:
You would be missing out big time on some of the games.

I would get the 3570k or 4670k over the AMD.

3dmark11 I can get nearly 10000 with a 3570k and that is much much faster than an 8350.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5827971
Click to expand...

No its not. According to your link you get 9888 physics score @ a 5ghz OC i get 9700 with a 4,8ghz OC on my 8350 so the CPU performance when both are OCed are about the same in that benchmark. If i had to choose between a 3570k and a 8350 and had proper cooling for both i would go with the FX because gaming results will be similar and you get the added bonus of having an awwsome CPU for heavy threaded workloads such as rendering while saving a bit of cash. If we were talking i7 vs the FX 8350 i would go with the I7 anyday.
 
never mind a 3570k I would even take a 2500k over the 8350 especially for gaming! What game uses 8 cores currently?

I thought this topic had been discussed to death with intel always coming out on top unless on a budget
 
The 8320/50 at over 4.5GHz is extremely powerful in multi-threaded software - you're not guaranteed of that result, but many people can get higher than that. Compared to the 4770K, a COH2 benchmark has it ahead with, "Meanwhile, AMD’s processor [@4.7GHz] dominates in the newest Company of Heroes game, a title that is shockingly well optimized for multi core systems.".

The trouble is, give an example here of something where the FX processors do extremely well and a ton of rabid fanboys descend, as if you've committed blasphemy.
 
I'd go for an I5 tbh, better gaming performance, much lower power consumption, especially when overclocked. The only time the FX may be in front (performance) is in heavy multi thread usage.

Just overclock the I5 to say 4.4ish and I can't see it holding you back for a while.
 
Last edited:
Zaim said:
Looks poor to me, 49 FPS at 4.5GHZ (FX8350- Medium settings) then 3570K gets 61 FPS and that's at Stock lol.
Click to expand...

I best back down now, I'm a rabid fanboy.

No one says the FX83 are poor, but they don't get you the best performance, so why sacrifice unless you really need to? Seems silly to me.
 
Yup, let's ignore a valid benchmark because another one that could easily be on old drivers/older patches, says otherwise.
 
I'm weighing up the same at the moment, 8320 is winning for me so far. The intel option is probably better, but I don't expect it to be that noticeable in the real world. Not enough to justify the cost difference anyway.

benchmarks benchmarks benchmarks, they're both damn good chips which ever way you look at it.

That's a fellow noob's opinion anyway.
 
Go get an FX83 and bench COH2 against your i7.

Orch said:
I'm weighing up the same at the moment, 8320 is winning for me so far. The intel option is probably better, but I don't expect it to be that noticeable in the real world. Not enough to justify the cost difference anyway.

benchmarks benchmarks benchmarks, they're both damn good chips which ever way you look at it.

That's a fellow noob's opinion anyway.
Click to expand...

So, ignorance is bliss?

With only a 7850, there's no reason in the world for you to jump to an Intel chip, an FX8320 would be fine (Although you need a new board, which getting AM3+ right now is unwise)
But when we're talking the high end when you've spent 100 quid extra for a little gain the GPU (Say a 7950 over a 7970), there's absolutely no reason to lower your "benchmarks" as then you've wasted money on your GPU set up.
 
Last edited:
Orch said:
I'm weighing up the same at the moment, 8320 is winning for me so far. The intel option is probably better, but I don't expect it to be that noticeable in the real world. Not enough to justify the cost difference anyway.

benchmarks benchmarks benchmarks, they're both damn good chips which ever way you look at it.

That's a fellow noob's opinion anyway.
Click to expand...

Some people would rather stare at FPS counters all day. I don't care in the slightest if a game gives me 160fps on one processor compared to 180fps on a processor costing twice the price. Especially since it's impossible to see that without a counter.

As I say, there's no way you can speak up for what AMD processors can actually do without at least one person coming along to say Intel's far better, and all benchmarks that show otherwise are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom