FX-8 8350 or 3570k?

Phixsator · 11 Sep 2013 at 22:26

Temp.sgk said:
Does that mean that both the i5 3570k and FX-8 have very similar life spans?
Also for future, as in 3 years ahead will these two cpu still stand? Or is a i7 better for the future.

I would say that if the choice was between an I7 and the FX-8350 the I7 should be the one picked every single time because it offers as good single thread performance like the i5 but also offers hyperthreading for more threaded software/games. The only thing the FX-8350 has left then is its bigger L1 cache which is usually only seen to have a larger benefit when rendering as fare as i know(someone correct me if im wrong)

gpuerrilla · 11 Sep 2013 at 22:29

Doomedspeed said:
So you'd rather spend the money on something cheaper then upgrade when you find out you need something better? Not all of us have money to burn..

I dont think you read posts properly. I have clearly stated my machine is coming up to 5 yrs old now with only a couple of gpu's changed over that time - do I sound like I have money to burn? :rolleyes:

gpuerrilla · 11 Sep 2013 at 22:35

Martini1991 said:
If you're playing older games right now the Intel offers much better performance as older games weren't heavily threaded, so if we want to go through the flawed argument, we'll do it properly?

Hang on there, lets not get too personal. I play old games, I play some new. If they are new I don't have to run it at max settings (sure it would be nice) so it would probably be one for good storyline or playablility. If I wanted to play eyecandy max - pc gaming is expensive. Do you never use steam?

Martini1991 said:
But I can't be fussed with a flawed debate.

What? Don't be childish.

Martini1991 said:
It also doesn't make any sense given your opening point about your Core 2 Dual core bottlenecking now.

What doesn't make sense?

imginy · 11 Sep 2013 at 22:42

I think the extra £30 for the 3570k over the 8350 is well worth it.

Toms hierarchy chart puts the 8350 below a bottom end sandy i5 lol
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

Phixsator · 11 Sep 2013 at 22:56

imginy said:
I think the extra £30 for the 3570k over the 8350 is well worth it.

Toms hierarchy chart puts the 8350 below a bottom end sandy i5 lol
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

Toms Hardware reviews is dodgy as hell. They never seem to allign with what normal people gets.

gpuerrilla · 11 Sep 2013 at 22:57

imginy said:
I think the extra £30 for the 3570k over the 8350 is well worth it.

Toms hierarchy chart puts the 8350 below a bottom end sandy i5 lol
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

Phixsator said:
Toms Hardware reviews is dodgy as hell. They never seem to align with what normal people gets.

A review is not bad if the tech your eyeing up is just out but it is only a snapshot for that moment in time. I personally don't rate Toms and would take performance feedback from other parties before making a judgement. Sometimes problems get fixed (BIOS) or drivers released that improve the situation.

teppic · 11 Sep 2013 at 23:12

As shown many times, the 3570K and 8350 in actual gaming show essentially the same performance. Like others I would recommend the cheaper 8320 and just overclock it to 4.5GHz; the 8350 is perhaps a better idea if you're aiming for 4.8GHz or higher.

Tomshardware varies like any site. It's currently got the 6300 listed under the best gaming CPUs in the £90 area. And it says that for gaming the 6300 is a 'shining star' and can beat the i5 in some loads.

gpuerrilla · 11 Sep 2013 at 23:46

Referring to OT:

Temp.sgk said:
Yeah I am on a budget.

Whilst I am interested in 'debating' with some others about personal preferences, the crux of the matter is this guy is "on a budget".

With this in mind my call would be to invest the remaining budget into a better PSU and GPU if possible.

What would be nice is for some gent who actually uses a 8320 to join the debate.

Zaim · 11 Sep 2013 at 23:51

teppic said:
As shown many times, the 3570K and 8350 in actual gaming show essentially the same performance. Like others I would recommend the cheaper 8320 and just overclock it to 4.5GHz; the 8350 is perhaps a better idea if you're aiming for 4.8GHz or higher.

Tomshardware varies like any site. It's currently got the 6300 listed under the best gaming CPUs in the £90 area. And it says that for gaming the 6300 is a 'shining star' and can beat the i5 in some loads.

lol what about the high power consumption ? you'd be better off with a 3570K/4670K imo.

Edit: @OP what is your total budget and what do you need exactly ? probably best to find that out first then make recommendations

teppic · 12 Sep 2013 at 00:03

The 8350 has a TDP of 125W - it'll use that at peak when totally flat out on all cores. For gaming you'd be unlikely to use much more than half that power. Overclocking will increase the full load usage, but measurements are taken at every core stressed, which doesn't really happen normally. The rest of the system isn't any different from Ivy Bridge. Using a cheaper PSU is likely to waste more power in wasted efficiency compared to a high end gold one.

Phixsator · 12 Sep 2013 at 08:25

Zaim said:
lol what about the high power consumption ? you'd be better off with a 3570K/4670K imo.

When you actually measure the extra power used and calculate it with what the price for power is you will find that it only amounts to a few extra dollars each year so you cannot use that statement as a valid argument as the difference is to small to be noticeable.

RavenXXX2 · 12 Sep 2013 at 08:44

AMD remains deeply uncompetitive in primarily single threaded applications such as games without offering the significant benefits in multi-threaded applications you’d expect from a chip boasting eight cores. Peak power consumption remains higher than Intel too and it’s these fundamental issues that mean the FX-8350 just isn’t a competitive CPU. Despite the drop in price, there’s almost no reason to opt for the FX-8350 in comparison to the Intel competition; it seems that while AMD’s changed lots of little things about the FX-8350, the end result remains largely the same.

If you can afford the extra £30 you go with the 3570k or 4670k, it's that simple.

d_brennen · 12 Sep 2013 at 09:01

Th0nt said:
What would be nice is for some gent who actually uses a 8320 to join the debate.

What would you like to know?

Zaim said:
lol what about the high power consumption ? you'd be better off with a 3570K/4670K imo.

lol I totally miss that 27p per month

TBF if I had to buy a new motherboard and CPU now, I might have made a different choice, AM3+ is looking more and more like a dead end socket. The price of an 8320 and having a 990FX board, it was a no-brainer

Toms (like most places it seems) results with this chips don't really line up with my user experience. It was the same with my A10 laptop - consistantly getting better minimum/averages than reviews.

I've been called an AMD fanboy before but that's not really the case, I've had/still have every platform bar Haswell and the E hex cores. I'm a technology enthusiast and AMD make more quirky products at the moment.

I think if you have a crappy experience with a game that does not run well enough on an FX63xx and up, you'll only have a slightly less crappy experience on an Intel i5 and up system.

xTommy92 · 12 Sep 2013 at 09:39

Personally if it were me I would grab a 3570K as a lot of games currently use 4 or less cores except from the few like BF3, Crysis 3 etc and would definitely grant you better performance and overclock potential.
You can always look to get another CPU in the future with the release of the Haswell-E with 8 Cores which would be very beneficial for next-gen gaming as most games will take advantage of 8 cores due the new consoles being released.

My opinion and what I am currently doing.

Tom

Zaim · 12 Sep 2013 at 09:47

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/5

gijohn2 · 12 Sep 2013 at 10:55

Get the 8320, Disable 2 cores so its a 6 core then overclocked it so you have higher GHZ per core

Make · 12 Sep 2013 at 10:58

gijohn2 said:
Get the 8320, Disable 2 cores so its a 6 core then overclocked it so you have higher GHZ per core

Has there been any stats or benchies in the real world about anyone doing this and gaining a performance boost vs. clocking all cores? It sounds damn weird and backwards logic. Wouldn't they just release a more powerful 4-6 core CPU to compete with intel if they could do that?

I don't know anything about AMD OC's so genuinely interested.

~>Dg<~ · 12 Sep 2013 at 11:00

amd if on a budget as always everything else intel.

Martini1991 · 12 Sep 2013 at 11:01

Depends if you can get a higher clock on the 6 cores than you could with the 8, and only if it's only using 6 cores, but then why wouldn't you just buy a cheaper FX6300?

EDIT : Isn't budget meaning total, not necessarily cheap, just like people who continually misuse diet?
If your budget can't fit the Intel without sacrifices, then go AMD is what it should be

gijohn2 · 12 Sep 2013 at 11:16

I play a lot of old style games, CSS, RTW, UT4 mods etc so me personally i would lean towards the 6300/6350 so i could still play the older games as well as play the newer games

I already have a lot of stuff left over from my old build so i only need CPU, Ram and mobo

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-176-MS

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-338-AM
(Whilst its on offer if i cant get the money before the offer ends ill get the 6350)

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-068-PA
Or Similar as i just noticed the price has crept up from 53.99 to 58.99