• 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.

Paralysed with indecision: i7-4770 or FX-8350.

Squeeker

Squeeker

Squeeker

Associate
Joined
11 Jan 2005
Posts
6
Location
Berkshire, UK
I only build a new machine every 6 or 7 years so I want to get it right.

I intend to run Windows 8.1 and also 2 or 3 virtual machines (VirtualBox) - a command line Debian, Linux Mint and a Windows 7. I'll tend to have the Debian running all the time and one or both of the others as needs dictate. I tend to leave the machine on 24/7 so it has to be efficient and quiet.

On the Windows 8.1 host I'll be running Photoshop (once or twice a week) and also compiling in Visual Studio (every other day). I'll play a few old games (Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 / Diablo 2 are were my gaming interests lie).

I also run some high end film editing software which can make use of Cuda so I'll probably get an NVidia graphics card to help with this and the photoshop but I'm happy to slum it without one initially.

Finally I'm not terribly interested in overclocking though would certainly dabble if it results in a measurable improvement for nothing but a little time.

My thoughts on the contenders:

FX-8350.
Pros:
- Cheap.
- Best use is for virtualisation (from what I read).
Cons:
- Runs hotter than the i7.
- Will require noisier cooler?

i7-4770.
Pros:
- Cooler.
- Faster.
- On-board graphics.
Cons:
- More expensive.
- K version has had VT-d disabled so non-K only.

I was favouring the FX-8350 but I'll need to get a graphics card immediately so it means it's no cheaper than the i7. So perhaps i7 but then am I missing out on some virtualisation performance so perhaps I stop worrying about the price and just get the graphics card. That just gets more confusing - Which graphics card should I get? Or perhaps I get a cheap card now and defer the choice of a more expensive card to another day (and another question). But then I end up with 2 graphics cards, plus the i7 does impress in all the benchmarks I've seen so perhaps I'll ignore the graphics card problem and get that. But I will have to get a card at some point so perhaps putting it off is silly which leads me back to FX-3850 - arrrrh!

Tell me what to do please :)

Seriously any additional info anybody has or compelling opinions or experiences gratefully received.
 
8350 does not run hotter than the 4770k, that's a myth. It has a throttle temp of 85c.

8350 - needs a good board. Needs a good cooler. Cheap, effective when threaded properly and supported properly (I'm using virtualisation myself for SLI hack). Depends solely on software due to weaker IPC than Intel. Great to overclock, tons of fun.

4770k - downright faster than the 8350 but I would buy the 8320 which costs half of the 4770k. People have realised that the 8320 is every bit as good as the 8350. Faster IPC, good for old games or games that don't want more than a couple of cores. Can run very very hot, can be an absolute pig to overclock, needs a good cooler but board should cost you a bit less than a very high end AMD board.

8350 won't require a noisier cooler. The Intel will need identical cooling. A h100 refurb or h80 refurb with a couple of premium fans on (like Cougar Vortex, Noctua if you can stand the colours, Noiseblocker etc)

I hope that helps :)

Edit. If you're not into overclocking you're going to lose out really badly. Ask for advice here, buy the right kit and just ask for help with overclocking. If you buy a Sabertooth 990fx or Crosshair V Formula Z for example then you can learn to overclock it in about ten minutes. I'm sure there are plenty of people around here to help on Intel if you choose that path, but please, don't buy a locked CPU. If a game wants more mhz there's nothing you can do about it.
 
Last edited:
I'm not adverse to overclocking so I'll direct my research into the areas you mentioned.

Especially happy you put some motherboard suggestions on there as the number of alternatives is bewildering and the tip about the 8320 was also most welcome.

Thanks for taking the time to respond ALXAndy much appreciated.
 
4770K.

You'd be surprised how much faster Intel processors are to AMD. Also the while the 4770K is the more expensive choice, it should do you for a fair few years before you'd need to upgrade.
 
The only (IMO) downside to AMD AM3+ 990 chipset boards is the absence of mATX or ITX. You are restricted to full ATX. A £120 FX8350 CPU and a similar priced motherboard with £30 to £50 for an air cooler or all in one water cooler is all that is required to provide a decent clock.

The PSU will depend largely on the GPU requirements. If you are not into the battlefield series or crysis etc. a new AMD R7 250 or 260 series will give performance of the Intel IGP and more on a budget of £60 to £100. A brand name 500-600W PSU will be ample.

I use my 8350 for gaming, VM's and general use. The AMD CPU tends to perform better on Linux than windows I believe.

Both are good choices and you will have plenty of performance in hand with either solution.
 
As said before, if you go fx chips, go 8320 to save cash. For the 8320 motherboards i can recommend the Asus evo 970, asus evo pro, Sabertooth and the Crosshair Formula-Z (in order of expense, obviously if you spend mroe you get a better board). The gigabyte UD3 is good but i hear a lot of people have trouble with some of the revisions. If you are considering a Haswell i7, it means you probably have the cash to not go budget on the motherboard, so i would dish out for the Sabertooth if overclocking is a real possibility.

Rather than dishing out for the card now due to lack of onboard graphics, you can just get a cheapo outdated card for the display only and then up the graphics card at a later date. If you plan on spending big on the GPU when you get it, this will probably be the better option, since the 290/290x isn't released yet and it may shake the market prices quite a bit when it debuts. Even if they don't, a handful of months down the line and there will be more options to choose from and the current options would be cheaper. Though with this attitude, you could keep on going for years waiting for new tech.
 
If you're opting out of overclocking then I'd wager that the virtualization performance difference would be minimal between the 8350/8320 and the 4770.

Efficiency-wise the Intel system would probably cost you less to run but it's frustrating that Intel neutered features from the K-version chip.

Potentially you're looking at a situation where you're comparing overclocked 8350/8320 to a stock 4770, in which case the AMD system would give you more for the money. As others have said, you'll need a fairly decent AM3 board to run the FX8xxx chips, so once you've spent that on the board add in a decent cooler and you're already on the way to a fair overclock.
 
nkata said:
A £120 FX8350 CPU and a similar priced motherboard with £30 to £50 for an air cooler or all in one water cooler is all that is required to provide a decent clock.

The PSU will depend largely on the GPU requirements. If you are not into the battlefield series or crysis etc. a new AMD R7 250 or 260 series will give performance of the Intel IGP and more on a budget of £60 to £100. A brand name 500-600W PSU will be ample.
Click to expand...

+1

nkata said:
Both are good choices and you will have plenty of performance in hand with either solution.
Click to expand...

+1

The money you save via the AMD build offers you that entry R7 260 GPU (TrueAudio) for when it's needed.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you consider a 4820K if VT-d is important? it's clocked higher than a 4770K at default and will leave an upgrade path in the future.
 
Last edited:
kaku said:
If you're opting out of overclocking then I'd wager that the virtualization performance difference would be minimal between the 8350/8320 and the 4770.

Efficiency-wise the Intel system would probably cost you less to run but it's frustrating that Intel neutered features from the K-version chip.

Potentially you're looking at a situation where you're comparing overclocked 8350/8320 to a stock 4770, in which case the AMD system would give you more for the money. As others have said, you'll need a fairly decent AM3 board to run the FX8xxx chips, so once you've spent that on the board add in a decent cooler and you're already on the way to a fair overclock.
Click to expand...

Intel want you to buy a new CPU every time they release one. That would be about every ten minutes. Why leave a function in that people need when you can lock it away and go "muhahahahaha !".

But yes, jokes aside it's pretty chitty bang bang.
 
MrMarvelous said:
4770K.

You'd be surprised how much faster Intel processors are to AMD. Also the while the 4770K is the more expensive choice, it should do you for a fair few years before you'd need to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Stelly said:
4770k Definitely for all the already listed reasons :)

Stelly
Click to expand...

If you give advice then please read the entire OP instead of this typical auto response. He cannot use the 4770k for VT-d.
 
MrMarvelous said:
4770K.

You'd be surprised how much faster Intel processors are to AMD. Also the while the 4770K is the more expensive choice, it should do you for a fair few years before you'd need to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Or you'd be surprised that this is meaningless - it depends on what you're doing and the software you're running. Timed compilation benchmark here, the kind of task that is relevant to the OP:

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1310099-SO-COREI341322&sha=86d37bc&p=2

The stock 8350 is slightly behind the 4770K and ahead of a 3770K - add in overclock headroom over the non-existent one with the 4770, and the 8320/50 will pull ahead.

With VMs the 8320/50 is a very good choice. The 4770 will have the edge if the system will often be running single threaded apps in isolation, but if it tends to be general workload across the VMs, the AMD CPUs are very hard to beat.

If going with AMD, as suggested above, the 8320 overclocked offers the best value. A very decent 4.5-4.8GHz or so overclock is achievable on a sub £100 board, with a £35 quiet cooler.
 
OP cant get a K chip, so the value for money in overclocking the intel chip has taken a blow. The 8320 is cheaper, adequate for the job and can be heavily overclocked to gain some great benefits.

I think the vote goes to 8320 in this one.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
OP cant get a K chip, so the value for money in overclocking the intel chip has taken a blow. The 8320 is cheaper, adequate for the job and can be heavily overclocked to gain some great benefits.

I think the vote goes to 8320 in this one.
Click to expand...

I have to agree, but where's Martin to be my thread contrarian? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom