• 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)?

joeyjojo said:
Er no, it's faster than an i7-3770K in crysis 3 at stock. At low res mind.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/

Your point about overclocking is good though.

(excuse double post)
Click to expand...

I could post a few benchmarks which show them on parity with higher frame rates.

It's no denying the FX83's are very competent for Crysis 3, they're as competent as the i7, although does show the future course, that as games get more multi-threaded, the gap becomes lesser.
 
Well, if your talking about GHZ per core then the cheaper and better option would be the AMD 6300/6350 (£90-£110).

For comparison ill use the 6300, at stock speeds its 3.5GHZ and with turbo its 4.2ghz but if you was to overclock it properly you could probably get to 4.5GHZ like the FX8xxx can get up to

So hypothetically 6/4.5= 0.75ghz each core

and the Intel I5 3570K 4/4.4= 1.1GHZ each core

FX8320 8/4.0 = 0.5ghz each core

So yeah the intel has the upper hand in terms of GHZ per core, But why pay that extra 50-80 if your not one of those people that must play games in ultra all the time?

If you like games and not overly fussed about playing in ultra graphics then go AMD but if you want to play in ultra graphics then go intel

Also then if you go AMD you can spend the extra cash on a better mobo or CPU cooler to get the clock up even more
 
Dawww, im still a noob in all this AMD Vs Intel

Id personally go with AMD, because its cheaper and the performance difference in certain tasks is only 5-10% less then the intel I5 3570k, does a small performance boost warrant an extra £80?, Personally no and the more people go AMD the more money they have to produce better CPUS to match intel

Still, im probably talking ****
 
The performance trades blows, in some tasks they're pretty much on par, others the i5's can have a decent lead, other times it's a minor lead, and then the same to the FX83.
But it's not 80 pound difference, even if we went with the FX8320 against the 3570K it's about 50 quid, it's about 75ish for the 4670K.

People spend extra on the 7970 over the 7950, so people will pay more money for the gain.
 
I totally agree, people will pay more just for a small performance increase, but giving OP a second opinion on AMD is what he wants, Now he can go off and watch some youtube comparisons or reviews, In the reviews i have read/watched the intel has come out ontop with FPS but only a gap of about 1-8FPS and the overall FPS on both intel and AMD was over 60, anything over 60 is hogwash and does not matter

If your on a budget go AMD and if money isnt an issue go intel, simples
 
Some games it's not quite the same story though, MMO's and RTS's can show quite a difference.

AMD's IPC is about 5 years behind.

Although you're wrong about the anything over 60 is hog wash, I run a 120HZ screen, I can certainly feel the difference.
 
gijohn2 said:
I totally agree, people will pay more just for a small performance increase, but giving OP a second opinion on AMD is what he wants, Now he can go off and watch some youtube comparisons or reviews, In the reviews i have read/watched the intel has come out ontop with FPS but only a gap of about 1-8FPS and the overall FPS on both intel and AMD was over 60, anything over 60 is hogwash and does not matter

If your on a budget go AMD and if money isnt an issue go intel, simples
Click to expand...
It's not the simple. The problem is that not all the cores of the AMD will be utilized in games; most games are still using 4 cores or less, which the AMD CPU will be hopelessly behind the Intel CPU's performance under those circumstances.

Yes with AMD bagged the consoles there is a very good chance that multi-platform titles will be much better optimised for using 8 cores, but that doesn't mean much for PC exclusives such as in the genres of Sims, MMOs, real-time strategies- which are know to be CPU demanding, but always poorly threaded. This is why as a all-rounder, the i5 is a better gaming CPU regardless of the game using 1 core or 8 cores, new games or old games.
 
Newer strategy games work better. Sim City is fine, and Company of Heroes 2 gave better results than with a 4770K in a 9590 (i.e. 8350 @ 4.7GHz) review.

Lots of shooters require far less CPU power than any of these have, games like Tomb Raider are not a problem. BF3 multiplayer is fine on the 8 cores (single player isn't CPU intensive), and BF4 is optimised for it.
 
If you wanted the most performance you can get out of COH2, it isn't AMD you're looking at though.

Sure, the FX95 (Won't it be boosting 5GHZ in this game) will be faster than a stock 4770K, but the 4770K has 1GHZ and maybe more left in the tank.
Since we're on about games which can show the difference.

Rome Total War, I'm going to take a shout at the Intel parts outperforming the AMD parts.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
If you wanted the most performance you can get out of COH2, it isn't AMD you're looking at though.

Sure, the FX95 (Won't it be boosting 5GHZ in this game) will be faster than a stock 4770K, but the 4770K has 1GHZ and maybe more left in the tank.
Click to expand...

It's running on 8 cores, so it won't be boosting. Agreed that the 4770K can be overclocked (unless you're me), my point really was that this game is heavily threaded, and an 8350 would have no problem keeping up with a 3570K.
 
The 9590 review said it was, I didn't look into any more than that. The techspot results don't match up with hardwarecanucks. I'd recommend Intel if people wanted to play mostly strategy games, I'm really saying that the situation on AMD processors isn't nearly as bleak as is often said.

edit: found this on SA:

For those of you debating building a new system optimized specifically for playing this game, Relic told us that Company of Heroes 2 is much more likely to be CPU-bound, rather than GPU-bound. Apparently the Essence engine supports the use of up to eight threads simultaneously. But all the threads being run on those cores at some point have to come back and finish executing on the first core. Thus single threaded performance is very important according to Relic.

So it's a bit of both.
 
Last edited:
It's quite possible the game was patched since techspot did their testing. If the developers say it can use 8 threads, it can use 8 threads :p
 
teppic said:
It's running on 8 cores, so it won't be boosting. Agreed that the 4770K can be overclocked (unless you're me), my point really was that this game is heavily threaded, and an 8350 would have no problem keeping up with a 3570K.
Click to expand...
CPU demanding aside, the game itself can be quite graphic demanding as well. One could easily smack a SSAA onto the graphic setting and drop the frame rate right down, and then claim the AMD CPUs ain't much slower than the Intel CPU despite it is GPU bounded.

Also using review of 9590 as reference is pointless, as I don't think anyone is impressed with a 8 cores CPU running 4.70GHz being just about match or beat a 4 core CPU that's running at 1.20GHz lower, and can be overclock to just as high.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
Developers lie, just look at Aliens colonial marines :p
Click to expand...

This is all so beside the point I was trying to make :p

It would fit with the results though - if 7 cores are being held back by the performance of the 'main' thread, then high overclocks on that core is going to make the others more efficient too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom