Overclock.net banner

AMD FX 8350 @ 5ghz vs i5 4670k @ 4.6ghz vs i7 4770k @ 4.6ghz Next Gen (YES another one!!!) :D

  • FX 8350 @ 5ghz

    Votes: 26 19.1%
  • i5 4670k @ 4.6ghz

    Votes: 62 45.6%
  • i7 4770k @ 4.6ghz

    Votes: 52 38.2%
1 - 20 of 94 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What processor should the novice gamers get to obatin the best performance?

Is the i7 REALLY worth the extra (a lot) cash
biggrin.gif


discuss and share ideas
biggrin.gif
thumb.gif
thumb.gif
thumb.gif
thumb.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,158 Posts
A 4670K is all you need for gaming. It will be even better if it overclocks to 4.6Ghz but that's a whole different story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Yes, I understand. You'll need a robust cooling system and a decent chip to get to that speed, same for the FX, i've seen FX 8350s that wouldn't go past 4.4ghz.

Discuss, Discuss and argue:thumb:
thumb.gif
thumb.gif
thumb.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,053 Posts
I think you'll spend more on getting an 8350 to 5ghz. It'll take quite the board and cooler to do it. Now, the 4670k at 4.6 will take just as good a cooler but not as high end board compared to the AM3+.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,636 Posts
'Best performance' , I gotta vote i7-4770K @ 4.6ghz.

Is the i7 worth it over i5 for a novice gamer, probably not.
 

·
AMD Overclocker
Joined
·
6,360 Posts
As an owner of an 8350. It is a wonderful chip. But if you are a COMPLETE noob to gaming and overclocking I would say the I5. It is good performance out the box. The 8350 would definitely be hot on its heels though. And at 5GHz this AMD chip is a beast. So noobs I5. More experienced guys the 8350.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
590 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by icesergio View Post

Yes, I understand. You'll need a robust cooling system and a decent chip to get to that speed, same for the FX, i've seen FX 8350s that wouldn't go past 4.4ghz.

Discuss, Discuss and argue
thumb.gif
thumb.gif
thumb.gif
thumb.gif
I've been a member for almost a year now, and there are so many threads about AMD/Intel that turn into flame wars about this stuff. I would be careful in what you say/wish to happen in this thread.

But IMO I would go get the i5 and be done with it. Maybe get a little nicer air cooler to push the OC as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Yes, however, new games such as Battlefield 4 and Watch Dogs are better off with more but less powerful cores. New game engines such as Ubisoft's will be better off with more cores but we haven't really seen the new game engine, so it just might be hype and marketing, remember how COD Ghost needed 6gb of RAM (Not)

On the other hand, we have Skyrim and Starcraft 2 which are VERY cpu dependant. This is where the FX 8350 falls behind compare to an i5 4670k. Most gamers today are still dual core and quad core CPU's

Debate and Argue. Especially Argue
devil.gif
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,904 Posts
The intel CPUs are definitely faster for gaming. So if performance is what you're after you go i7. If it's performance on a budget the i5 will still do considerably better than an FX.
 

·
AMD Overclocker
Joined
·
6,360 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 06yfz450ridr View Post

i cant get my 9370 to 5 ghz let alone keep it cool at full load even with two rads haha. even at a hair over 4.8 my full load is about 70c but my one rad is restricted since the side panel was not meant to hold a radiator
I've never seen you in the Vishera 83xx owners club asking for any advice. And there are the most experienced Vishera owners on OCN. So until you are up in there don't dismiss the 9370. I can keep the 8350 cool at 4.9GHz on 1 rad. So I really dunno what you are doing wrong?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
HaHa. Nah, I've seen threads where moderators had to ban members for their flaming, (not on overclock.net because I'm new) Just share ideas. So far the i5 4670k is in the lead with 42% followed by the i7 4770k. The poor old FX is in the last place. I own all 3 CPUs and I can't make up my mind on who is best:D

Forum Rage-Quitting people are awesome though. Don't flam please, just TALK
smile.gif
smile.gif
 

·
AMD Overclocker
Joined
·
6,360 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by icesergio View Post

Yes, however, new games such as Battlefield 4 and Watch Dogs are better off with more but less powerful cores. New game engines such as Ubisoft's will be better off with more cores but we haven't really seen the new game engine, so it just might be hype and marketing, remember how COD Ghost needed 6gb of RAM (Not)

On the other hand, we have Skyrim and Starcraft 2 which are VERY cpu dependant. This is where the FX 8350 falls behind compare to an i5 4670k. Most gamers today are still dual core and quad core CPU's

Debate and Argue. Especially Argue
devil.gif
The only reason why Intel beats FX so badly in Skyrim is because Skyrim still uses the ancient X87 compiler code. AMD tossed x87 support out the window after the Phenoms and for good reason its ANCIENT code that needs to die.

EDIT: If you use the Bulldozer conditioner the FX's catch up quiet handily with the Intels. I think it replacs or emulates the X87 code used in Skyrim.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,636 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by icesergio View Post

Yes, however, new games such as Battlefield 4 and Watch Dogs are better off with more but less powerful cores. New game engines such as Ubisoft's will be better off with more cores but we haven't really seen the new game engine, so it just might be hype and marketing, remember how COD Ghost needed 6gb of RAM (Not)

On the other hand, we have Skyrim and Starcraft 2 which are VERY cpu dependant. This is where the FX 8350 falls behind compare to an i5 4670k. Most gamers today are still dual core and quad core CPU's

Debate and Argue. Especially Argue
devil.gif
You probably shouldnt encourage a flame war. I'm sure FX owners are hoping PS4/XB1 console ports will run better on FX cpu's due to the trend of optimizing towards more cores. But given that those Jaguar APU's run so slow (< 2ghz) any modern quad core will still be able to execute 8 threads in the same time, so I wouldnt be worried about an i5 not being able to handle console ports. Down the line maybe the FX will prove to be the better but is that likely to happen within the relevant lifetime of this build?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
590 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alastair View Post

The only reason why Intel beats FX so badly in Skyrim is because Skyrim still uses the ancient X87 compiler code. AMD tossed x87 support out the window after the Phenoms and for good reason its ANCIENT code that needs to die.

EDIT: If you use the Bulldozer conditioner the FX's catch up quiet handily with the Intels. I think it replacs or emulates the X87 code used in Skyrim.
Alastair, I have never heard of this 'Bulldozer conditioner' before. However I did read up on it a little bit before posting here. Is this a must for me gaming with my 8350?? Is it as simple as downloading some software??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
So far the i5 4670k is in the lead and the FX is on par with the i7

From what I've gathered the FX 8350 + Crosshair V Formula Z + H100i will get the FX 8350 to 5ghz no prob, saving a LOT of cash over the i7 and a little over the i5. What really puts me off
mad.gif
mad.gif
mad.gif
mad.gif
mad.gif
is the fact that Ivy Bridge and Haswell have toothpaste between the IHS and the CPU die. AMD AT LEAST solder's the chip to the IHS delivering better temps.
(Just a tip for ya
biggrin.gif
)

Other than that I think the win goes to the i5 4670k @ 4.6 ghz

Although the 2600k i7 is tempting. (Overclocks better and IHS is soldered. Sadly, a little old)
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
1 - 20 of 94 Posts
Top