Intel Core i5 4670K  vs AMD FX 8350 

intel processor will suck in games which support multi core bigtime

very biased site.Trust me this intel processor cant stand up to fx 8350.Once u overclock fx 8350 it even out performs i7 top line processors.

Wow, it's crazy how AMD has nearly nothing but biased fanboys that think everything else is attacking AMD. Ridiculous...

lol that extra $40 makes it SO overpriced. smh

Forgive my ignorance Matthew :/ Sorry Actually i was reading about the FX series, it seems like the FX series is in reality a native 8 core CPU. It's problem is that this cpu uses one module for 2 cores instead of one module for one core. This makes it an 8 core sharing 4 modules instead of 8 cores with 8 modules. This decreases the performance of the cpu. Its like an double sandwich thing Regards

Do not fear. I realize this reality, It was mentioned in an earlier post of mine.

Not sure about gaming, but for 3D rendering I have two computers - an i7-3770 w/ 24 GB of RAM and an AMD-FX8350 w/ 12 GB of RAM - EVEN with less RAM, the FX performs about 10% BETTER than the i7-3770 in a render of the same scene. HT might be nice for peak performance, but under sustained load having 8 real cores performs better. Also, considering the 8350 can keep up with a 3770, I seriously question the idea that the i5 4670K is a better performer than the FX. As a side note, the i7 machine has a GTX TITAN, and the FX machine has a 7670 - yet when working on high poly scenes, I haven't found the 7670 to be much slower - I guess the FX integrates really well with an AMD GPU. Further, the FX runs about 5-10C COOLER than the i7, although that might just be my fan setup.

How is this biased? The end score is calculated from the scores given by the benchmark scores. You can argue that the benchmarks are not true to real-life performances or usage, but the score is about as objective as it can get.

Actually FX series are all with some kind of hyperthread. There is no real 8 core on any FX CPU! They are called somthing like strong cores. So actually in the 8350 you have 4 native cores with 4 strong(hyperthread) cores. In render i7 is much better than FX and i am talking only for the 1150 line. Actually the strongest FX is compared to an i5 for performance, there is no match with an i7 2nd, 3rd, 4rd generation unfortunatelly. Anyway as Andrew says below people are fanboys and this is bad and unreasonable, people should buy what the actually need.

it does

If you're buying FX-8350 it should clearly be used for anything but games. Most games don't use more then 3 or 4 cores that's why intel has a lead as far as CPUs for gaming. I have FX-8320 and it's great but it's great for running many applications at once, photoshop, video editing, etc. I also own an i5-4670K and use it for gaming. 4670K without a doubt it's much better for gaming.

That's why they love doing all those "Single Core/32-bit " benchmarks.

bull shit rating

I'm fixing to be throwing together a build with the 8350, and while the i5's single core performance (especially useful in older programs and emulators) is impressive, I'm not thinking twice about my choice. Being a multi-tasker with a dual monitor setup and also planning to run a terraria and minecraft server simulataneously for my friends, the multi-core performance is what I'm most interested in. It doesn't hurt that the price is cheap enough to keep the cost of my rig down, and I like supporting the underdog. Right now given the climate and public perception, amd is definitely the underdog cpu wise.

The problem is, is that people are easily swayed to an OEM with "this will fit your needs" even if it's overkill A good example would be, web browsing and light gaming like from facebook, and i3 is plenty, but they get talked into or overthink their needs and grab an i5 instead and spend the extra $ on it.

$4 a month for the AMD working on the yearly cost. Tbh most people per week if they worked out what they spent on none essentials like a Coffee,seeing a film buying a dvd or two etc prob spend alot more per month than the $56.1 for the amd.Heck if people put away every dollar/pound they would of spent on these things every month for 1-2 years they could build really top end pc :)

Not many people use their PC's @ 100% load.. Even gaming doesn't max out any recently made CPU's. They're both great CPU's. Running either a high end AMD or Intel cpu with the same graphics card you would never notice a difference in gaming. Games like BF4 and Cod:Ghosts seem to use a little bit of all the cores on the AMD cpu I own. I like AMD due to the fact I haven't had to change my motherboard for 3 different CPU upgrades. I focus on higher end GPU's or a mix of.

Thank you. And anyway. Unless I was going to make a server. Why would I need 100% uptime out of machine. I understand leaving it on and not turning it off. But if its at 100% load 24/7 then $20 is probably not of concern in your line of work. Heck, If you are running a machine like that why not just use an actual purpouse built server or a GPU openCL compute rig. Meh. What do I know.

Thank you. Correct answer to all posts.

People are just fanboys. People should buy what will meet their needs. Not what others think they should buy

Ahh so a $20 per year difference in power usage should make your decision for you? At what I pay for electricity it would cost $71 per year to run the AMD CPU 24/7 @ 100% load. $52 per year for the INTEL cpu @ 100% load. Are you taking Graphics cards in to account? Since when do gamers give two craps about power usage? Are you planning on overclocking? It shouldn't make a difference how people spend their money. I have a 990FXA-GD80 motherboard from an old build. With your logic I should have purchased a new motherboard because i'll save $20 per year on the usage of ONLY the cpu. AMD tends to keep sockets around longer than INTEL.. That right there is a good reason to stick with AMD if that's what you've purchased in the past.

Approved

Intel i5-4670K is surely the better processor to get than the FX-8350. Even if the FX-8350 has a lower purchase cost, please check the "Annual home energy cost" and "Annual commercial energy cost" DIFFERENCE. So, if you are gonna keep the two processors for two years, and add the energy cost DIFFERENCE, for the two years,to the purchase cost of the FX-8350, you are going to obtain the total cost of FX-8350. Then compare the price of i5-4670K to FX-8350. You will see that i5-4670K has a better performance/price ratio. This is what you should do before buying a processor. All thanks to CPUboss.com for the information :)

Disclaimer: The person who typed this was tired and possibly crazy. Don't expect any accuracy. You may be correct in the case of gaming. But AMD has allways had a better foot in the Workhorse proccesor market than Gaming. And this is another demonstration of its superiority per dollar on that front. I recently used this processor in the construction of a rendering and compiling machine for cad, coding, and video editing. This processor ecxelles on these fronts because of 8 Real cores with crazy ammounts of cache and stupid fast ram interface as default. Unfortunately (an i mean that, I actually like intel) Hyperthreading uses a shared int unit and cache. This works ok for things would normally offload to a GPU (Huh, wait, why wouldn't you do that and get better preformance?), but when doing serious number crunching the shared int unit and cache can only do so much. So hyperthreading in reality only adds a ~40% speed bonus in certian cases (I'm in a generous mood today. I actually remember it as 20%). Now I may have said AMD has actual 8 cores, but in reality that is a smidge of a lie. It's actually a divided core with two int units and something with the cache I can't remember, so they actually get a 100% speed bonus per physical core (not logical core obviously). Either that or I'm remembering a 16 core opeteron. Meh. Anyway, this 1866Mhz HyperX ram, and a gtx 760 are the backbone of the sucker. And it is stupid fast.

thats not how it works, not all applications are optimised for multicore usage, only video editing software and such, most games are optimised for max 4 cores, wel actually as far as i know all of them, for example BF3. non optimised applications will be better off with good singlecore performance rather than having too much cores