Intel Core i5 4670K  vs AMD FX 8350 

For me it's about a machine that will run apps at reasonable speed. Not Intel or AMD. More like Intel AND AMD. Whichever can do the job. I Just put up an FX 8350 to replace an i7 920. Set a modest overclock, (4.35 ghz), bench marked it, ran cad and other rendering apps. The FX 8350 is better than I expected especially given all the bad press. Not quite up to a 3770k at 4.2 ghz but close enough to be respectable. Someone earlier in this discussion referred to an FX 8350 as an "I-6" equivalent, between the I-5 and I-7. From what I've seen, that's about it.

Soldier, you have not compared the Athlon 64 to a Pentium 4.

And for the f*** sake, how many computers do you have turned on 24/7? Really your arguments are childish. I own both an intel 4670K build, and a FX 8350 one. Both have GTX 660s Ti. I had two of them in SLI, with the FX, and because my brother needed it for his new rig, i gave him one card until he buys a new one. We are gamers. Not proffesional 24/7 ones, but we enjoy playing together. We play BF4, LoL, World of Tanks(notorious for its garbage multi-core support), and there are not big differences in FPS whatsoever. Yeah i agree, the i5 gets 3-4 FPS more, but WTF? We're talking here about 75+FPS. Do we notice them? No! Am I a AMD fanboy? No! I love Intel chips. They're very good, and that integrated graphics might come in handy when you have problems with the dedicated GPU. What I do not like about Intel is the fact that upgrades are kinda' dead. I mean you could upgrade from Sandy to Ivy, but for Haswell you need new mobo. Rumors say that, although Broadwell is going to be on LGA1150, you will still need a new mobo with one of the new chipsets(Z97,H97,B95 etc). Another fact is, that games are GPU dependent. Neither of these 2 CPUs are going to bottleneck on 1080p(i mean bottleneck until games become unplayable)

in almost every game the cpu is not the bottle neck please stop being such a nooooooob

You are completely out of you're element here. I know how RAM works - the problem is, you don't seem to know anything about 3D animation or rendering. Pre-render, 3D applications buffer the lighting and particle calculations for the scene in memory. My scenes are extremely large, so the buffered data falls between 12-24GB. This gives the computer with less ram a disadvantage, because it has to buffer to the HDD. Even with this disadvantage, the total render time for the machine with the FX-8350 is still 10% less. You also don't seem to understand intel chips. ALL i7 chips have hyperthreading, that means the 3770 AND the 3770k BOTH have hyperthreading. The K is just a tweak to the 3770 to make manual overclocking easier. The problem with hyperthreading cores is while they are "logical" cores to the OS, they aren't ACTUAL cores, and therefore don't behave like 8 actual cores when all of them are under full load. The AMD has 8 ACTUAL cores - which makes the difference in rendering applications. You can argue all you like, but it sounds like I understand processor architecture better than you do - and I've actually run both processors in real life. You can say the i7 3770 (which is more powerful than the i5 in this article) is faster all you want - but I know from experience that it's not.

RAM amount says nothing about speed. 24GB and 12GB of RAM is about capacity not speed.....infact, 24GB of RAM can be slower than 12GB of RAM since it's the same channels with the same bandwidth. larger sticks also have more memory space to go through, which hurts latency somewhat. If you're using 10GB/s RAM, it'll take a little over a second to read through 12GB of RAM. If you're using 10GB/s of 24GB RAM, you're going to take over 2 seconds to read all that RAM, regardless of CPU speed. And that 10GB/s applies to all the ram, not just each half of a pair. 2 sticks rated at 10GB/s.....will only achieve 10GB/s. 4 sticks rated 10GB/s, will only acheive 10GB/s. Let's say a CPU's memory controller only supports 30GB/s.....that's all you're going to get no matter the speed of your RAM. Most RAM doesn't even come close to this. And there's a difference between a 3770 and a 3770k....the K version has hyperthreading that does 8 threads instead of 4.

I'm not over-clocking the 8350, so that's totally irrelevant. Not sure where you're getting the fiction that the 8350 is "FPU crippled", but as far as I can tell from studying the processor architecture, you're just making that up. I actually own both the 3770 and the 8350, and 3770 is in a better rig (it has 2-1 ram advantage which means it takes less time to buffer each render). Running CPU ONLY rendering, the 8350 outperforms the 3770 by 10%. You can believe whatever you want, but I ACTUALLY OWN BOTH and have hundreds of hours of rendering time proving that the 8350 performs better.

the 8350 is FPU crippled, which is what 3d rendering heavily relies on. all that integer means nothing if the FPU can't keep up. If you're rendering on the GPU, then obviously CPU won't really matter. even then, if they were par, the energy savings of the intel more than makes up for the extra cost. If I want to overclock an 8350 decently, I'd need a 140w+ motherboard $80 minimum for cheapest brand, a $60 liquid cooler, and a $60-$120 600w PSU. that all adds to cost. meanwhile if I want to overclock an intel 4x, all I need is a $40 motherboard, a $40 450-500w PSU (even less depending on GPU), and I wouldn't even need anything more than a $20 evo heatsink. combine all those cost differences with price savings, and the Intel comes out not only cheaper, but also better performing with better overclocking potential.

Actually a lot of games use 6 cores nowaydays, and some games are just starting to use the full eight cores a lot of amd fx cpus have.

Fake. Intel"s site

Wut? Athlon and phenoms outperformed intels processors ans that wasnt 1999 wtf

It is irrelevant since you'll fry your motherboard and or cpu by running a non server pu 24/7 for 2 years

I find it funny that you guys take skngle core performance so serious. Nowdays, multi threaded performance is much more important. Also, reasons to consider the i5 are 2xsingle core benchmarks. The 8350 doesnt get the multi threaded scores a sa reason, why? Where did they go? Why onky better overclocked score? You guys keep denieing that your unbiased, but you damn are, beeing sponsored by intel without beeing advertised should be illegal and you guys spreading ridicouless information should be aswell

What does that have to do with anything vivek said?

I like seeing the Intel fanboys attack the AMD fanboys.

Intel certainly has better single core performance, which is good for older software, most current software, and future software will be multi core dependent, why in the world would you put such a premium on single core and 32 bit performance?

Im tired of the AMD fanboys who always cry for biased score either it is about INTEL VS AMD or NVIDIA VS AMD. Just accept that AMD comes second.

You are a clueless moron.

Energy cost is basically irrelevant unless this is for an always on server running at 100% load.

The FX core is a real core, it just shares certain resources [like cache] with a 'partner' core. So every 2 cores share one common cache, etc. The cores are still able to run independent calculations / threads in about 90% of cases - basically in nearly all cases used by current applications [including games]. This is completely different from hyper-threading - which is really just one core addressed as two.

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about. Or, you're being sarcastic.

f**k Single Core im going with fx 8350 and overclocking to 5ghz

7670? Lier. I7 3770 will always be better rendering.

The fact that the most important thing for them is single-core performance is just biased. If they want to make it that way, they should be showing test results on different things like video editing and gaming. Obviously, Intel will win in gaming because there isn't any game (as far as I know) that uses 8 cores. Most games use 4 at most. By the way, I own the i5 because I'm using it for gaming and wanted something efficient, and I don't plan to do anything like video editing.

The upgrade is worth it for those coming from an Amd processor like I was. Noticed a major difference going from an Amd Phenom II x4 965 3.4ghz to an I5 4670k 3.4ghz. The Amd Processor is obviously 5-6 years old now, so it's probably not a fair comparison. However on my Amd processor it would not shut down the computer properly most of the time and I would have to hold down the shut down button because Amd Phenom wouldn't shut down fully. I have yet to do that with my Intel processor. Was my Amd Processor malfunctioning?