Intel Core i5 4670K  vs AMD FX 8350 

It is also the consumption advantage over any AMD. Intel cpus are always some steps ahead of AMD regarding technology and efficiency this is why i prefer them. Im enthusiastic, whenever i buy something i always make sure for it to be the most technologically advanced in the market at the current time. Unlike AMD who releases new stuff every 2/3 years Intel innovates all the time. I don't know about you, but in my place the cpu you mentioned comes for about the same price as the 4670k. In stock settings the i5 makes as much as 13,6 GHz in total. No game needs more than that. Im fine for the next 5 years. Integrated cpus featured in graphics cards that are bound to be released at some time will also assist the main cpu and extend future proofness. When i say im about to get 5 years of quality time with my i5 im not exaggerating. Unless some huge impact in the market is made and my equation is scrapped. Unless they jump from 14nm manufacture process to 2nm over a year or something and the demands rise accordingly (i doubt this would happen) i won't have any problem.

Well considering that my 8350, which is about $44 cheaper than your 4670k, is only a little less powerful than your 4670K in single core performance and again in multicore tasks, plus is easily overclocked by about 20% kind of makes any point you have pretty invalidated opinion saying that AMD is a bad choice. Especially if you're on a tight budget where that $44 dollars could help you on the road to get a better graphics card to go with it which will give a huge bonus in game performance compared to a better CPU. And games will always need a CPU, something to run the basic functions of the program which in many cases can be very, very intensive and having the workload spread across a multitude of cores would only be beneficial. All this said with it in mind that I'm switching to a 4790K due to my personal need for a better CPU for my work. This 8350 has served perfectly well for gaming and I wouldn't be upgrading if it wasn't for work.

4 cores clocked at 3.4GHz is more decent than it needs in order to play games. You choose to reply only for a fraction of what i said. Nvidia said their gpus are going to feature ARM integrated microprocessors which was supposed to defeat the purpose of an overkill above 4 cores cpu. They didn't give us that this year. They probably save it for next year. As far as things go, my 4670k works wonders. I don't need more power. Certainly not a shit AMD.

You do know that more and more games are making their way to utilize multi-core CPU's due to the release of the new 8-core consoles right? And considering that I made my best friend's computer from a ASUS Sabertooth Motherboard, a 4790K, and a 780 ti then made mine with a Asus Sabertooth with a 8350 and recently made the jump to a GTX 970 and we get within 15 FPS of one another in BF4, Hardline, Evolve, Arma 3, Tomb Raider, Crysis 3, MGS Ground Zeroes and AC Unity I think that your comment in made in ignorant Fanboy-ism. Oh, and I've been getting the better FPS out of the two of us thanks to my superior graphics card. The CPU hardly makes a difference in 9/10 gaming situations so long as you have a half decent one. I want to do another test with him though to see how we match up now that he got a gtx 970 as well and I recently overlocked my 8350 to 4.9 Ghz.

actually games rely on threads not cores of course hyper threading is not as effective as physical cores but amd has inferior architecture anyway ps i own an a10 and it is awesome on single threaded hardware

I know these are old comments so I apologize for taking so long getting back to them, and i certainly appreciate your reply which is both strong and assertive without being defamatory and rude like another user on this thread (cough..cough yucatan). My point in asserting that AMD is a great bargain alternative stands. For system builder/gamers who cannot afford to leap into an Intel-based system, starting with an AMD board and one of AMD's lower cost processors is always a wise move. Moving up to better hardware gradually is done more often than beginning with an exclusively top-tier build. For the most part, Intel's typically superior single-core performance isn't always worth the price premium when assembling a medium-duty gaming rig. Admittedly, with current pricing in the CPU market, I've been steering people towards Intel's i3-4370 instead of AMD's Kaveri (they've blundered rather badly in the pricing of those chips) or even FX. That being said, even in top tier builds, in my experience building well over 30 rigs, people with the money for top tier equipment generally have the money to keep up and are obsessed with always having the best. In my line of work, we refer to them as 'customers with more dollars than sense' but admittedly their repeat business is always appreciated. I get where you're coming from and am not refuting your point though. When it comes down to spending my own money I never chase yearly upgrades, clearly neither do you, but that doesn't affect the reality that people do it.

A lot of people change out parts very frequently so your assertions both related to technology and your ignorant opinion of me are both invalid. As for AMD parts, I use an AMD 970 mobo and FX-8350, both of which have lasted me a considerable amount of time. I never spoke down about AMD products and never will. I only assert tech facts and applicable numbers. 7 month old comment or not, I've only just seen it and flagged it for your unnecessary personal attack. Learn to read and comprehend before you speak again.

O.M.G look at the date. That time everybody thought that GTX900 line would be named GTX800. Nobody knew Nvidia would skip GTX8xx for desktop.

Did you bother to check the date this comment was made? nahh you just barge in and write your bull. The time i wrote this Nvidia had not announced yet that they are skipping the GTX800 name line and going straight to GTX900. I obviously meant GTX900 Maxwell.

Well no , Battlefield 3 My Rommate beats me with his i5 and I beat him in battlefield 4 by about 5fps average he has a Superclocked gtx 970 and I have a stock 970 now I have gtx 970 SLI :), its not much but still.He plays Arma II , I dont but its a ok game , and I beat him with 20fps+ wich is amazing , It doesnt matter for me because I dont play arma but its nice to know what the cpu can do , if you unpark all 8 cores in battlefield 4 in your config file you will see a huge fps boost,I was so amazed , lol THere was a guy who wrote me that he plyas battlefield 4 ultra 1080p 60fps with a fx 8150 and a gtx 650ti boost, I thought it was a troll or just a show off noob , but I checked his video on his channel out , and boom, he has a link to a vid that shows you how to unpark them!From 70fps average Ultra 4k with gtx 970 sli , to 94 fps average 4k Ultra with no dips unlike with the parked cores, sometims times to mid 50s. but now , no it works perfect, I ran into a few texture loading issues sometimes tho.. Check it out on YT , works for AMD only , srry

800 maxwell , I dont know what gpu you have or in what world you live in but I have a fx 8350 and gtx 970 SLI MAXWELL, have a good one.

So you're running a laptop? then you have a dual core i5 and that is even lower clocked as a normal i3... and CPUboss is saying this http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4200U-vs-Intel-Core-i3-4130

Are you retarded? that thing is a quad core clocked at 3.8GHz. It would be strange if it wouldn't perform well. Also what part of "$50" you didn't catch? That thing starts at 100 euro in my place which is even higher than $100.

So true running a10-5800K(IGPU disabled) with R9 280, I see no hiccup and everything is so smooth as first hit of blunt. Boys do real tests and wait till you grow up...

I don't understand your argument at all. Your saying a AMD chip that gets 60fps+ in most games today is not for gaming? Confused. I picked up i5 4670k for now as I plan on upgrading to the i7 next month. But AMD starting to shine and I will not be hypocritical towards AMD.

There wont be any need for a more powerful cpu any time soon. Just because a game can utilize more than 4 cores doesn't mean there will be a great difference in fps. You ll gain 2 fps at your best? the gpu is what matters.

what a fucking bullshit rating AMD 8350 shits on overpriced Intel all day

bull shit,buying intel does make ur electricity bill go lower? are you gonna say intel is the one gonna save your electric bill? please bring ur sense before use ur little finger type those Bull Shit**

Attack mean improve,is good to amd but bad for attacker ^^

reality is cruel...what if your love one is murderer?u wont believe it,i believe? this occur to all,Include YOU!

But then again the AMD is around half the price so...

Unfortunelly not. Tech changes so fast, sooner, any quad core will be obsolete.

actually the AMD win because of the over clock ...

well guys the answer to that is if you want a killer gaming exp. get intel i7 4770 but if you also want a gaming pc with a budget get amd fx 8350 because amd is a really really good processor with a very cheap price. but iif money isnt your prob.. go to intel i7 4770 bro

Well said lawrence.... So long as I myself have a decent GPU I don't care if its amd or Intel. I am a amd fan boy but I do admit Intel is faster. But both CPU without a a decent GPU are crap at gaming.