AMD FX-6350 or Intel i5-4670K

[Weegii-3]

Can't decide on the chip for my new rig. I don't need a powerhouse of a computer so I was thinking the AMD chip, but every single person I asked apart from one said don't bother and to go for the Intel. The Intel is twice the price of the AMD, and the mobo that goes with it is more too. I'll be buying a new gfx card with it too, probably a Nvidia gtx670, so I'll still have some grunt to the build. If I went with the AMD would I be severely impacted in gaming?

P.S I used to be so into all this stuff but got out of the habit of checking it all. It seems that all my old sites I used to rely on are gone so I've not really got anywhere to go to check it out anymore.

[Rove]

FX 8350 I vote. Either is overkill now and it's all about future proofing and keeping up with next gen consoles. Both Xbox One and PlayStation 4 have 8 core AMD CPUs, low power and low clockspeed to the point that a decent 4 core could keep up but still AMD 8 cores. SO the FX 8350 is hopefully at least 2 times as good.

CPU Benchmark dot NET benchmarks:
8350
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core&id=1780
4670K
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4670K+%40+3.40GHz&id=1921

I have a FX 8150, it works great.

Also it's my GPU that always gets use from games way way more than the CPU. CPU for other programs but GPU for games.

AMD vs i5 should make 0% difference in games currently because either can run the game faster than your monitor can display it.

Also I would recommend HD 7950, HD 7950 boost, HD 7970 or HD 7970 GE as a longer lasting graphics card in terms of performance than the GTX 670.

Again with current games and a 60 Hz monitor there should be no difference between the two because both should get 60 FPS which will be limited by the monitor.

Basically what you need to be looking at is how much better than Xbox One and PlayStation 4 you want to be. Almost any rig you put together for over $600~ will be at least 10 times better than PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 so it's not like you would have any problem with current games unless you were using huge resolution on multiple monitors.

[_I_]

i5 has overall performance to the fx8000s, and much better on programs that do not use all 8 cores
(most games do not use over 4 cores)

if you dont plan on sli/xfie you can get a b85 $60-75 board for the i5 4670 (since it wont overclock)
the price will be around over $25 more for the intel build

@rove, look where the 4670 vs the 8350 compare on the single core performance chart
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
the a10 6800k is closer to the i5 4670

[Weegii-3]

I don't really plan on doing anything to make it better than the next consoles. This has nothing to do with them. I buy certain games on PC and other games on consoles. I want my PC to run the ones I buy on it. There is no need to compare with PS4. Also, I said I was looking at an fx 6350, not 8350. I don't need 8 cores, I don't need the extra power. I'm basing my choice on reliability and overall satisfaction, I've been told AMD are crap now, so that's all I wanted to check

[Rove]

Well my AMD FX 8150 works well.

I personally would advise get at least a FX 8320 because it's not very much more than the FX 6350 and the 2 extra cores will make a difference in CPU tasks if not in games. The CPU either way you go should not make a difference in games today.

It's only like $10-$20 more than the FX 6350 to go up to the FX 8320 and that is a great overclocker.

If you want reliability Intel will do that as well or better. Intel also has lower TDP.

However I think the AMD FX 8320 or FX 8350 would probably have a longer lifespan and require a upgrade later than the i5, specially with overclocking. I'm not saying that in terms of wearing out, rather in terms of long term future performance since either one can overkill current games.

So it's up to you.

Either chip is a good choice. Do bear in mind though that in the i5 you do have to pay for the IGP that you will not be using because you will have a gaming GPU instead. Also that AMD usually gives gamers better value per $ up front even in spite of the IGP in the Intels because you could buy a AMD FX 8320 + cheap separate HD 6570 GPU for the same price as the i5 4670K alone. Of course the FX + GPU would suck a lot more power in the long term, but it would meanwhile be more powerful.

The FX 6350 OR FX 6300 might be a better choice if it allows you to spend more on your GPU from saving $ on the CPU.

However expect the Intel to give a good performance as well, they are competative.

Personally I favor AMD for gaming and Intel for office, stores and other business.

[Wampum Biskit]

_I_님이 먼저 게시:

i5 has overall performance to the fx8000s, and much better on programs that do not use all 8 cores
(most games do not use over 4 cores)

if you dont plan on sli/xfie you can get a b85 $60-75 board for the i5 4670 (since it wont overclock)
the price will be around over $25 more for the intel build

@rove, look where the 4670 vs the 8350 compare on the single core performance chart
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
the a10 6800k is closer to the i5 4670

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

AMD isn't near as bad as most people make/think it out to be....

[Nick]

intel for sure if you want a system to last longer, through system upgrades i mean.

[_I_]

threads =/= cores
most programs use multiple threads, but only run 1 at a time
thats where faster cores come into play

[Riwels]

Reginald Q. Hamberslum님이 먼저 게시:

I don't really plan on doing anything to make it better than the next consoles. This has nothing to do with them. I buy certain games on PC and other games on consoles. I want my PC to run the ones I buy on it. There is no need to compare with PS4. Also, I said I was looking at an fx 6350, not 8350. I don't need 8 cores, I don't need the extra power. I'm basing my choice on reliability and overall satisfaction, I've been told AMD are crap now, so that's all I wanted to check

You don't need to worry about it. The next gen consoles will have an AMD LOW POWER CONSUMPTION CPU, so any current i5/i7 will be better than it.
Jaguar was more intended for tablets, but both MS and sony don't want to pay for a real powerfull CPU.

[2proz_itzu]

I'm pretty happy with my am3/gtx combo. I saved a lot of money, and there's nothing I want to do on the computer that I can't.