FX-8350 or i5-4670?

[Accessless]

I'm stuck with a bit of a dilemma here. Someone has asked me to recommend new parts for their computer. (Virtually the whole thing is changing so no worries about compatibility)

I've come up with two processer candidates but I'm not sure which to go with. AMD's FX-8350 or Intel's i5-4670.

- They are similar price (all of £12 difference)
- The AMD outstrips Intel on paper, but their actual performance is about on par.
- The AMD excels at multi-threading
- The Intel excels at single threaded programs
- The Intel has onboard graphics whereas the AMD has no graphics. But will the onboard be good enough?
- The Intel has a lower power consumption.
- I know the AMD comes with a decent stock cooler. Where as Intel have a bad reputation for this (an ironic switch).

The computer is mainly general use (browsing, casual games, etc) but is also used for 'real' games. I'm looking to build something powerful yet practical, something to last.

I'm leaning towards the Intel but I haven't "lived with one", I already use a FX-8350 and I am impressed. But if anyone has a Intel i5-4670 please give me your review.

[camerongray]

I would go with the Intel without a doubt.  While the FX looks great on paper, the performance isn't great and it takes an insane amount of power, 125w vs the Intel that takes just 84w.  The stock cooler on the Intel chip will work fine at stock speeds since the chip produces less heat than the AMD.  The only thing to remember with Intel is that if you ever plan on overclocking, you'll need the 4570k.

I've not yet used any of Intel's new 'Haswell' CPUs but I have used both i5 3570k and an i7 3770k (My CPU) and they have been great.

[Accessless]

I would go with the Intel without a doubt.  While the FX looks great on paper, the performance isn't great and it takes an insane amount of power, 125w vs the Intel that takes just 84w.  The stock cooler on the Intel chip will work fine at stock speeds since the chip produces less heat than the AMD.  The only thing to remember with Intel is that if you ever plan on overclocking, you'll need the 4570k.

I've not yet used any of Intel's new 'Haswell' CPUs but I have used both i5 3570k and an i7 3770k (My CPU) and they have been great.

Lol no worries on that front, I would have to explain what over clocking was first to the person I'm recommending this to.

I have never quite understood the point of over clocking new PC's, If you have just bought yourself a Ferrari why add nitrous? Why would you ever need to go that fast?

A problem that you can get with stock coolers, not always though, is that they just about cover stock speed with very little room for overhead. I have seen a few i7 reviews claiming that the cooler is and I quote:

This processor is a beast! The stock cooler is comical, don't bother using it, get something better (like the Corsair Hydro Series H80i, if you aren't going for insane over clocking) because the fan is both noisy and inefficient. If you MUST stick with the stock cooler, scrape off the paste that comes with it and get a decent thermal compound!

This was a customer review of an i7-4770K. The impression that he gives me is that the cooler is bare minimum at best. In fact I have noticed recently that Intel is not including stock coolers with every CPU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anyone have any experience with the onboard graphics? If they are good then that will be the deal clincher. (Especially as I would like to avoid the add thermal dissipation considerations of a dedicated graphics card).

[Computer_Commando]

...Does anyone have any experience with the onboard graphics? If they are good then that will be the deal clincher. (Especially as I would like to avoid the add thermal dissipation considerations of a dedicated graphics card).

Only on my i3 Sandy Bridge laptop.  Graphics are not onboard but inside the CPU, 1st gen was on-chip, 2nd gen (Sandy Bridge) was on die, 3rd gen (Ivy Bridge) also on die, 4th gen (Haswell) is also on die but architecture is very different.
Haswell has new Socket 1150 instead of 1155 so mobo is not backward compatible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_%28microarchitecture%29

[camerongray]

Lol no worries on that front, I would have to explain what over clocking was first to the person I'm recommending this to.

I have never quite understood the point of over clocking new PC's, If you have just bought yourself a Ferrari why add nitrous? Why would you ever need to go that fast?

A problem that you can get with stock coolers, not always though, is that they just about cover stock speed with very little room for overhead. I have seen a few i7 reviews claiming that the cooler is and I quote:

This was a customer review of an i7-4770K. The impression that he gives me is that the cooler is bare minimum at best. In fact I have noticed recently that Intel is not including stock coolers with every CPU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anyone have any experience with the onboard graphics? If they are good then that will be the deal clincher. (Especially as I would like to avoid the add thermal dissipation considerations of a dedicated graphics card).

The stock cooler is fine if you aren't overclocking - That reviewer is talking nonsense, an H80i if you "aren't going for extreme overclocking"!  I have the lower end H60 and I'm overclocked and stay perfectly within safe levels when running Prime95!

If you are planning on overclocking, yeah the stock cooler won't work, but I've used them on stock speed chips and they work fine.  Intel wouldn't bundle a cooler that is incapable of cooling the CPU to a decent level or they would end up having to replace loads of fried chips!

I generally ignore reviews on retailer websites, the people writing them are just average people like you and I, not experts.  I'd say Intel know a lot more about cooling their own CPUs than their customers

The onboard graphics on Haswell chips are great for onboard graphics and can handle light games but I would never use them in a machine designed for gaming.

[patio]

This was a customer review of an i7-4770K. The impression that he gives me is that the cooler is bare minimum at best. In fact I have noticed recently that Intel is not including stock coolers with every CPU.

This is mis-leading at best as they have always sold CPU's with or without the cooler...depending on what you wanna pay for...

[Accessless]

The onboard graphics on Haswell chips are great for onboard graphics and can handle light games but I would never use them in a machine designed for gaming.

Yeah I've been looking at the performance, I don't think that I will get away with just the integrated graphics. Which brings me back to considering the FX-8350, as I won't be using Intel's integrated graphics why pay for them? (I'm talking about £12 here but that could go towards the expensive graphics card)

This is mis-leading at best as they have always sold CPU's with or without the cooler...depending on what you wanna pay for...

I generally ignore reviews on retailer websites, the people writing them are just average people like you and I, not experts.  I'd say Intel know a lot more about cooling their own CPUs than their customers

Yeah well I have an old AMD CPU which gets nail bitingly close to its maximum tolerance temperature at 100% load (about 2°C away), so excuse me for not trusting stock coolers. It wouldn't prevent me from trying the stock cooler I can assure you.

[camerongray]

Yeah I've been looking at the performance, I don't think that I will get away with just the integrated graphics. Which brings me back to considering the FX-8350, as I won't be using Intel's integrated graphics why pay for them? (I'm talking about £12 here but that could go towards the expensive graphics card)

Yeah well I have an old AMD CPU which gets nail bitingly close to its maximum tolerance temperature at 100% load (about 2°C away), so excuse me for not trusting stock coolers. It wouldn't prevent me from trying the stock cooler I can assure you.

I'd still go down the Intel route, even if you aren't using the graphics, you will still get a better performing and much more power efficient CPU, you don't really pay much more for the onboard graphics.

Doesn't hurt to give the stock cooler a go, if it runs to hot then you can consider replacing it.

[Accessless]

I'd still go down the Intel route, even if you aren't using the graphics, you will still get a better performing and much more power efficient CPU, you don't really pay much more for the onboard graphics.

Doesn't hurt to give the stock cooler a go, if it runs to hot then you can consider replacing it.

I have done extensive reasearch into this, there is a reason why these two processors are under consideration. Personally I would say that both are on a par with each other, one does better multithreading whilst the other does single better. The only two trumps the intel has is integrated graphics and low power.

Nether the less I have finally decided to go with the Intel. Mr. Camerongray you have made the best possible argument possible and I must deffer to your superior judgement. My decision has nothing to do curiosity and I swear I'm not using the recipient of this computer as a guinea pig 


On a side note: Wow! A Intel vs. AMD thread that didn't devolve into a fanboy arguments 

P.S. Spelling to be corected at a later date.
                                /\
                                 ¦
                                lol

[Geek-9pm]

...they have always sold CPU's with or without the cooler...depending on what you wanna pay for...

What you pay for covers a wide  spread. Some coolers are close to the price of the CPU it cools. Prices range from $6 up to $80 and maybe more.
Just one of many vendors selling cooling for Intel CPU :
http://www.heatsinkfactory.com/intel-socket-775-coolers.html

Maybe one should pick a cooler first,
 then get a CPU to match it!   

[Accessless]

What you pay for covers a wide  spread. Some coolers are close to the price of the CPU it cools. Prices range from $6 up to $80 and maybe more.
Just one of many vendors selling cooling for Intel CPU :
http://www.heatsinkfactory.com/intel-socket-775-coolers.html

Maybe one should pick a cooler first,
 then get a CPU to match it!   

I'm assuming that the stock cooler will be adequate for the moment. But you did remind me to check if my vendor in includes the stock cooler. It's the simple things that I forget.

And as promised spelling corrections:

I have done extensive research into this, there is a reason why these two processors are under consideration. Personally I would say that both are on a par with each other, one does better multithreading whilst the other does single better. The only two trumps the Intel has is integrated graphics and low power.

Never the less I have finally decided to go with the Intel. Mr. Camerongray you have made the best argument possible and so I must defer to your superior judgement. My decision has nothing to do curiosity and I swear I'm not using the recipient of this computer as a guinea pig 


On a side note: Wow! A Intel vs. AMD thread that didn't devolve into fan boy arguments 

[DaveLembke]

As far as the AMD FX 8350. I will be buying one of these around september to upgrade from my Athlon II x4 620  2.6Ghz quadcore to a far more powerful CPU. Benchmark results for the AMD FX 8350 place it up there with the Core i7's as shown here:  http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core . This is the most powerful CPU I can put into my motherboard.

As far as the Core i5 4670k, it benchmarks weaker as shown here: http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4670K+%40+3.40GHz&id=1921

I have bought AMD as well as INTEL products over the last 20 years, and even if the Piledriver is a hot running electron hog, I'd go with whatever gives the best results for money paid. Intel has always been slightly more expensive although with promo's etc it can sometimes be cheaper to go with Intel.

Just a few weeks back the AMD FX 8350 was just $179.99 through newegg.com and I should have bought one, but I held off since my wife is out of work for the summer and the Athlon II x4 620  2.6Ghz quadcore is plenty for my computing needs anyways with games etc. Since then i have also seen it for sale in original unopened box on amazon for just $149.99 and was also tempted to buy that one, but held off. Come September, I will buy one of these as a birthday present to self   

Also I am not a fan of Integrated Graphics, mainly because I game a lot and have yet to experience an integrated graphics GPU or an APU that is all that!

 Even with the APU's they are no wheres near the performance of adding a high end video card, but if you are on a tight budget build you can go with an APU and play games on normal settings possibly, but wanting Ultra High Graphics settings combined with high resolution, and a fast frame rate may not be achieveable with an APU depending on what game is running.

For my gaming I am using a mixture of settings to get by with a bargain video card. I am using the AMD Radeon HD5450 with 1GB DDR3 which cost me just $30, and I found that using a screen resolution of 1024x768 with this card allows me to set my graphics settings higher in World of Warcraft on HIGH and get a 30fps frame rate. Setting it on Ultra though is not very desirable with 16-20 fps as well as I get a surging effect where the screen speeds up and slows down in a frequent interval. Prior to this I had my screen set to 1280 x 1024 and was only getting 22 fps on HIGH settings and Ultra settings were in the dumps with 12-15 fps and freeze framing. Fortunately by the time I need a better video card, a newer more powerful videocard would have made its way down to the bargain price range of less than $40. The only thing I did have to do though I mount a 80mm fan to the inside of my tower to blow cool air across the face of the passive heatsink. This 80mm fan would outlive many of the smaller fans that come bundled with the video cards. I have had bad luck with video card fans failing and killing the video card when you dont realize they are not spinning and from good name brands like XFX, BFG, and ASUS. The small fans seem to last only 12 to 18 months of heavy gaming and then they seize up and kill the video cards. I haven't had good luck with the video cards that cost me $120 to $200 mainly due to their small fans failing, so I went the cheap route and add my own cooling fan and the video card is about 2 years old and still chugging without any issues happily cooled by the 80mm fan that is powered off the the unneeded floppy power connector with wire stripped back and inserted for the 12VDC and electrical tape to keep wires in connector. GPU temp stays happy at below 55C in an a 70-75F room.

[Calum]

Dave - I wouldn't trust cpubenchmark.net for more than very general benchmarks.  The 4670K benchmarks slower than a 2600 there, which is frankly ridiculous - Intel haven't taken a 5% step backwards over two generations of CPU with the same clock speed.

[Accessless]

I agree. I use that website for an initial idea of what to buy but that's all. CPU's excell at different things, you can't really say that one CPU is the best because it has the highest test score anymore than you can say one person is more intelegent than another based on an IQ test.

To get the best CPU for you, you need to do our research and buy the one that performs best at the tasks you like. Even games will work better on different types of CPU. I have an older CPU that performs better than a newer one for minecraft just because the older had a higher clock speed.

Also I'm going to offer an AMD 6300 something or rather as a budget option.