FX 8350 or 3570k? - Hardware & Software

Hello, so after looking at processors for a few weeks, I have been deciding between the the AMD FX 8350, or the Intel i5 3570k. I will be using my computer for gaming, and also for recording and rendering videos. And I was wondering which would be better for those. Also, if it matters, if I get the 8350, in the future I plan to overclock to around 4.5 ghz~ish on it. It would also be helpful if this didn't turn intel an AMD vs Intel war, I tried posting this on another forum and it didn't turn out pretty.

I don't mean to be harsh, but why do you like making so many threads? I mean this discussion would have fitted fine one the end of this thread: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1243749[/url]

Honestly, I went a FX 8350 due to just the simple pricing and benchmarks I saw, though now that I've actually used it I'd much rather have gotten a 3570k. Not that I really find the FX 8350 as horrible, but with the same specs as someone else (Except mobo and CPU) I couldn't compete with them. As a CPU this other person had a i5-750. So from what I've seen with my computer compared to another, FX 8350 does not seem to do very well at gaming, though it's not exactly horrible. Other people may be able to help more with other aspects of it's use, seeing as I've only really used it for games.

[QUOTE=rhx123;39591349]I don't mean to be harsh, but why do you like making so many threads? I mean this discussion would have fitted fine one the end of this thread: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1243749[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah, my bad , I'll keep that in mind next time.

Another consideration is the TDP. An overclocked 3570k @ 77W is a lot easier to keep cool than a 8350@125W

[QUOTE=Octavius;39591425]Honestly, I went a FX 8350 due to just the simple pricing and benchmarks I saw, though now that I've actually used it I'd much rather have gotten a 3570k. Not that I really find the FX 8350 as horrible, but with the same specs as someone else (Except mobo and CPU) I couldn't compete with them. As a CPU this other person had a i5-750. So from what I've seen with my computer compared to another, FX 8350 does not seem to do very well at gaming, though it's not exactly horrible. Other people may be able to help more with other aspects of it's use, seeing as I've only really used it for games.[/QUOTE] The reason Bulldozer fails is because AMD designed the architecture like Intel's Hyperthreading scheme circa the Pentium 4 era. An "octa core" Bulldozer (the FX8xxx series) is really just four modules that can process two threads each. Since two threads in a module have to share resources, it's real easy to get contention inside the modules and massive slowdowns. AMD should have made a way to turn the threading off, like the Intel counterpart. With threading disabled, it would be turned into a quad and performance would likely go up nearly 50%. If your 8350 can't keep up with an i5-750, that's [I]really[/I] bad. The i5-750 is 3 generations ago.

[QUOTE=bohb;39597061]The reason Bulldozer fails is because AMD designed the architecture like Intel's Hyperthreading scheme circa the Pentium 4 era. An "octa core" Bulldozer (the FX8xxx series) is really just four modules that can process two threads each. Since two threads in a module have to share resources, it's real easy to get contention inside the modules and massive slowdowns. AMD should have made a way to turn the threading off, like the Intel counterpart. With threading disabled, it would be turned into a quad and performance would likely go up nearly 50%. If your 8350 can't keep up with an i5-750, that's [I]really[/I] bad. The i5-750 is 3 generations ago.[/QUOTE] That is the point I was making really. In a Graphics test for a game it won't keep up, though in pure CPU power it will just destroy it.

I guess it boils down to whether you want a slightly longer render time for your videos, or less FPS in games.

Well how much less FPS would I be getting in games, because if it's [b]alot[/b] then I would just go for the 3570k

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/FLHClx4.png[/IMG] Some from Anandtech Bench [editline]15th February 2013[/editline] Some people have also said they get micro-stuttering with the FX, but this is just through forum posts, not hard data so take what you will.

I would seriously recommend the 3570k plus an aftermarket Zalman cooler or something of the sort. I am ridiculously pleased with its performance even though I don't do much overclocking (the fact that it's open to the possibility is the point), but stock Intel fans are notoriously garbage. [editline]15th February 2013[/editline] the 3570k will completely demolish video rendering. I render 1280x760 720p video for a gaming channel and since upgrading from a Core 2 Duo @ 2.93GHz from 2010, I can safely say that my render time has been slashed nearly in half.

[QUOTE=FFStudios;39602804]I would seriously recommend the 3570k plus an aftermarket Zalman cooler or something of the sort. I am ridiculously pleased with its performance even though I don't do much overclocking (the fact that it's open to the possibility is the point), but stock Intel fans are notoriously garbage. [editline]15th February 2013[/editline] the 3570k will completely demolish video rendering. I render 1280x760 720p video for a gaming channel and since upgrading from a Core 2 Duo @ 2.93GHz from 2010, I can safely say that my render time has been slashed nearly in half.[/QUOTE] If you arn't overclocking, and the rest of your gear is not silent on idle, the Intel stock cooler is adequate. It's by no means perfect, but it can cool the 3570k at stock. I only switched from the stock because of it's tonality over my otherwise very quiet rig. Before I got my Corsair PSU, the PSU fan was louder than the stock cooler. Also, the huge Zalaman flower coolers are sadly no longer the top of their field, going with a Noctua would be advised. [editline]15th February 2013[/editline] The intel stock fans used to be garbage in 755/1366 especially, but the 1155 ones are more than capable. Don't forget they are designed to cool the processors max TDP, which includes the onboard graphics, which OP won't be using.

3570, hands down.

[QUOTE=rhx123;39603481]The intel stock fans used to be garbage in 755/1366 especially, but the 1155 ones are more than capable. Don't forget they are designed to cool the processors max TDP, which includes the onboard graphics, which OP won't be using.[/QUOTE] The LGA1155 heatsink is just an enlarged version of the LGA775 heatsink with a lower profile. It's still a shit heatsink that can't cool properly. I gave it the benefit of the doubt on my i5-2400 when I first built it up, but it would scream just idling (and it was mounted properly) and would overheat and cause the machine to crash/reboot under even a modest load. The heatsink could [I]maybe[/I] cool at TDP of 45W and I mean [I]maybe.[/I] 77W/95W is far out of its league, and Intel has pushed the design all the way up to 130W back on their hot and power hungry Pentium D 830/840 with catastrophic results.

i still wouldn't trust the stock cooler to cool down my frozen dinners when they come out of the microwave too hot, let alone a $250 processor. regardless of use, it's just a better habit to splurge the extra $25-30 and pop on an aftermarket cooler

The i5 3570 is the go. AMD have really lost their way. I have an FX 8350 which I bought simply to support AMD as I'm not keen on an Intel monopoly and the FX can't render faster than the previous gen i7-970.

I get like 56C at full load on an i3 2120, it's not even close to as bad as you're making it out to be.

[QUOTE=bohb;39604484]The LGA1155 heatsink is just an enlarged version of the LGA775 heatsink with a lower profile. It's still a shit heatsink that can't cool properly. I gave it the benefit of the doubt on my i5-2400 when I first built it up, but it would scream just idling (and it was mounted properly) and would overheat and cause the machine to crash/reboot under even a modest load. The heatsink could [I]maybe[/I] cool at TDP of 45W and I mean [I]maybe.[/I] 77W/95W is far out of its league, and Intel has pushed the design all the way up to 130W back on their hot and power hungry Pentium D 830/840 with catastrophic results.[/QUOTE] AFAIK they also changed the TIM on the stock coolers to a cheaper version that has slightly worse thermal conductivity when ivybridge came out.

[QUOTE=HolyCrapAWalrus;39605961]I get like 56C at full load on an i3 2120, it's not even close to as bad as you're making it out to be.[/QUOTE] You forget the i3-2120 has a 65W TDP. An i5-2500k has a 95W TDP. You aren't going to be getting that same 56C at full load on the 95W part. AMD has always had better stock coolers, both cooling wise and ease of installment wise. You don't have to deal with those shitty push pins made of the cheapest flimsy plastic that can break if you aren't overly careful with it, or have to bolt brace plates on the back of the motherboard when you want to install aftermarket coolers.

[QUOTE=bohb;39604484]The LGA1155 heatsink is just an enlarged version of the LGA775 heatsink with a lower profile. It's still a shit heatsink that can't cool properly. I gave it the benefit of the doubt on my i5-2400 when I first built it up, but it would scream just idling (and it was mounted properly) and would overheat and cause the machine to crash/reboot under even a modest load. The heatsink could [I]maybe[/I] cool at TDP of 45W and I mean [I]maybe.[/I] 77W/95W is far out of its league, and Intel has pushed the design all the way up to 130W back on their hot and power hungry Pentium D 830/840 with catastrophic results.[/QUOTE] I have a i5-3570 with 77W TDP and it had no problems, it peaked at 60c at full load and stayed at about 40c at idle with its lowest RPM. [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] Although I do agree the mounting system is miles from perfect. [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] Maybe it can't handle 95W, but as the 3570k is a 77W part which it [I]can[/I] handle fine, it's kind of irrelevant to the OP anyway. But heres an idea to keep everyone happy: Build with the stock cooler. If you find it doesn't perform well enough, or want to overclock, then order an aftermarket cooler. If the stock cooler is fine, then you've saved yourself £30.

Definitely the 3570k.

[QUOTE=rhx123;39607601] But heres an idea to keep everyone happy: Build with the stock cooler. If you find it doesn't perform well enough, or want to overclock, then order an aftermarket cooler. If the stock cooler is fine, then you've saved yourself £30.[/QUOTE] I agree, go with the stock cooler first just to check if it works out for you. I went with the 3570k over the 8350 and almost bought an aftermarket cooler right away, but then I decided to check if the stock cooler will end up working out.