AMD FX 8350 vs i5 3550

Status
Not open for further replies.
jonnyp11

jonnyp11

New Member
he's always been that way and refuses to even slightly compromise those beliefs and even recognize a situation where AMD is a better choice. Still haven't seen an sub $200 i5 (or any) beat an 8320 at anything that can fully utilize 8 threads, i believe photoshop might be in that catagory along with some 3d modeling programs and video editing programs for the en and de-coding
 
Okedokey

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
Mate, read the quote again, it wasn't mine. Lets stick with the OPs question, not the guy that hijacked it.

Despite the drop in price, there’s almost no reason to opt for the FX-8350 in comparison to the Intel competition; it seems that while AMD’s changed lots of little things about the FX-8350, the end result remains largely the same.
Click to expand...
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/8

and here

The FX-8350 runs at higher clocks and improves multi-threaded performance upto 10% and single-threaded app performance around 4-5%. AMD’s second generation piledriver architecture does come with some improvements but they still lack against the offering from counterpart Intel.

Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-vishera-fx8350-x86-piledriver-pitted-fx8150-cpu-benchmarks/#ixzz2EQL7DJzV
Click to expand...

and here

Look beyond those specific applications however and Intel can pull away with a significant lead. Lightly threaded applications or those whose performance depends on a mixture of single and multithreaded workloads are typically wins for Intel. The story hasn't really changed in that regard.
Click to expand...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/9

Secondly if you're going to spend the exact amount of money on a mobo and cpu (~270+), then why would you get a slower platform, that generates more heat, uses more power and works better in only a very multi-threaded applications? Those that need multithreaded performance (video rendering etc), usually have a system that is not budget, and would go for another part altogether anyway. Those (like most of us) that run single and sometimes dual core applications (e.g. most games and apps), get real world better performace from the intel part at present. Nothing here is fanboi stuff, just fact. So how about you play the ball and not the man eh?

Sure you can find 'cases' where the 8350 is better, but they're rare and don't represent 'real world' for most people.

The OP asked the dif between the two CPUs, and to properly answer the question, the only answer is the intel part (look at the benchmarks linked).

The final point is that the 2500K overclocks far and away more than the fx8350 and will smash it to bits when done so, something that takes 5 minutes and can be done on air easily.
 
Last edited:
jonnyp11

jonnyp11

New Member
Ultimately Vishera is an easier AMD product to recommend than Zambezi before it. However the areas in which we'd recommend it are limited to those heavily threaded applications that show very little serialization. As our compiler benchmark shows, a good balance of single and multithreaded workloads within a single application can dramatically change the standings between AMD and Intel. You have to understand your workload very well to know whether or not Vishera is the right platform for it. Even if the fit is right, you have to be ok with the increased power consumption over Intel as well.
Click to expand...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/9

That said, the appeal of AMD processors with Vishera design is not really in the advantages of the Piledriver microarchitecture, but in their low prices. In this respect, the two models in the middle of the line-up, FX-8320 and FX-6300, look best of all. These are the processors we would recommend checking out, if you are not discouraged by higher power bills. And please keep in mind that AMD processors perform best in multi-threaded tasks, but they are not as universal as Intel products. Therefore, Socket AM3+ platform probably won’t be a good choice for everyday use, and will best fit into an inexpensive workstation system.
Click to expand...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_10.html#sect0

So, let’s try to distill all of this down into a recommendation. Recognizing that the power user community gives AMD more latitude than Intel, I anticipate a greater number of enthusiasts getting excited about FX-8350 than any of the Bulldozer-based CPUs, and rightly so. More speed, significantly improved efficiency, and a sensible price tag are exactly what I was hoping to see, and AMD delivers them all. Are you asked to make compromises? Yeah. Single-threaded performance still isn’t impressive, and power consumption remains a sore subject. But for less than $200, I can certainly see FX-8350 at the heart of a budget-oriented workstation.
Click to expand...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-17.html

It's good
Click to expand...

get.told.com

Hey look, i can quote things too :cool:
 
Last edited:
Okedokey

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
Yeah lol saying exactly what im saying, mostly negative, they're not less that $200 and he's not wanting a workstation? Your point is?
 
jonnyp11

jonnyp11

New Member
All agree on a situation they a recommendable for and i have yet to see an intel processor to compete with them in the sub $180 area that the 8320 and 6300 occupy, the 3220 can't touch them, and all i5's for 180 are locked.
 
Okedokey

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
jonnyp11 said:
All agree on a situation they a recommendable for and i have yet to see an intel processor to compete with them in the sub $180 area that the 8320 and 6300 occupy, the 3220 can't touch them, and all i5's for 180 are locked.
Click to expand...

FFS we're are talking about the 8350. sheesh. Its 220 bucks - same as the i5 2500k.
 
StrangleHold

StrangleHold

Moderator
Staff member
lostsoul62 said:
The i5 3550 is 22nm, 77 Watts, Ivy Bridge, and 3rd generation, and the FX 8350 is 32nm, 125 Watts, has 8 cores so I don't know which one I should get. I won't be overclocking it. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

Back to the question.

If your not ever going to think about overclocking the i5 3550. If you ever might, the FX 8320. Plus the 8320 is close to 40 bucks cheaper the either.

But I dont understand why you would not want the i5 3570K. Its 5 bucks more man! Or the FX 8320 its 40 cheaper.
 
8

87dtna

Active Member
Anyone that recommends an 8350 or even 8320 over a 2500k has never owned a 2500k or 3570k. They ARE hands down worth $40 more or whatever the price difference is. Right now a 3570k is $215 on newegg.

Nearly nothing uses more than 4 threads, in reality who here even renders or encodes at all? If you do, it's probably few and far between, and with that said a 2500k is not slow at rendering.

Also, everyone here keeps acting like the 2500k or 3570k doesn't overclock or something. Just about all 2500k and 3570k's quite easily reach 4.6-4.8ghz as a daily overclock on a simple atermarket air cooler. At this speed, it will about match an 8320 at 4.0-4.2ghz rendering/encoding and obliterate it at any single to quad threaded tasks (which is 98% of normal daily activity and gaming).


And with all that said, does anyone even realize the OP has never responded to this thread? lol
 
Last edited:
jonnyp11

jonnyp11

New Member
87dtna said:
Anyone that recommends an 8350 or even 8320 over a 2500k has never owned a 2500k or 3570k. They ARE hands down worth $40 more or whatever the price difference is. Right now a 3570k is $215 on newegg.
Click to expand...

I have built a 2500k system although i haven't owned an FX, but have you used both? And how much of a difference will anyone really notice in the everyday operations we keep mentioning that are single threaded or lightly? even if it's slow at these less intensive things, it should still be way faster than what he's upgrading from probably

Nearly nothing uses more than 4 threads, in reality who here even renders or encodes at all? If you do, it's probably few and far between, and with that said a 2500k is not slow at rendering.
Click to expand...

very true

Also, everyone here keeps acting like the 2500k or 3570k doesn't overclock or something. Just about all 2500k and 3570k's quite easily reach 4.6-4.8ghz as a daily overclock on a simple atermarket air cooler. At this speed, it will about match an 8320 at 4.0-4.2ghz rendering/encoding and obliterate it at any single to quad threaded tasks (which is 98% of normal daily activity and gaming).
Click to expand...

which brings back the price point i like the 8320 for. It should hit the 4GHz on the stock cooler and stay at $180 while the 2500k/3570k+212 will be $240-250 then.

And with all that said, does anyone even realize the OP has never responded to this thread? lol
Click to expand...

I did notice that a while ago and i want to say someone said it a page or 2 back
 
Okedokey

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT CPU JONNY FFS!

Also, i think half the fps in gaming is noticable.
 
8

87dtna

Active Member
jonnyp11 said:
I have built a 2500k system although i haven't owned an FX, but have you used both? And how much of a difference will anyone really notice in the everyday operations we keep mentioning that are single threaded or lightly? even if it's slow at these less intensive things, it should still be way faster than what he's upgrading from probably



which brings back the price point i like the 8320 for. It should hit the 4GHz on the stock cooler and stay at $180 while the 2500k/3570k+212 will be $240-250 then.
Click to expand...

Yes I've used an FX. They suck for gaming which is mostly what I do and most of us here do....and 4ghz, you can do 4ghz on the stock cooler on a 2500k as well because that only takes about 1.15v or less to do.

But as I've said before, they are worth every penny of the extra money.


Bigfella- I know you keep talking about the 8350, but the point here in the current argument is ''bang for the buck''.

At $180 the 8320 seems like good bang for the buck, but honestly at $220 the 2500k is better bang for the buck because you get WAYYY more bang.

Edit- And actually right now a 3570k is $215 on newegg, certainly even better yet bang for the buck.
 
Last edited:
Virssagòn

Virssagòn

VIP Member
True^^
But I'm planning to build a pc for my brother with an FX8320 though.
It's 145euro right now and the cheapest i5 sandy is 159euro, isn't unlocked and has a clock speed from 3ghz.
It beats the i3 in stock on almost every way (also gaming), so no doubt there.
So, the plan is to oc it to 4.2ghz and beat that 15 uro more i5 and some others (not unlocked ones) in almost every part and equalize them in gaming.
And then after the price advantage and overclocking advantage there's his multithreaded advantage that beats most i7's.
So what's your point? And what is my point?
Btw, my brother is doing some video editing on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top