Does AMD FX-9370 overperform Intel Core i5-4670K

[Gordon.C]

Hi,

I havent had an AMD gpu for a while because I was the impression that Intel performs better in gaming.

I was wondering whether AMD FX-9370 (being the second most powerful CPU of AMD) outperforms Intel Core i5-4670K (being the most powerful Core i5)

They are the same price, however AMD FX-9370 has 8 cores while Core i5 only has 4.

Which one performs better in terms of high end maxed out gaming?

 

[mr.doom]

Hi,

I havent had an AMD gpu for a while because I was the impression that Intel performs better in gaming.

I was wondering whether AMD FX-9370 (being the second most powerful CPU of AMD) outperforms Intel Core i5-4670K (being the most powerful Core i5)

They are the same price, however AMD FX-9370 has 8 cores while Core i5 only has 4.

Which one performs better in terms of high end maxed out gaming?

The answer is "No" for several reasons. Without going in to too many details I will only list you few:
1. 8 cores are never used in any game. Maximum of 4 is used.
2. Intel as it stands, outperforms AMD both for per-core and multithreaded performance.
3. High end, maxed out gaming requires high end, maxed out graphics card, not CPU.

So if you need an AMD processor, get less cores with higher per-core speed and something like Radeon 290X gpu.

For Intel, get an i5 (any will do, but take K series if you can afford it, for overclocking) and go with Nvidia 770, 780 or 780ti (again it depends on your budget).

Those are your choices if you are looking at the high end gaming market.

 

[FuryRosewood]

Though in a technicality - if you are multitasking like streaming a game as you play, the amd 8 cores apparently do better.

 

[Jiniix]

If you play Battlefield 4 I'm sure the 8350 would outperform the i5. Mantle can handle up to 8 threads at a time. But for now it's only in Battlefield 4 with a beta driver. EA say they have several titles in the works that'll support Mantle though, and it'll undoubtedly be big in the future.

 

[mr.doom]

If you play Battlefield 4 I'm sure the 8350 would outperform the i5. Mantle can handle up to 8 threads at a time. But for now it's only in Battlefield 4 with a beta driver. EA say they have several titles in the works that'll support Mantle though, and it'll undoubtedly be big in the future.

True, but you need to remember that in order to use Mantle, you will have to have the whole line of Mantle enabled equipment, not just processor.

 

[Jiniix]

I actually edited that away, because I wasn't 100% sure you needed the GPU part as well.
I had originally written that you needed a GCN GPU from AMD, which is 7000- and R7/R9-series

 

[PCunicorn]

Well a 8350 is already very similar in performance to a 4670K, the 8350 is only about 7 percent worse. So the 9370 should out perform the 4670K as it has a higher clock then the 8350.

 

[Calin]

Even the 8350 > any i5
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

 

[PCunicorn]

That's a synthetic, it makes use of all cores and doesn't show real world performance.

 

[Tumultus]

In short the 9370 is the superior processor in terms of raw power, but a lot of that power is unused, as the majority (nearly all) games aren't optimized for more than 4 cores - many are not even optimized to use 4. Depending on what you're doing, there are different routes to go. If you're gaming I'd suggest a cheaper processor and a higher level graphics card. Knock seventy bucks off your processor and move up a tier in your graphics. If you're not gaming and are using anything that'll be more synthetically driven, or is optimized for multiple cores, then stick with the AMD chip.

 

[Virssagòn]

If you play Battlefield 4 I'm sure the 8350 would outperform the i5. Mantle can handle up to 8 threads at a time. But for now it's only in Battlefield 4 with a beta driver. EA say they have several titles in the works that'll support Mantle though, and it'll undoubtedly be big in the future.

There are 20 pretty known games in development which will support Mantle. 4-5 big game engines start to support it. So you can be sure that Mantle will have some impact.

 

[Tumultus]

There are 20 pretty known games in development which will support Mantle. 4-5 big game engines start to support it. So you can be sure that Mantle will have some impact.

I agree. Mantle shouldn't be ignored already. The improvements it has in situations which the processor would normally bottleneck the graphics is astounding - sometimes 30% or higher. DirectX and OpenGL are far from perfect, and, I think, waste valuable speed on both the cpu and gpu.
Mantle will benefit both high and mid range rigs, but in different ways. The mid range, and old cpus will (again this is all if Mantle will do as it has done in beta, and hopefully moreso on completion and adoptionI) have a significantly longer life in gaming rigs. The beta was putting gains of 20-30% on the previous generation of AMD processors (Phenom II). High end cpus are shown to have between a 7-12% gain over using DX 11.

 

[87dtna]

Still seeing AMD fans stating for ~2 years now that eventually the FX ''8 cores'' will be better once things are optimized for more than 4 cores is quite comical.

Intel I5 dominates for gaming, period. It also completely dominates at anything single threaded, which is most apps. Very very few things can an 8350 out perform a 4670k, and when it does it's a very marginal win.

Case in point, take a look at this link for rendering performance-

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/14/

Look at the 9590 at 5ghz VS the 3570k. An educated guess of a 4670k at 4.5ghz would perform nearly identical. And don't forget, most 8350's will fall short of 5ghz...most will only hit 4.8 daily. So the 4670k at 4.5 will actually outperform an 8350 at 4.8ghz even in rendering.

And how about a word on power consumption....an 8350 overclocked to 5ghz will consume 250w fully loaded, while a 4670k at 4.5ghz will definitely outperform it in 98+% of tasks and consume around 120w max load.

In short, the 4670k is the better all around choice hands down.

 

[StrangleHold]

Kinda weird you would use that review. You know in the gaming benchmarks there is not really any difference between the FX 9590 and the 1000 buck I7 3960X. Proves one point but kills another one, LOL. Power consumption, its a 8 core running at 5.0. But still uses less power then the 3960X 6 core intel at 4.6.

 

[87dtna]

Kinda weird you would use that review. You know in the gaming benchmarks there is not really any difference between the FX 9590 and the 1000 buck I7 3960X. Proves one point but kills another one, LOL.

His gaming test didn't use any CPU bound games. I bet an I5 2400 would perform within 2-3 FPS too, your point? It did not kill it at all.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...66-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-13.html

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/513...et-benchmarks-hd-7970-crysis-3-1920x1080-high

Power consumption, its a 8 core running at 5.0. But still uses less power then the 3960X 6 core intel at 4.6.

Really? If you want to play that card, just go back to the multithreaded benches. Hey and single threaded for that matter.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/13/

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/14/

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/10/

 

[G80FTW]

Hi,

I havent had an AMD gpu for a while because I was the impression that Intel performs better in gaming.

I was wondering whether AMD FX-9370 (being the second most powerful CPU of AMD) outperforms Intel Core i5-4670K (being the most powerful Core i5)

They are the same price, however AMD FX-9370 has 8 cores while Core i5 only has 4.

Which one performs better in terms of high end maxed out gaming?

Well firstly, as I am also learning, AMDs 8 core processors are not "true" 8 cores. I say this, because they have 2 cores paired up with 1 FPU. So in some applications (particularly gaming) that 8 core processor would act like a 4 core processor because each set of 2 cores has to share 1 FPU. Where as the Intel 4 core has 1 FPU per core.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AMD_Bulldozer_block_diagram_(8_core_CPU).PNG

So comparing them on cores alone to try and compare their potential multi-tasking abilities doesnt exactly work anymore since both processors multi-core designs are different.

Its hard telling if this kind of design will catch on. My guess is it could, as I think it would allow them to fit more physical cores on the die itself however there are obvious sacrifices in doing so.

EDIT: This might be a better representation and explanation:

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-FX8150-8Core-Processor-Review-Bulldozer-Has-Landed/?page=2

 

[mr.doom]

Well, it seems that this is turning out to be a fan-war

I would not go for AMD products for now, because (1) their processors are behind Intel's in therms of real world performance, and (2) Their GPUs run extremely hot, loud and power hungry.

There was a time that both Intel and Nvidia were playing catch up with AMD and ATI, but this is simply not the case now.

Simply put - use AMD for budget limited builds, and Intel/Nvidia combo for power. It is really as simple as that.

 

[87dtna]

I'm not a fanboy and I'll prove it right now. I like AMD gpu's, before the mining craze they were way better price for performance....the pitcairn GPU's are great IE the 7870 and R9 270's. I'm currently running an R9 270, strongest GPU on a single 6 pin, and I have to say I'm extremely impressed by it. It does not run hot, nor consume lots of power (as evident by the single 6 pin), and its quiet.

I also have a 7950 and a 280x. In stock form, they may run a little hot. But, you can overclock and undervolt them. Stock voltage on my 280x is actually 1.18v, but I'm running 1.037v on it which dropped temps about 12c and also power consumption went from 280w full load to 220w.

But when it comes to CPU's, AMD is absolute rubbish compared to intel.

 

[Okedokey]

The answer is no.

Mantle only works effectively on low end stuff (i.e.. 40% improvement on shit, is still shit).

GPU bound games will favour the intel gear.

8320 is pretty crap unless you want to multi task.

Even the 8350 > any i5
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

dumbest thing ive ever seen. Passmark is gaming???

the 8350 gets raped by even an old i5 (2500K) http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

 

[PCunicorn]

No it doesn't, that bench is utter BS. A 8350 will perform slightly better then a 2500K in every single game except maybe a game that highly favors Intel.