Fx 8350 vs i5 4690k

[RCoon]

Did you know that PCIe gen 3 is about twice as fast as PCIe gen 2? That means Intel's 8x + 8x PCIe 3 performs practically identical to AMD's 16x + 16x PCIe 2. Not that it matters since GPUs don't use all that speed anyway.

But intel only has half the amount of 3.0 lanes available, so you're not gaining anything at all, except for the possibility of running one gpu on the equivalent of x32 lanes, which will never matter anyway. It was an interesting tactic, but the whole PCI-E 3.0 thing doesn't do anything at all besides increase the possible bandwidth of a PCI-E SSD or something. It doesn't provide more lanes in total. AMD has 32 (2.0) lanes, Intel has 16 (3.0), the only increase would come from a PLX chip.

If the OP has no intention of playing CPU intensive games, I could quite happily recommend an 8350. Hell, I could recommend a 750K, because if a game isn't CPU intensive, then it doesn't even matter at all. Saying there's no upgrade path from and 8350, and claiming there is for Z97 seems a bit cheap to me. If I owned a 4670, I wouldn't upgrade to a 4770. I'd wait for the next gen and buy a whole new setup, and I think that's what most sensible people would do these days. The whole "no upgrade path" thing is a cheap excuse. If you're going to buy, buy right in the first place, don't waste money on half measures. Save for longer and get the thing you want in the first place.

 

[Dent1]

+1

Edit
Personally i wont buy a 4690k as currently it costs twice as much as a FX8350, and i already have a AM3+ board. but if have to built a new system, i will definitely go with Intel.

Depends where you live. In india certainly. Here in the UK only £30 separates the two. So for a new build the Intel would work out better.

 

[Shambles1980]

i still dont really see why any one would spend the extra on a intel 4xxx rather than a 3xxx. unless the equivalent chip is the same price or less then the 3xxx would work out better with cheaper boards wouldn't it? (1155 vs 1150)
i dont think there is anything more than clock speed thats better for 4th gen (i could be wrong)

i think i would argue that apart from a couple of instructions that arent really used. an i7-3770k with a 1555 board to utilize it properly should cost about the same (possibly a bit less) than a 4690kwith a decent board.
also it should be a bit faster for multi threaded, use less power, and run cooler..
maybe im missing something some where but thats how i see it..

 

[pigulici]

From of former owner of FX8350(actual I own a I7 4th gen), I say, go with intel if you have the money, if not, even a fx6300 it is good enough for most of gaming today,if you have a good vga....

 

[Recca29]

Depends where you live. In India certainly. Here in the UK only £30 separates the two. So for a new build the Intel would work out better.

For a new built i also suggested to go with Intel.

If the price difference was just £30 in India, i would've already upgraded my current setup.
FYI, Upgrading to a 8320 next month.

 

[Vario]

i still dont really see why any one would spend the extra on a intel 4xxx rather than a 3xxx. unless the equivalent chip is the same price or less then the 3xxx would work out better with cheaper boards wouldn't it? (1155 vs 1150)
i dont think there is anything more than clock speed thats better for 4th gen (i could be wrong)

i think i would argue that apart from a couple of instructions that arent really used. an i7-3770k with a 1555 board to utilize it properly should cost about the same (possibly a bit less) than a 4690kwith a decent board.
also it should be a bit faster for multi threaded, use less power, and run cooler..
maybe im missing something some where but thats how i see it..

Brand new high end 1155 boards are harder to find now, and 1150 boards have more features, 3770ks haven't gotten any cheaper even used however the 2700k is finally getting cheaper ($200 is a typical price). It makes no sense to go with 1155 at this point.

 

[Freebird]

I'm doing an upgrade next month and I already have a R9 280 what would you guys recommend? I am going to use the build for gaming.

I bought a 8320 for $129 and an 990FX chipset mobo (ASUS M5A99X EVO R2.0) for a little less and with a high end air cooler I can run my 8320 at 4.6Ghz @ default voltage and only changed the multiplier. Go that route and spend the money on a used R9 290/290x on ebay. I bought a PowerColor 290 from newegg for $300 after Promo & rebate and a 290 that was really a 290x off ebay for only $225! (you have to shop around on a lot of auctions though) or you could buy another 280 and crossfire them. Like I do with my 290 & 290x. Sure an OCed 8320 uses a little more watts, but it doesn't run 100% load 24x7 either... only cost you an extra $5-$6 a year on electricity if you are a heavy gamer

At higher resolutions, the GPU is the limiting factor, not the CPU. Save on the CPU and buy an extra GPU. I love the 4GB of memory the 290s offer though. That's why I finally gave up my 5850x3 crossfire; they only had 1GB of memory. If you keep the game & settings under the 1GB memory limit; they were still faster than my 290, but got crushed when going over 1GB.
And since I run a 3 monitor setup, it was a no brainer.

There are some great deals to be found on ebay with all the Miners dumping their AMD 270 through 290 cards over the next month or two. I'll probably replace the stock coolers (LOUD) with after market
GELID Solutions GC-VGA02-01 which I already have bought one, just deciding on which to try it on...

 

[Vario]

When you factor in buying a "high end air cooler" than you are already at the 4690k price, and 4690k is faster at stock speeds even with stock cooling.

 

[Freebird]

No. They are not the same price.

I bought my 8320 on sale for $129 and just bought an Antec KUHLER H2O 650 for $29.99 after rebate Newegg has the Coolmaster Seidon 120 for $45 after rebate. And when it comes to high resolution gaming the GPU is the limiting factor, not the CPU. If you want to brag that the 4690K can push 300 vs 250 frames at 1440x900 and low quality settings then fine, but most gamers try to turn on as many quality settings at HD and higher resolutions. The FX CPUs are discounted on sale every other month at either Newegg, TigerDirect or on Amazon.

Save money on the CPU & mobo and upgrade the GPU or buy a 2nd one. He can always sell the old one on ebay if he wishes.

 

[yogurt_21]

for whatever reason, when I was pricing out my new parts I couldn't find a price benefit to the FX 8350 vs the i5 4690K in a build. Sure the cpu is 50$ cheaper in base price (at the egg anyway) and the sale price ends up 55$ cheaper (both are discounted atm) but a similarly featured motherboard chewed up the savings. It ended up being like a 20$ difference which isn't much at all. Then you have to factor in that the 4690k is newer and a z97 board has some new bells and whistles that might come in handy later (the m2 might especially be handy if like me you run out of HD bays in your tower)

imho the savings are not there at all. In my case I was in a budget range where 100$ wouldn't put me into the next range of gpu's so instead of the i5 I went with the i7 4790k and a z97 board. but that won't be the case for everyone.

 

[Freebird]

Actually for gaming on a budget the FX6300 or FX6350 would be a better choice than the FX8350. I was going to OverClock my 8320 (its stable @ 4.6Ghz & default voltage) past the 8350 speeds because I was planning on doing a lot of x264 video conversions as well as playing games.

 

[theeldest]

But intel only has half the amount of 3.0 lanes available, so you're not gaining anything at all, except for the possibility of running one gpu on the equivalent of x32 lanes, which will never matter anyway. It was an interesting tactic, but the whole PCI-E 3.0 thing doesn't do anything at all besides increase the possible bandwidth of a PCI-E SSD or something. It doesn't provide more lanes in total. AMD has 32 (2.0) lanes, Intel has 16 (3.0), the only increase would come from a PLX chip.

I think you missed the point.

8x 3.0 lanes provide 7.8 GB/s of throughput
16x 2.0 lanes provide 7.8 GB/s of throughput

There isn't a performance difference between using 8 lanes or 16 lanes so long as the total throughput needed is available. So in this case, half the number of lanes from Intel at PCIe 3.0 are equivalent to AMD's PCIe 2.0 offering.

 

[sttubs]

I have an 8350 (in my system specs). It plays every game without any issues & is able to handle Photoshop without any difficulties. I'm still running stock clocks. IMO, save your money & go for AMD cpu. When they say that Intel is faster, that is in seconds faster, not minutes.

 

[RCoon]

I think you missed the point.

8x 3.0 lanes provide 7.8 GB/s of throughput
16x 2.0 lanes provide 7.8 GB/s of throughput

There isn't a performance difference between using 8 lanes or 16 lanes so long as the total throughput needed is available. So in this case, half the number of lanes from Intel at PCIe 3.0 are equivalent to AMD's PCIe 2.0 offering.

Missed what point? That's exactly what I said.

 

[hat]

So on an intel board, if you have 16 lanes (8x+8x for sli/xfire) what happens if for example you have a single GPU in an x16 slot, and then you use like a pci-e x4 SSD or SATA controller or something?

 

[RealNeil]

I have one FX-8350 system running with a pair of GTX-570's in SLI inside of it. It games just fine for me. As a system, it is fast enough for most situations.

I recently bought the i5-4690K CPU, but I haven't installed it into anything yet. Once it's built, it will be faster than the FX-8350 I'm sure, but I like to buy AMD based systems too.

I have an FX-6300 on the shelf that I used for a month. (before someone gave me the 8350) It was another fine performer.

My current Intel systems (both i7-2600Ks) are faster than the 8350 is, but not by a lot. If you want to save a little money and use it towards something else on your system, the FX CPUs work well.

So on an intel board, if you have 16 lanes (8x+8x for sli/xfire) what happens if for example you have a single GPU in an x16 slot, and then you use like a pci-e x4 SSD or SATA controller or something?

It will work great on either setup. Intel or AMD. A modern GPU will not use all of that bandwidth, and there is plenty left for the SSD or SATA PCI-E devices.

 

[hat]

I mean if you have x16 graphics card and x4 controller does your card get knocked down to x12 ??

 

[RealNeil]

Some boards will make your X16 slots run @ X8 if you use the other slots. Not sure about that DFI board.

 

[Jetster]

So on an intel board, if you have 16 lanes (8x+8x for sli/xfire) what happens if for example you have a single GPU in an x16 slot, and then you use like a pci-e x4 SSD or SATA controller or something?

With Intel there is only 16 so using any lane in any other slots will take away from the 16. But there is still plenty of bandwith. This is also the case with the new M.2 and SATA Express also use the PCI-e lanes

 

[Ruyki]

I mean if you have x16 graphics card and x4 controller does your card get knocked down to x12 ??

The chipset has some extra PCIe lanes. My asus board can use up to 4 extra PCIe 2.0 lanes and split them between secondary PCIe slots and the M2 slot without taking away from the main slots.

 

[Mussels]

the i5 will be faster and use less power.

recently made the switch myself.

 

[erocker]

Did you know that PCIe gen 3 is about twice as fast as PCIe gen 2? That means Intel's 8x + 8x PCIe 3 performs practically identical to AMD's 16x + 16x PCIe 2. Not that it matters since GPUs don't use all that speed anyway.

Not even close:

 

[Champ]

Couple of dumb Q's. First, what does this chart mean and with Mantle becoming widely used, does this cut down the gap performace wise between Intel and AMD?

 

[Dent1]

Couple of dumb Q's. First, what does this chart mean and with Mantle becoming widely used, does this cut down the gap performace wise between Intel and AMD?

No because Nvidia can use mantle too. It's a Direct X alternative.

Intel vs. AMD argument has nothing to do with Mantle as far as closing the gap.

 

[yogurt_21]

I mean if you have x16 graphics card and x4 controller does your card get knocked down to x12 ??

depends on what version of pcie the x4 is. I have a raid controller that says 8x but its version 1.0 so were taking the equivalent of 4x on 2.0 or 2x at 3.0.

at any rate for all z97 chips I've seen it goes 1 slot = x16, 2 = both at 8x, 3 = 8x, 4x, 4x., 4 = all at 4x.
considering there's a 1-4% drop from 3.0 16x to 3.0 4x it doesn't really matter.