# AMD FX 8350 vs i5 3550



## lostsoul62

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?


----------



## spirit

If you're not overclocking I have a feeling the i5 has better performance, even though the FX has twice as many cores.


----------



## Virssagòn

What are you plans with it? Gaming, video-editing, browsing, rendering,...

If it's pure for gaming and normal use, go for the i5.
If it's more then only gaming, go for the fx8350. (if you don't mind to overclock, go fx8320 and oc it to fx8350 clocks or higher)


----------



## jonnyp11

Id go for the 8320 over the 8350 no matter what, the price isnt worth the added speed.

Agreed with above though, normal stuff and gaming would be i5, if you plan to edit videos and do 3d CAD stuff then the 8320


----------



## StrangleHold

I know you said your not overclocking. But considering the 8320 in unlocked and easy to overclock, myself I would go with it. You should be able to get 4.2/4.3ghz with the stock cooler if you have good case air flow.


----------



## tech savvy

StrangleHold said:


> I know you said your not overclocking. But considering the 8320 in unlocked and easy to overclock, myself I would go with it.* You should be able to get 4.2/4.3ghz with the stock cooler if you have good case air flow.*



Hell no! Not trying to be rude, but 4.2/4.3 on stock cooler...I think not.


----------



## claptonman

tech savvy said:


> Hell no! Not trying to be rude, but 4.2/4.3 on stock cooler...I think not.



Should be no problem. Remember that the 8350 is 4ghz stock, and ships with the stock cooler. I don't think there's be a problem.


----------



## StrangleHold

tech savvy said:


> Hell no! Not trying to be rude, but 4.2/4.3 on stock cooler...I think not.


 
BS. It will do 4.2 with stock CPU volts. Unless you bump up the voltage it doesnt raise the heat much at all.


----------



## tech savvy

StrangleHold said:


> BS. It will do 4.2 with stock CPU volts. Unless you bump up the voltage it doesnt raise the heat much at all.



Of course it can be clocked to 4.2-4.3 w/stock HSF, but temps will soar. I wouldn't recommend any OC with w/stock HSF. If anything get the CM 212 , it's cheap, but does wonders.


----------



## jonnyp11

tech savvy said:


> Of course it can be clocked to 4.2-4.3 w/stock HSF, but temps will soar. I wouldn't recommend any OC with w/stock HSF. If anything get the CM 212 , it's cheap, but does wonders.



8350 uses the same cooler and it has a turbo of 4.2 and stock clock at 4GHz, so if it isn't stable and cool enough at 4.2 then the 8350 wouldn't be there, now would it?


----------



## StrangleHold

tech savvy said:


> Of course it can be clocked to 4.2-4.3 w/stock HSF, but temps will soar. I wouldn't recommend any OC with w/stock HSF. If anything get the CM 212 , it's cheap, but does wonders.


 
Even though I have done this many times with Zambezi and the Vishera even runs cooler. Lets discuss this.

1. How many Zambezi/Vishera have you overclocked?  

2, You do know that the FX 8320/8350 doesnt have the crap heatsinks Intels come with?

3, You do understand that these will do 4.2/4.3 on stock voltage, as in not raising the voltage?

4, You do know that raising the voltage causes most of the temp. increase, not the mhz.?

5, You did see where I said if you have good case air flow?

6. Tell me which one of the above that I am wrong with.


----------



## tech savvy

jonnyp11 said:


> *8350 uses the same cooler and it has a turbo of 4.2 and stock clock at 4GHz,* so if it isn't stable and cool enough at 4.2 then the 8350 wouldn't be there, now would it?



I don't think that apply's to all cores. When the CPU realizes that an app/game isn't utilizing all the cores it will temporarily shut off like 2/3/4 of them and raise the clock on the remaining ones to boost performance, not all 8 cores boost to 4.2.  If you OC to 4.2-4.3 on all 8 cores manually w/stock HSF, heat would be to much.


----------



## 87dtna

OMG dude 4.2 would be fine on a stock cooler you know nothing.

Anyway, personally the I5 is better at 95% of apps, even with rendering/video editing ETC the I5 isn't slow enough to warrant the AMD purchase when the I5 is much faster at pretty much anything else.


----------



## biosx

Hi,

I just signed up to reply to this thread because some people looking for valid information may be mislead by some of the posts.

First of all, I have owned two FX-8320 CPUs and now own an FX-8350. I can tell you the following things:
- stock cooler is good for stock;
- 8320s will (most of the times) NOT clock to 8350 speed (4GHz/4.2turbo) on stock volts. The reason they are being sold as 8320 is that they cannot perform as 8350s at a decent voltage. Both 8320 (batch 1236) had VID (1.4 the first one and 1.3875 the second one) with even higher turbo VID ofc. Neither of them was stable at 4GHz with stock voltage and even so, they were running rather hot (4050 GHz, 1.3875v, LLC set to High - up to 60C on the core) with the FZ-120 (granted, not the best aftermarket cooler, but still keeps the CPU 5-7 degrees lower than the stock cooler). Stock cooler would easily go beyond the 62C recommended on the cores.
- 8350s run 4GHz on lower voltages and thus dissipate less heat, keeping within the 125w TDP, which and overclocked 8320 will most definitely will not (there are some very few golden chips that may do so);
- if you don't want the extra speed (granted in real life there's not THAT much of a difference between 3.5GHz and 4GHz on a PD chip), you can go for the 8320;
- if you want to be past the 4GHz barrier and not put a lot of cash into aftermarket cooling, go for the 8350.


----------



## 87dtna

And at that price, getting the 3570k makes way more sense.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> And at that price, getting the 3570k makes way more sense.



He went for the FX already, I think.


----------



## nmiller

biosx said:


> Hi,
> 
> I just signed up to reply to this thread because some people looking for valid information may be mislead by some of the posts.
> 
> First of all, I have owned two FX-8320 CPUs and now own an FX-8350. I can tell you the following things:
> - stock cooler is good for stock;
> - 8320s will (most of the times) NOT clock to 8350 speed (4GHz/4.2turbo) on stock volts. The reason they are being sold as 8320 is that they cannot perform as 8350s at a decent voltage. Both 8320 (batch 1236) had VID (1.4 the first one and 1.3875 the second one) with even higher turbo VID ofc. Neither of them was stable at 4GHz with stock voltage and even so, they were running rather hot (4050 GHz, 1.3875v, LLC set to High - up to 60C on the core) with the FZ-120 (granted, not the best aftermarket cooler, but still keeps the CPU 5-7 degrees lower than the stock cooler). Stock cooler would easily go beyond the 62C recommended on the cores.
> - 8350s run 4GHz on lower voltages and thus dissipate less heat, keeping within the 125w TDP, which and overclocked 8320 will most definitely will not (there are some very few golden chips that may do so);
> - if you don't want the extra speed (granted in real life there's not THAT much of a difference between 3.5GHz and 4GHz on a PD chip), you can go for the 8320;
> - if you want to be past the 4GHz barrier and not put a lot of cash into aftermarket cooling, go for the 8350.




Good to hear! 
I just ordered an 8350 and a gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 mobo along with a corsair 550d casesome other upgrades. Looking forward to it even more now!

I have this Zalman cooler currently. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835118046

It cools my x4 965 really well despite the terrible airflow in my ancient case. Does anyone have experience with Zalmans and fx series? specifically the 8350?

I'll probably run the 8350 stock for a while but eventually would like to try oc'ing it. How well should I expect the Zalman to cool it with a much better case/case fans?


----------



## biosx

nmiller said:


> Good to hear!
> I just ordered an 8350 and a gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 mobo along with a corsair 550d casesome other upgrades. Looking forward to it even more now!
> 
> I have this Zalman cooler currently. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835118046
> 
> It cools my x4 965 really well despite the terrible airflow in my ancient case. Does anyone have experience with Zalmans and fx series? specifically the 8350?
> 
> I'll probably run the 8350 stock for a while but eventually would like to try oc'ing it. How well should I expect the Zalman to cool it with a much better case/case fans?



Don't expect stelar performance from the cooler on the FX, my FZ-120 used to keep the Phenom x4 under 40C and the FX reaches 50+ in prime with the same case/cooling. That's at stock.

You will probably be able to do some mild OC-ing, depending on what stock VID your chip will have and how much can it take with stock voltage (or even a bit of undervolting) but if you want to get 4.5+ GHz out of it, cooling is most likely going to be an issue.

From what I've seen, most people OCing these chips are running either top-of-the-line air coolers or water cooling (either H100i or custom loops).

Have fun with the chip, keep an eye on the temps.


----------



## nmiller

biosx said:


> Don't expect stelar performance from the cooler on the FX, my FZ-120 used to keep the Phenom x4 under 40C and the FX reaches 50+ in prime with the same case/cooling. That's at stock.
> 
> You will probably be able to do some mild OC-ing, depending on what stock VID your chip will have and how much can it take with stock voltage (or even a bit of undervolting) but if you want to get 4.5+ GHz out of it, cooling is most likely going to be an issue.
> 
> From what I've seen, most people OCing these chips are running either top-of-the-line air coolers or water cooling (either H100i or custom loops).
> 
> Have fun with the chip, keep an eye on the temps.




I'll be picking up a Thermalright Silver Arrow so that should suit it well I think. I'll probably just end up using the stock clock for a while and oc'ing it in a few months if I end up getting a larger psu. I've got a corsair hx850 right now but the fx 8350 seems power hungry, less so than other fx's though.


----------



## Virssagòn

nmiller said:


> I'll be picking up a Thermalright Silver Arrow so that should suit it well I think. I'll probably just end up using the stock clock for a while and oc'ing it in a few months if I end up getting a larger psu. I've got a corsair hx850 right now but the fx 8350 seems power hungry, less so than other fx's though.



if you're picking up a silver arrow, make sure you take the SB-e, they are the new ones.
Great choice btw, it matches or even ownes a noctua nh-d14 and some water coolers.
I did 5.1ghz with my 2600k and temps were 83°C max, on 4.8ghz I get around 70 degrees. 
Now I'm running 4.6ghz daily, 62° max.
The silver arrow sb-e extreme should be awesome though...
I think you'll be able to get 4.6ghz easy for daily with the silver arrow, with the extreme edition maybe 4.7ghz.
The silver arrow should be able to hit 5ghz on a reasonable temp.

Where do you live? Because I don't think they sell them in the US.


----------



## nmiller

SmileMan said:


> if you're picking up a silver arrow, make sure you take the SB-e, they are the new ones.
> Great choice btw, it matches or even ownes a noctua nh-d14 and some water coolers.
> I did 5.1ghz with my 2600k and temps were 83°C max, on 4.8ghz I get around 70 degrees.
> Now I'm running 4.6ghz daily, 62° max.
> The silver arrow sb-e extreme should be awesome though...
> I think you'll be able to get 4.6ghz easy for daily with the silver arrow, with the extreme edition maybe 4.7ghz.
> The silver arrow should be able to hit 5ghz on a reasonable temp.
> 
> Where do you live? Because I don't think they sell them in the US.


Nice, I was looking at some closed-loop liquid coolers (H100i) but they really just don't seem that well built. I already spent a lot on upgrades for this build, and didn't want to shell out for a real quality liquid cooler or custom one. I was between the nh-d14 and the silver arrow, picked the latter. And yeah I ordered the sb-e model, the thing looks amazing! 

I live in the US, and found one on amazon.com.


----------



## Virssagòn

nmiller said:


> Nice, I was looking at some closed-loop liquid coolers (H100i) but they really just don't seem that well built. I already spent a lot on upgrades for this build, and didn't want to shell out for a real quality liquid cooler or custom one. I was between the nh-d14 and the silver arrow, picked the latter. And yeah I ordered the sb-e model, the thing looks amazing!
> 
> I live in the US, and found one on amazon.com.



okey, look at my silver arrow. http://www.computerforum.com/9727-post-pic-your-pc-here-964.html
I like it because it's huge lol.
If you installed it, you have to let the cooling past work in for maximum cooling.


----------



## nmiller

SmileMan said:


> okey, look at my silver arrow. http://www.computerforum.com/9727-post-pic-your-pc-here-964.html
> I like it because it's huge lol.
> If you installed it, you have to let the cooling past work in for maximum cooling.



I'll probably install it vertically in my new case (corsair 550d.) REALLY looking forward to building it. That case has a large top vent that I'll run two 140mm fans in so those and the silver arrow running vertically should be really efficient and benefit from natural convection.


----------



## Virssagòn

nmiller said:


> I'll probably install it vertically in my new case (corsair 550d.) REALLY looking forward to building it. That case has a large top vent that I'll run two 140mm fans in so those and the silver arrow running vertically should be really efficient and benefit from natural convection.



your mobo horizontal? Nice! should cool great! Did you get the extreme one?


----------



## nmiller

SmileMan said:


> your mobo horizontal? Nice! should cool great! Did you get the extreme one?



Nope haha, I only realized the extreme one existed after I purchased it. 

I'm pretty sure the 550d has a standard mobo placement but I've seen a few people run the silver arrow vertically on standard setups in their rigs. If I can't do that I'm sure it will do great horizontally! I'm so glad I picked this, nothing beats the simplicity of air cooling. The reviews for this thing (SB-e) are stellar and the engineering looks very impressive!


----------



## Virssagòn

No, you can't I think. There are 2 holes for the screws to lift the heatsink, but you can't turn them. You do have normally a backfan on your case though?
And if it's because of your RAM, no problem, you can lift the first fan high enough. It even got over my ripsjaws with pretty high heatspreaders.


----------



## nmiller

Ah okay, yeah I've got a rear case fan. Great, I've got ripjaws as well. I read some reports of the SA clearing ripjaws but I have no problem with hearing it confirmed by someone else!


----------



## Okedokey

Since this thread has been hijacked by nmiller and the OP hasn't repsonded, I think we should get back to the OP with actual answers.

The 8350 is a very poor choice...



> AMD remains deeply uncompetitive in primarily single threaded applications such as games without offering the significant benefits in multi-threaded applications you’d expect from a chip boasting eight cores. Peak power consumption remains higher than Intel too and it’s these fundamental issues that mean the FX-8350 just isn’t a competitive CPU. 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.


 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/8

To the OP, at the very least, consider getting a i5 2500K, you will see much better real world result for about the same money.


----------



## Virssagòn

Maybe you're right, but still, the new visheras aren't that bad. And in most games they do pretty well.
Also wtf do you say there multithreaded is not good while it beats an i7 2600k in most cases? Still, amd is backed especially because his singlethreaded performance. But most singlethreaded operations are short actions where you don't even see the difference, most more intensive programs are able to use at least 4 threads . Intel beats amd there too though...


----------



## Okedokey

You're tripping if you think it beats the 2600K in anything

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/4

Single threaded operations are almost everything for most users. You KNOW if you need multithreaded needs, in which case its still sux.


----------



## jonnyp11

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=551

beats the 3770k in 5 or 6 areas at over 100 dollars cheaper.

going by their price/performance chart the 3770k would be ~0.95 while the 8150 is ~1.06, and the 8350 is a bit more powerful for only 10 or 20 more and should be the same or better price/performance.

and why even compare them? compare it to the more equally priced i5-3570k which still costs 20 or 30 more. Now it wins in 12 of 37 and a good number of those are pretty close. And remember that the 8320 consts considerably less for a slight underclock that can easilly be corrected, or use the 30 or 40 or whatever to get a good cooler and now it's at 4.7GHz and beating the i5 in half those benches while still being 20 or 30 cheaper


----------



## Okedokey

The point is, if you're going to get a new motherboard, and cpu, the i5 2500k is slighting cheaper (on newegg) and better.  Case closed.


----------



## Virssagòn

Am3+ mobos are pretty cheap, a cheap 970 will be less then a cheap z77.
You also have the chance to upgrade later, since steamroller and maybe exavator gonna stay AM3+


----------



## StrangleHold

They are the same price 219 bucks. But you can get a 8320 for 40 cheaper and its unlocked. With both unlocked the 8350 is kinda redundant.


----------



## jonnyp11

8350 and 2500k cost the same, 8320 can easilly match the 8350 and cost 40 less than either. And I will agree that the 2500k is better, but not 40 bucks better. Plus, Steamroller will be AM3+ and Excavator may also be, while Haswell is set for LGA1150 from what i'm seeing


----------



## Okedokey

The 2500K is significantly better option from a heat, performance, upgradability options, and you can probably get a a platform for cheaper overall.  Its a stupid argument, AMD sucks at every level and to suggest that its somehow better is nonsense.

*edit*

On newegg, the motherboards and cpus cost the same (2500k and 8350), and the 2500k is better, by a significant margain in real world computing.  Really a no-brainer.


----------



## StrangleHold

bigfellla said:


> Its a stupid argument, AMD sucks at every level and to suggest that its somehow better is nonsense.


 
I got a FX 8120. Its overclocked to 4.6ghz. with only 1.375V. Paid 160 bucks for it. If its nonsence, tell me a Intel CPU for under (will give you a extra 40 bucks) 200 bucks that can beat it. Even a FX 6300 for 140 will overclock the same. What your saying for a CPU over 200 bucks is true. Your at any level is lacking common sense. Unless your just gullible for Intel fanboy sites.

The upgradeability is not true either. Looks like Haswell will be 1150 where Steamroller will still be AM3+


----------



## Okedokey

StrangleHold said:


> I got a FX 8120. Its overclocked to 4.6ghz. with only 1.375V. Paid 160 bucks for it. If its nonsence, tell me a Intel CPU for under (will give you a extra 40 bucks) 200 bucks that can beat it. Even a FX 6300 for 140 will overclock the same. What your saying for a CPU over 200 bucks is true. Your at any level is lacking common sense. Unless your just gullible for Intel fanboy sites.
> 
> The upgradeability is not true either. Looks like Haswell will be 1150 where Steamroller will still be AM3+



Thats nice mate, but completely not what we're talking about.  Secondly, we have no idea what the future will bring, so right now, for the same 250 bucks you can get the 8350 or the 2500k, the later being much better.


----------



## nmiller

bigfellla said:


> Its a stupid argument, AMD sucks at every level and to suggest that its somehow better is nonsense.



Wow, we've got a fanboy here...


----------



## StrangleHold

nmiller

To far. I would advice you to edit your post and remove the last part.


----------



## jonnyp11

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

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.


 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



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.


 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.


----------



## jonnyp11

> 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.



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.



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.



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



> It's good



get.told.com

Hey look, i can quote things too


----------



## Okedokey

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

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

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.



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


----------



## StrangleHold

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?


 
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.


----------



## 87dtna

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


----------



## Okedokey

Read my last 5 posts.


----------



## 87dtna

bigfellla said:


> Read my last 5 posts.



Yeah I know.  Inferiority complex.


----------



## Okedokey

87dtna said:


> Yeah I know.  Inferiority complex.



I wouldn't go that far, but same old bollocks, deny the facts, and stick with hope  a bit like the t-party in your country


----------



## jonnyp11

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.



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.



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).



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



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


----------



## Okedokey

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT CPU JONNY FFS!

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


----------



## 87dtna

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.



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.


----------



## Virssagòn

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.


----------



## empty213

definitely go for the FX chip 8350


----------



## 87dtna

lol


----------



## Okedokey

Lol indeed.


----------



## Okedokey

87dtna said:


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



This is a great deal!


----------



## jonnyp11

bigfellla said:


> This is a great deal!



Wow, 5 off.

And i can get one brand new in a store chain in Atlanta for 170, then get 40 off any z77 mobo with it. Also have the 3770k cheap but dont think it combos

MICROCENTER FTW


----------



## 87dtna

Read: 3570k not the 2500k.  It's $15 off

Yes but the nearest MC to me is 2 hours away.  Plus, you say that and still recommend the AMD chips.  Good call.


----------



## Jiniix

bigfellla said:


> On newegg, the motherboards and cpus cost the same (2500k and 8350), and the 2500k is better, by a significant margain in real world computing.  Really a no-brainer.



Let's use ASUS as an example.
ASUS Sabertooth R2 AM3+: $190 <--- Notice it's the R2 version
ASUS Sabertooth Z77: $255
ASUS Sabertooth X79: $340

Please stop making false claims.


----------



## Okedokey

Jiniix said:


> Let's use ASUS as an example.
> ASUS Sabertooth R2 AM3+: $190 <--- Notice it's the R2 version
> ASUS Sabertooth Z77: $255
> ASUS Sabertooth X79: $340
> 
> Please stop making false claims.



Hahaha you're funny.

Or we can selectively choose this motherboard that is $49 and supports both the 2500K and the 3750K or higher.  As shown here the H61 chipset is consistently faster at the same budget than the AM3+.  Or we can up the budget however you like but the equation will remain the same:



> While the AMD AM3 system hasn't changed all that much, on the Intel side, you're getting a substantially more powerful computer today than earlier this year, and one with much better upgradeability to boot.



WOW, I selected something from Newegg.

SO all up, $265 for a a mobo and cpu that will destroy the 8350 in general computer and be faster in games.  So please stop making misleading claims.


----------



## StrangleHold

Since lostsoul62 never replied back. Thread closed.


----------

