# Fx 8350 vs i5 4690k



## Moofacekilla (Jul 10, 2014)

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.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 10, 2014)

4690k would be the best bet for gaming.

Gaming requires more Single Threaded performance than Multi-Threaded so I would definitly go with the i5.


----------



## suraswami (Jul 10, 2014)

Moofacekilla said:


> 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.



Which game do you plan to play?  and generally what type of games do you play?


----------



## Moofacekilla (Jul 10, 2014)

I play just about everything I just want the best performance I can get my budget for ram cpu and motherboard is about 500


----------



## hat (Jul 10, 2014)

If you do mostly gaming, get the 4690k. If you do a lot of multithreaded work as well, like video encoding and that sort of thing, get the FX. The FX is slower in terms of single threaded performance but the cores will make up for it and turn our faster than the 4690k.


----------



## Vario (Jul 10, 2014)

Get the i5 regardless the FX is dated, its 2 years old, slower, no reason to get it.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 10, 2014)

hat said:


> If you do mostly gaming, get the 4690k. If you do a lot of multithreaded work as well, like video encoding and that sort of thing, get the FX. The FX is slower in terms of single threaded performance but the cores will make up for it and turn our faster than the 4690k.


+1


----------



## Devon68 (Jul 10, 2014)

The i5 4690K


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 10, 2014)

Moofacekilla said:


> 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.



The R9 280 is a powerful video card already, the FX 8350 won't make an already very powerful FX 8350 less competent.

Think of the end result, will the i5 4690k be worth the extra few frame rates which is already above and beyond an acceptable level?


Edit: Thought you had the FX 8350 already. This changes everything. Both CPUs are very credible and are priced similarly. If you game more the i5 4690k, if you do a mixture of work tasks and gaming than the FX 8350. I'm leaning towards the Intel this time around.


----------



## Ruyki (Jul 10, 2014)

4690k for sure since it's single thread performance is way better and that's what you need for some games. And the FX doesn't really have a multithread performance advantage anyway...


----------



## Mathragh (Jul 11, 2014)

While the FX isn't a bad CPU, I don't think anyone can objectively say its the better choice over the 4960k, certainly not for gaming.


----------



## Moofacekilla (Jul 11, 2014)

OK thanks everyone for your opinions. I was just curious if the extra cost was worth it.


----------



## Sempron Guy (Jul 11, 2014)

Oh the extra cost is worth it. if you're gonna utilize it right. However, if you mainly into gaming, you can opt for the FX, then maybe add the extra budget supposedly intended for the 4690k to your gpu budget.


----------



## suraswami (Jul 11, 2014)

This is bit old that I posted on another similar discussion.  If you can find a comparison between 3570K and 4690K that will give you a base to decide on which one.

FYI 8350 is not that bad like most people say.


----------



## Moofacekilla (Jul 11, 2014)

I already bought my gpu I'm using it in my system now. It's a MSI R9 280. But if I'm on a budget is the difference even going to be noticeable?


----------



## Jetster (Jul 11, 2014)

The noticeable difference is with lintel you use about 1/2 the power to achieve the same performance. There are a few other oddities with the FX that I can never put my finger on. System stability, boot times, heat, less headaches with drivers. I can't say its concrete it just feels this way to me. As far as gaming performance you probably wont notice any difference

The other noticeable difference is the Intel has a newer platform. So upgrades will be painless. With the FX your already at the top of the food chain for AMD


----------



## Moofacekilla (Jul 11, 2014)

OK  I was already planning on getting the 4690k I was just weighting my options and if it was a better deal.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 11, 2014)

Check with several users here with Amd rigs. Im still in wprk on mine. I nerd a gc. Psu and optical drive


----------



## Rannick1982 (Jul 11, 2014)

I currently have the 8350, upgraded from an 8120, which I still have (might make a HTPC out of it).  My system isn't the best by any means, but I do know that it performs well, and over clocks easily.  I've also thought about switching over the blue side, but it is near impossible to find a board that allows two PCIe x16 lanes to be populated and run at full speed.  Most "budget" boards for Intel only offer 1 @ x16 or 2 @ x8/x8, meaning that if you XFire later on, you won't get to use the full x16 speed of both lanes.  While AMD doesn't offer Gen 3 for PCIe, from what I have read, there is no real performance increase between Gen 2 and Gen 3.

Basically, it comes down to what you really want to do.  I do fine with gaming, I don't run into any bottle necking or hesitation with my chip, but I have an SSD, so that might help a little.  I do use Adobe CS6, and it runs very smoothly on my system.

Shipping and tax brings the AMD system to ~$450 (8350 + Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z).  Just under your $500 budget.  The I5 could go just above it, depending on the board you get.  The FX line isn't dead yet, and with DDR4 just around the corner, a new set of boards, and possible new set of chips, could be on the way as well...


----------



## Mathragh (Jul 11, 2014)

If you must know the one true advantage of the FX, look here:


















These graphs work for some of the most modern games aswell(the properly multithreaded ones) and are expected to be quite relevant for some time to come.

So arguably, the FX gives you better performance for the money, but this is only true if the programs are properly multithreaded (which is the case in all the graphs above). However the 4690k will do better in basically everything else and use less power, but costs more.

Apart from that both platforms seem to be a bit of a dead end upgrade wise, as both AMD and Intel are rumored to bring out their next big CPU on a different chipset.

So it really comes down to what you prefer: going down the superior route with Intel (basically), or the slightly cheaper and sometimes better underdog route (some people are into that kind of thing, yours truly included (as long as the difference is manageable ofc )).


----------



## Enterprise24 (Jul 11, 2014)

Some game like Total War series and most older games with DX9 love IPC and clock speed.
Get 4690K and make it to 4.6Ghz or more that is perfectly for single GPU.


----------



## Recca29 (Jul 11, 2014)

Jetster said:


> The noticeable difference is with lintel you use about 1/2 the power to achieve the same performance. There are a few other oddities with the FX that I can never put my finger on. System stability, boot times, heat, less headaches with drivers. I can't say its concrete it just feels this way to me. As far as gaming performance you probably wont notice any difference
> 
> The other noticeable difference is the Intel has a newer platform. So upgrades will be painless. With the FX your already at the top of the food chain for AMD


+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.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 11, 2014)

Mathragh said:


> While the FX isn't a bad CPU, I don't think anyone can objectively say its the better choice over the 4960k, certainly not for gaming.


totaly agree, plus also a FX 6300 can achieve the same in game than a 8320 (50 if OC) i use a 6300 along with a R9 290 and i have no game that give me a bad player experience (except some MMO in crowded area but that's logical) and i don't play RTS so unless for MMO (not so disturbing tho) and specially RTS the FX could also do good.


----------



## Ruyki (Jul 11, 2014)

Dionysus said:


> I've also thought about switching over the blue side, but it is near impossible to find a board that allows two PCIe x16 lanes to be populated and run at full speed.  Most "budget" boards for Intel only offer 1 @ x16 or 2 @ x8/x8, meaning that if you XFire later on, you won't get to use the full x16 speed of both lanes.  While AMD doesn't offer Gen 3 for PCIe, from what I have read, there is no real performance increase between Gen 2 and Gen 3.



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.


----------



## Lionheart (Jul 11, 2014)

Love AMD but go with the i5


----------



## RCoon (Jul 11, 2014)

Ruyki said:


> 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 (Jul 11, 2014)

Recca29 said:


> +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 (Jul 11, 2014)

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 (Jul 11, 2014)

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 (Jul 11, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> 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 (Jul 11, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Jul 11, 2014)

Moofacekilla said:


> 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 (Jul 11, 2014)

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 (Jul 11, 2014)

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 (Jul 11, 2014)

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 (Jul 11, 2014)

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 (Jul 11, 2014)

RCoon said:


> 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 (Jul 12, 2014)

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 (Jul 12, 2014)

theeldest said:


> 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
> ...


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


----------



## hat (Jul 13, 2014)

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 (Jul 13, 2014)

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.



hat said:


> 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 (Jul 13, 2014)

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


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 13, 2014)

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


----------



## Jetster (Jul 13, 2014)

hat said:


> 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 (Jul 13, 2014)

hat said:


> 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 (Jul 13, 2014)

the i5 will be faster and use less power.

recently made the switch myself.


----------



## erocker (Jul 13, 2014)

Ruyki said:


> 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 (Jul 13, 2014)

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 (Jul 13, 2014)

Champ said:


> 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 (Jul 14, 2014)

hat said:


> 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.


----------



## Toothless (Jul 14, 2014)

A friend of mine ran a 2700+660TI 3GB OC and we compared it to my FX-6300+660OC.

BF3, we basically both got plenty of frames on the same high settings.

On Planetside 2 I even got more FPS than him.

It really all depends on what games you play. If you're playing GPU-heavy games, go with the 8350.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 14, 2014)

I agree with you here about upgrade path deal. Last rig i built for myself was in 2002, im currently piecing my sig rig together. Id say honestly if youre worried about upgrades go with a Am3/Fm2/2011. Otherwise go with what you can afford- aka a balanced system. Forget peg 3.0 for another 3 years.



RCoon said:


> 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.


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 16, 2014)

Between the i54670K and the i5-4690K, I'd buy the Haswell part because it's newer. They both cost the same here in the USA, so not much of a decision for me.

The AMD part put up some decent scores, and I believe that it will OC too.


----------



## Arjai (Jul 16, 2014)

Lightbulbie said:


> A friend of mine ran a 2700+660TI 3GB OC and we compared it to my FX-6300+660OC.
> 
> BF3, we basically both got plenty of frames on the same high settings.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## de.das.dude (Jul 16, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> 4690k would be the best bet for gaming.
> 
> Gaming requires more Single Threaded performance than Multi-Threaded so I would definitly go with the i5.


the 8350 will not bottle neck any gaming performance what so ever. that is if unless you consider differences in the >100fps range to be a factor.

if you are getting the amd for lower and cheaper and you will do gaming and lots of other workload stuff like crunching, or converting multiple video files or editing and other stuff the amd is better. else the 4690.


amd chips have plenty of single thread performance for games. since most games are gpu dependent. the few ones which are multi threaded will be better off with the AMD though like planet side 2 as mentioned and simulator games like railworks and the like.


----------

