# AMD FX-8350 vs i5 2500K



## Yagman5000

Hey all,

I currently have an i5 2500K, and I'm thinking of upgrading to an FX-8350. Benchmarks between the two are all varying, some say 8350 is better, some say not. Is it worth the buy? I'm getting an extra 4 cores (8 core vs 4 core), better overclockability, and a higher stock clock. Just wondering if anyone could give me some valid benchmarks between the two (non bias, there's always ones from AMD "fanboys" and intel "fanboys" which are a bit bias).

Yes, I know I'm going to need an AMD motherboard to make the switch







But I've been planning on getting a new motherboard regardless, so that's not really the issue. Just the CPU.


----------



## paceee

not worth it.. pretty much a lateral move. please don't


----------



## Malo

here are a few benches, there are alot out there.... the FX is supior in a few ways, A good upgrade


----------



## RamzaFreak20

One quick note:
I find it kind of funny how all the intel owner say no, and the FX user says yes. No bias









But honestly, it depends on your budget. If it were me, I'd wait a year or so then upgrade. Right now you'd be upgrading from a Camaro to a Mustang. Wait and buy a Ferrari.

I wouldn't call it a lateral move, but I don't know if it'd be worth it.


----------



## twerk

It's definitely not worth it, the 8350 is slightly better but no way near enough to justify an upgrade. Wait for Haswell, the 2500K is still one of the best processors out there


----------



## MisterFred

For gaming it's a clear down grade. For other stuff, not as clear. But probably not worth spending. I like bit-tech's game benchmarks, because they actually focus on games where CPU matters (in most games it does not (see the above Metal of Honor Warfighter benchmark - functionally equivalent for all entries except the lowest level drual cores) and because bit-tech is just about the only professional reviewer that includes overclocked entries. And this is, after all, overclock.net.



Source

You can see from other benchmarks that the i5-2500k will be superior in games that demand high per-core performance.

SC2 is one of those games that heavily depends on per-core performance, and you can see a bit of a difference here. (Note these are all stock speeds.)



Look, I'm not saying the i5-2500k is a better processor overall. But it is a clearly superior GAMING processor. Why? Because games require faster per-core performance. And the i5-2500k is faster per core (higher instructions per clock make up for a slower base speed when not overclocked). Yes the fx-8350 has more cores. But almost no games can even use more than 4 cores. So the fx-8350 completely loses that advantage.


----------



## That Guy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Malo*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here are a few benches, there are alot out there.... the FX is supior in a few ways, A good upgrade


These all made me giggle.

Don't do it.


----------



## TKFlight

Not worth it upgrade, even though I wish I would of gotten one when I had my 970A-UD3 board. The difference in gaming and daily use wouldn't be spectacular. Processors have gotten to the point that performance has leveled off, you can see that with Intel's SB-E line. The 3770K is neck and neck with SB-E processors. The only thing that has kept on getting better are GPU's, my recommendation is save up and get a better GPU 8xxx, etc. But it does seem the recent trend with games are that they like more cores now.


----------



## Malo

canada computers is selling the 8350 for $206.99... to be completely honest if you had the two setups next to each other with unmarked cases and stuff you wouldnt be able to pick them one from the other, go for the cheaper solution or hold off till you can make a MAJOR upgrade


----------



## MisterFred

He already owns an i5-2500k. It'd be a complete waste of money to switch platforms.


----------



## junkerde

why OP? don't make that switch, you will regret.


----------



## shlunky

Today, Tiger has the 8350 on sale for $189. A good deal for sure.

No, you wouldn't really notice a difference in much of anything out there. I think the 8350 would have more longevity for sure (more cores) and it does better in the encoding aspect of things and such.
Gaming wise, overall, the 2500k is probably better yes.
Is that what you do with your PC mostly? Game?

I know you said you are looking to buy a new MB anyway. You could likely sell your 2500k fairly quick for about $150 so you would essentially be in about an extra $50 or so to make the swap.

Is it worth it to you for that? I don't know myself. Only you can make that decision. Either way, I think you will have a very solid machine. You just have to decide what it is worth to you.

Let us know what you decide? (ignore if lame biased posts)
§


----------



## kuruptx

Wanted to ask a question I have a cousin who is considering upgrading his i5 2500k but not for AMD but to Intel's i7 The 3770k inparticular.

Is this a bad move or a future proof one at that?


----------



## beers

Since you already have 1155 gear, it's not worth the investment to switch platforms.


----------



## shlunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kuruptx*
> 
> Wanted to ask a question I have a cousin who is considering upgrading his i5 2500k but not for AMD but to Intel's i7 The 3770k inparticular.
> Is this a bad move or a future proof one at that?


Is it a bad move? No.
But in more detail, what does he do with his PC? What is most important to him?

The 3770k is definitely a faster CPU clock for clock and at stock clocks. He very well may not be able to OC as high though. If OC'ing is the main reason, he is better off with what he has.
The 3770k, being as it has 8 threads, will give him more longevity, yes. Future proofing is an illusion, but I understand what you mean. It is definitely something that will enable him to utilize his current board and maintain his system for a longer period of time with acceptable performance without having to start over.

I have thought about making that same move myself. I have simply held off as I am a cheap ars and I wouldn't really notice a difference in what I do on my machine. (Game, movies, internet, web coding, etc)

I would, in all honesty, suggest to look at other alternatives to improve his system performance. If he is using an HDD, tell him to get an SSD. Tiger had the Samsung 840 250g SSD for $189 with a $40 rebate, and Newegg had the same SSD for $169 with no rebate. Both had free shipping.

It all really depends on what he does with his machine. He may be better off setting that money to the side and throwing $20 a paycheck there to build a new machine when he is ready and wants.......or whatever else he may be interested in doing.

The upgrade would in all likely hood probably cost him about $200 after it is all said and done (selling his CPU, buying the new one, paying for taxes/shipping, etc.) Tell him that and see what he thinks.

Hope that helps you out dude!
§


----------



## Mad Skillz

Pretty sure this guy is just trolling. Nobody with a 2500k would seriously ask a question like this.


----------



## Just a nickname

You can get 4GHz on stock volt with the 2500k even if you have a bad chip.
I got 4.4GHz with stock voltage on my 2600k and it has *hyperthreading* without hyperthreading I could get 4.6GHz if not more on stock voltage.

I was comparing the AMD overclock results with mine and at 5GHz I have not seen any AMD doing something that could be 24/7. There is plenty intel CPU having voltage in the low 1.4-1.45v at 5GHz vs 1.5v+ for AMD!

Hence the reason why I would not say AMD is better for overclocking.


----------



## borandi

Single threaded performance of the 2500K will be 10-20% higher than the FX-8350.

While the 2500K is a 4C/4T chip, the FX-8350 is not an 8C/8T, it's technically a 4M/8T. This is because the Piledriver based core uses four modules, and each module has two INT units and one FP unit. These units perform the calculations.

It means that in cases which are FP driven (most cases), the FX-8350 will act like a 4-thread machine.
In cases which are INT driven (most video conversion benchmarks), the FX-8350 will act like an 8-thread machine.

Even if you think of it in threads, whether a benchmark is INT or FP is key (integer or floating point). You also still have that single threaded boost on the Intel side, beating the AMD clock for clock on any single threaded limitation. A lot more of the world is single threaded than you think - it's easier to code for and there are still a lot of programmers who don't think in a multi-threaded scenario.

Even if OpenMP is fairly easy to integrate in C++.


----------



## EliteReplay

i dont know if u are trolling or not,

but going back to business... if you already have a 2500k why would you like to switch to FX CPU? its doesnt make sense to me if all you do is playing games.
i have a FX8150 and i dont see myself switching to intel anytime soon simply because my cpu is good enough for what i do.


----------



## Belial

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shlunky*
> 
> Today, Tiger has the 8350 on sale for $189. A good deal for sure.
> 
> No, you wouldn't really notice a difference in much of anything out there. *I think the 8350 would have more longevity for sure (more cores)* and it does better in the encoding aspect of things and such.
> Gaming wise, overall, the 2500k is probably better yes.
> Is that what you do with your PC mostly? Game?
> 
> I know you said you are looking to buy a new MB anyway. You could likely sell your 2500k fairly quick for about $150 so you would essentially be in about an extra $50 or so to make the swap.
> 
> Is it worth it to you for that? I don't know myself. Only you can make that decision. Either way, I think you will have a very solid machine. You just have to decide what it is worth to you.
> 
> Let us know what you decide? (ignore if lame biased posts)
> §


God I hate when people say that.

I remember when Phenom x6 first came out and everyone said "yea i know it's not even half as strong as the i5 and more expensive, but it's surely more future proof!".

You won't see video games using more than 4 cores for a while. By the time that happens, you'll be upgrading, for sure. Hell, the OP is considering upgrading right now. Just wait until your needs change, then upgrade, because the i5 2500k won't be worth upgrading to haswell or anything (i mean i cant read the future, but most likely haswell/broadwell even wont be a huge step up and sb will still be more than powerful for years to come, especially oc'd).

Also the FX isn't truly 8 cores, it's only a quadcore with hyperthreading. Hyperthreading isn't that useful to games, because it's not actually more logical cores, it's like SLI in that's it's sort of gimped by the onchip memory, power, et cetera. Just like the i7 isn't any better for gaming than the i5, even games that appreciate more than 4 cores.

Also, the i5 2500k is way more powerful enough for encoding on h264. The real problem in encoding programs is the software, or capture, specifically, not encoding. What this means is that if you want better performance for streaming, get a processor that can game better (per core performance, clock rate, memory speed) because your CPU will be at 50% utilization and you'll still get that 50+ fps suck from streaming. If you'll notice, you'll actually get a huge fps drop when you just start up Xsplit/OBS/FFSplit/h264 because of the capture method, not because of encoding.

Besides writing better capture code yourself, or waiting for better software, or buying a $200 capture card or using a dedicated streaming pc (all of which is absurdly cost inefficient and won't do much for you anyways unless your doing dual streams on slower encoding presets on 1080p, which generally looks worse than 720 and is also going to require so much bandwidth that you'll severely limit your viewers because they wont have enough down to view the stream), the best way to improve stream quality and performance, is to have a better gaming CPU.

Hardware is soooo far ahead of software. Games that are coming out today are being designed around processors released years ago, when design started and the engine was being written up and designed, ie they are built around the Phenom II and Core 2 Quads or 1st gen i3, maybe nehalem.

The only CPU better for gaming than the i5 2500k, is the i5 3570k. If your a partnered streamer who can do dual output, youll be better off buying a dedicated capture card, after which you'd buy an i7. But i5 should be moooore than enough power even for dual streams, high quality, [email protected], etc. Today's and even yesterday's CPUs were good enough to encode, the problem is capture.

Also, the fx does not overclock well at all. 5ghz on an fx is worse than 4.5ghz on phenom ii, just clocking higher doesnt mean anything. You can put a single core retro intel to 8ghz, does not make it better than a simple on-air 4ghz i5. Frankly, an i5 2500k at 4ghz overclocks better than an fx at 5 because it'll be more powerful and be a much larger gain from stock.

Not to mention, the FX is just a terrible chip, it's basically a phenom ii, while the i5 is still quite a new chip. I'm not talking purely performance here - power draw, features, design, efficiency, IMC, the fx is just not well designed while sb is really a very high quality chip.

tldr: fx is a downgrade from the i5 2500k, and more cores does not mean more future proof, it's simply another answer to the same question of 'more power'. Intels answer was instead better architecture, a half decent IMC, and stronger per clock performance. No one can tell what the future will be, but whatever it is, the i5 2500k will be more than powerful enough for at least another 3-4 years, and will overclock better than fx does. Sure, higher core count may be important, but per core performance will always be important and will be important in the future too, and by the time 8 core is really utilized (or to be more accurate, when quadcore with hyper threading), we'll have flying cars. If anything the i5 2500k is more future proof.

imo. i just hate anytime someone says future proof, because no one can predict the future (you really think some forum poster here is going to know how architecture and coding both will advance in 2-3 years time anyways, and besides that, overclocking definitely future proofs your hardware, and your gonna upgrade anyways in 2 years so what do you care)...

i mean 2 years ago everyone 'predicted' we'd have 6 core threaded software but software/games rarely go past 2 cores still (games only benefit from 3-4 core because background apps and OS get dumped onto them while game can hog up the first 2 cores, you can tell as benches will show a minor, but roughly equal, gain in 2 to 3, and 3 to 4, core, that slightly diminishes)... for all you know, in the future, everyone will say *** are we doing trying to code-cater to AMD, Intel is where it's at, and go for per core dual or quad core threads.

In fact, really, the future is no longer about performance, but power saving and efficiency (all amd and intel care about is servers, cell phones, tablets...). power hungry amd's if anything, are going to become more and more irrelevant, if anything they are future-averse, not future proof. i mean really, no one can tell the future, no one here is both a professional CPU architect and firmware coder.... but per clock performance will always be relevant, while more cores is selectively appreciated, is not currently appreciated by any game or general usage program, and it'll still be years before more than 2 cores will be widely appreciated, much less 4 cores.

And the fx chips are so bad that they are equivalent to phenoms basically, and that intels per clock performance is so much better, that even on half the thread count (not core count, thread count) they beat out amd in multi threaded applications often enough.

yea. i hate the idea of 'future proof'. and im very dissapointed in amd. The phenom ii x4 + overclock (like $30 in hyper 212) is still the best budget cpu system to buy under $150 though. Kind of sad, but it is a pretty good budget chip (or more accurately, it's a chip that's priced well). Nothing beats the Phenom ii x4, still, when it comes to value.


----------



## borandi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Belial*
> 
> Also the FX isn't truly 8 cores, it's only a quadcore with hyperthreading.


I agreed with you for the most part, but I will have to correct you on a completely false statement.

Chip design 101:

- At the high level, a 'core' is meant to be able to process either an integer operation (whole numbers) or a floating point operation (numbers with decimal places).
- In Bulldozer and Piledriver, they use modules
- Each module has two integer operation units and only one floating point unit
- This means each module can take either two INT or one FP
- This means when you get a program that uses FP calculations (like game physics), the chip acts like a quad core
- If you get a program that uses INT operations (video encoding uses hexadecimal, which is a form of INT), it acts like an 8 core

The main improvements from Bulldozer to Piledriver was in the scheduling, and making sure the chip knew how to schedule all the modules with operations, hence why there is a slight improvement.

The main downside is that in full floating point mode, in single thread mode, at stock, the i5-2500K will out perform the FX-8150 by 30%, and the FX-8350 won't do much better.


----------



## Belial

So it's not a quad with hyperthreading, it's that each core module is limited?

so essentially it's a quad with hyperthreading but technically, it's not :X


----------



## wertmur

http://youtu.be/HX6N9uJtzPA


----------



## Sp33d Junki3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wertmur*
> 
> http://youtu.be/HX6N9uJtzPA


That was completely pointless. The GPU used are not even the same.


----------



## jrl1357

well the 8350 is better, only by a bit, it isn't worth the money to switch


----------



## Canis-X

Are you going to notice a difference....no. Why, because you most likely do not do anything that uses more than 4 cores. your i5 has a much stronger IPC so most things you do that are single core will be served with the 2500k over the 8350.....plus the added benefit of the 2500k requires much less power (at load) than the 8350.

Cheers!


----------



## Fr4nc

It might help you to make a decision: http://www.overclock.net/t/1343209/ivy-vs-zambezi-vs-vishera-i5-3570k-vs-fx-8120-vs-fx-8320

Greetings,
Fr4nc


----------



## Rigwizard

Wow this thread is still open ok if it was me and I really wanted to add extra cores/threads for the new wave of games I'd save my cash since Haswell was a bit of a non-event. Watch ebay closely and pickup an i7 2600k for the extra threads it'll fit in with your existing setup and cost you £30-50. You would need some thermal paste very cheap a credit card unless you use the blob method and flash/update your bios once your done.


----------

