Is the i5 worth the money for the single-thread rating and lower TDP?

>>52455450

Not your consumer reviews site.

>>52455450
For gaming yes, if you're doing stuff such as video tweacking or photo edit stuff you should go for the AMD 8-core prcoessor since those editin sofwares can make us of those extra core

>>52455593
I disagree, games will only be able to better utilize the multicore functionality in the future, and that 50 bucks would be better spent on a better GPU if gaming is the end goal.

>>52455450
AMD is only worthwhile imo if you dont have much money to spend on a build or are trying to spend as little as possible. Spend the extra money and get the i5

Right now, the AMD CPU usually won't be cheaper even though it looks like it. You can slap the i5-4460 onto a cheap $40 h81 board and use the stock cooler no problem. The cheapest board that supports an FX-8350 is the GA-970A-UD3P for $80, or else you'll suffer VRM related problems. You've got to think of platform costs, which also usually include at least a 212 Evo for the FX, which will make it more expensive than the i5, and worse performing for gaming. Hell, at the price of an FX-8350 + GA-970A-UD3P + 212 Evo (cheapest decent FX-8350 setup possible) you can afford an Intel Xeon E3 1231 V3 + $40 mobo and come out better in gaming and still have the multi-threaded performance.

Basically, FX CPUs don't make sense at any price point these days once you factor in the real platform costs.

The x4 860k, now THERE's a CPU with compelling value. It shits all over the G3258. The problem is you really shouldn't be spending that little on a computer in the first place.

>>52458405
You dontknow what your talking about. I use a 8350 and dual 270xs overclocked mining litecoin for over a year on a motherboard that costed $50 on newegg two years ago, the computer is still used today at my moms office.

>>52455450
i5 with K means you get a 4.2 or even more GHz CPU. At those rates it will beat AMD to the punch in all ways.
And yes, in 80% of all your occasions single threaded performance is everything that maters.

Current AMD cpus are outdated shit, they were shit brand new, now they are old shit.
Hopefully next AMD thing will actually be worth something, but right now Intel are the only hi-end CPUs.

AMD has super attractive low-end solutins thou, for office and work and checjing mail you can get an entire sub 200$ PC machine.

That isn't an 8320E, anon

>>52458405

this guy gets it.

i had a fx6300 for a while and while it was adequate, fuck adequate. haslel i5's are great.

File: hb.png (63KB, 618x665px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 618x665px

>single-thread
The i5-4690 beats the 8350 even in multithreaded now. The 8350 is a 3.5 year old chip. The i5 does it faster, cooler, and uses less power. If you win the bin lottery, you might be able to do a big overclock on it but you're going to be drawing a *ton* of power from the wall outlet. Even then, your single threaded performance won't match an i5, and in multithreaded it might just barely be equal to a stock i5.

The 8350 is far from useless, in fact I have both CPUs. I just don't use it in my main PC anymore.

>>52458405
>860k

I have the 760k, its shit even when overclocked. It bottlenecks an hd 7950.

>>52458951
This.

An APU and 8gb of RAM is all you need for a normiemachine.

yes because every single app/game still only uses 1-2 cores

the i5 will still be better in 2-3 years

This is semi-related, because why would you buy either of these chips without OCing:

Did I do well in the silicon lottery with a 4690K @ 4.7GHz 1.280v?

>>52459437
>If you win the bin lottery, you might be able to do a big overclock on it but you're going to be drawing a *ton*

I have a 2500k, it werks on standart coltage on 4.5Ghz all that time.
Power packet is under stock 95W

>>52455620
You said it, in the future if ever, no right now.

>>52458951
elaborate on this sub $200 PC