View Full Version : i 3550 vs AMD FX 8350

21-11-2012, 06:50 AM
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?

21-11-2012, 07:30 AM
What are you going to be doing mainly on the pc?

Nick G
21-11-2012, 08:14 AM
i5 3550 would be my pick. Though I do like intel a lot more than amd.

21-11-2012, 08:46 AM
Yeah, same with me. The i5 has a better overall performance. But depending on what you are wanting to do with the pc you may need the amd.

21-11-2012, 08:54 AM
Under most common user tasks, the i5 will perform better, due to much better per-core performance. However, if you are regularly performing tasks that take advantage of the full number of cores the FX offers, it's absolutely worth going down the FX route.

21-11-2012, 09:13 AM
The cpu benchmark site
shows the following:

i7-3770k @ 3.5 GHz = ranked 31 = passmark score 9650
FX-8350 = ranked 38 = passmark score 9317
i7-2600k @ 3.4 GHz = ranked 57 = passmark score 8665
i5-3550 = ranked 101 = passmark score 6925
i5-2550k @3.3 GHz = ranked 120 = passmark score 6490

[personal comments:
- I didn't know AMD's FX series was so good! Economical too
- the i7-2600k will probably outperform the FX-8350 if typical OC taken into account
- I'm not sure that 8 cores has much benefit (although same comment might apply to 4 cores + hyperthreading?)
- raw processor speed, as represented by overclocking the 'k' series, is best all round
- I've got to get an i7-3770k!]

21-11-2012, 10:34 AM
You didnt know amd's fx series was so good... I bet that fx was overclocked like nobodys buisness because unless they are then they are worthless

21-11-2012, 11:40 AM
You didnt know amd's fx series was so good... I bet that fx was overclocked like nobodys buisness because unless they are then they are worthless

PassMark's CPUMark is fairly multi-thread friendly. Thus, the FX-8350 will score well. As in my post above, if you're performing tasks that take advantage of the extra cores, the FX is a good choice. But for many common tasks (typical business apps, games, etc), the higher per-core performance of an i5 will be a better everyday option. But to say the FX is worthless is pretty harsh - they have their place, and considering an entry-level FX series can be had for about $150, cheaper than even an i3 (let alone the i5's that start around $250), they're certainly worth considering when budget is a limiting factor.

21-11-2012, 11:45 AM
In gaming benchmarks the 8350 is roughly equivalent to the 3570k. In other benchmarks e.g. photoshop you'll find the 3570k wins, then if you look at something that is heavily multithreaded you would find the 8350 would probably win. If the CPU isn't specifically for gaming then you should probably look up benchmarks for that specific task. The 3507k gains performance better when overclocking per 100mhz but the 8350 is capable of a higher clock on your average Joe's generic cooling setup. The $300 price for the 8350 is a bit high. From memory the RRP is only $270 but there is this magical thing called supply and demand. That said the 3570k is $310.

Being *future proof* is an odd thing because in general Intel offers a better upgrade path as AMD tends to be a tad unreliable when it comes to delivering high performance products that might actually provide the performance needed to warrant an upgrade. Future proofing shouldn't really be much of a factor when buying a CPU + Motherboard as when it comes time to upgrade to a new CPU the new CPU will probably be on a new socket anyway which means new motherboard which means you aren't locked into just AMD or Intel. However the 8350's performance is set to improve over time due to the fact that Windows 8 deals with threads differently, allowing those extra 4 cores to become useful. Also over time more and more pieces of software will start to support 4+ threads so you'll see the performance of all 4+ core cpu's increase there.

Personally the 8350 is my mid-range CPU recommendation, it's cheaper than buying a high end CPU for multi-threaded tasks and still keeps pace with everything in it's price range for basically every other task. Chances are you'll save a few dollars on an AMD motherboard too. Probably worth noting that I'm comparing the 8350 to the 3570k not the 3550, and the 3570k is better than the 3550...

You didnt know amd's fx series was so good... I bet that fx was overclocked like nobodys buisness because unless they are then they are worthless

21-11-2012, 01:35 PM
Lols just cos my 2nd rate cpu from an old generation is worse doesnt mean its good.... I find it suspicious though how they didnt list what the amd cpu's clock speed. Imho the new piledriver cpus only make sence if you bought a bulldozer and you would like to stop the smell of burning pcb... piledriver is just getting another step closer to whate bulldozer was suppose to be.

21-11-2012, 02:02 PM
So if the 3570k was an AMD product. Would it be worthless?

21-11-2012, 02:10 PM
No i love amd just not their cpus
The fact that i can oc my 7950 and get the performace as good or in some cases better than a 680 shows you what amd is capable of. They have just missed the mark when it comes to cpus.

21-11-2012, 03:30 PM
So if AMD makes a 3570k its worth something but if they make their own CPU that is of basically equivalent performance its worthless?

21-11-2012, 04:00 PM
Calling it worthless was a bit harsh. However it still didn't make it into Toms "Best CPUs for the money" reccomendations and still barely beats the Phenom II in a lot of benchmarks. They rate it as equivalent to the fastest of the i3's for gaming purposes. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

It is the highest up the gaming chart an AMD CPU has been for quite a long time and bear in mind they only test a small range of games they consider a good cross section. But even so the message is unchanged from previous AMD offerings, great as a general purpose CPU if efficiency doesn't matter to you but 2nd choice if you are a gamer after basically any i5. Yes some games are starting to benefit from higher core counts and that trend will likely continue, but for now it's still not enough to make them desirable for gaming.

Note they generally don't recommend i7's for gaming either, rating the performance difference as trivial . For those that think they need more than a 4 core i5 the next recommendation is a 6 core sandy bridge-e but it's considered too much money for too little benefit.

If you like AMD and want to support them great, they still make good CPUs that will do everything you want. If you just want the best CPU for Gaming buy an Intel. If you will benefit from more threads often enough to notice buy an AMD.

I don't really consider the AMD chips true 8 cores, with shared resources per pair of cores they seem more like 4 x 1.5 cores to me or maybe like hyperthreading on steroids. Some enthusiasts advocate disabling 4 of the "cores" to enable higher overclocks and greater efficiency giving them the potential to match the per core performance of intel.

21-11-2012, 04:07 PM
maybe worthless is a bit harsh but i just don't see any reason if your buying a cpu for quality of build and performance why you would go for an amd over an intel. Icow you can stop re iterating your previous statement that gives the impression that i am some kind of an intel fan boy, i am not.