i5 vs. FX 83xx: What are your thoughts?

Which setup looks better for the long haul? I’m not actually buying anything right now; I just want to hear your thoughts based on everything these builds bring to the table—power draw, thermals, noise levels, all of it. For the sake of argument, let's assume both options cost the exact same amount in USD.

ASUS M5A99FX Pro R2
AMD FX-Series X8 8350
Cooler master Hyper 212

or

ASRock Z97 EXTREME4 Intel Core i5-4670K Spira Kepler Rev
Intel Core i5-4670K
Spire Kepler Rev.2

Since I'm specifically asking about these two setups, don't go suggesting other changes just because you think a different combo is "better" or cheaper. 😉

What kind of future are you envisioning? My take is that they won't be making the FX series in 2015, and Intel will most likely drop the 1151 socket sometime that year.

I've always been an Intel guy—lower power draw, better temps, and just less headache overall...

It really depends on what you intend to do with the machine—what kind of software you're running or which games you play. If you need an all-arounder capable of handling heavy rendering alongside gaming, I’d suggest going with an FX build. However, if your focus is strictly gaming, or if you plan to split your budget equally between the CPU and GPU, an Intel combination is the way to go. An i5 can definitely squeeze out higher FPS in many titles, provided you pair it with a high-end graphics card. On the flip side, the fx83xx remains a much better value; it's a total best-buy.

I would personally opt for the modifications you suggested. 😬

To be perfectly blunt, that Intel build just doesn't make sense—it’s completely unbalanced. You’ve paired a top-tier overclocking motherboard with an excellent CPU (honestly, you'd be much better off going with the i5-4690K), but then you undercut the whole thing with an entry-level cooler. You aren't going to see any meaningful overclocking gains or decent temperatures with that setup. On the flip side, if you decide to pivot to AMD, it would be a waste to miss out on the massive cost advantage they offer. If you want to stay efficient, stick to the architecture's strengths by opting for an FX 8320 paired with either an ASUS M5A97 EVO R2.0 or a Gigabyte 990XA-UD3.

By the way, here’s an interesting video regarding power consumption. Click. Keep in mind that these prices are based on California rates, but you can easily adapt the formula to fit your own location.

Here is one of my old posts, complete with plenty of links:

Take a look at the Linus Tech Tips test—check out the 6:17 mark specifically, though you really should watch the whole thing.

I’ve been watching this breakdown, and honestly, it hits the nail on the head regarding how much we underestimate hardware bottlenecks. Think of it like trying to pull a heavy trailer with a compact sedan; you can have the most expensive tires in the world, but if that engine doesn't have the torque, you aren't going anywhere fast. It's all about that balance between the CPU and the GPU. If one is significantly outperforming the other, you're essentially just paying for performance that sits idle while your system struggles to keep up.

Check out the clips at 0:55 and 5:40.

I've been looking at this video, specifically around the 55-second mark, and it really highlights how much things have shifted. It’s like comparing a reliable old Ford truck to a modern Tesla—the core purpose might be similar, but the underlying tech is worlds apart. The way they break down these components shows exactly why certain setups just can't keep up anymore. It's a clear example of how hardware evolution isn't just about speed; it's about an entirely different level of architecture.

Take a look at games running on the most demanding engines out there—Far Cry 3, Crysis 3, and Battlefield 3. Every single word this guy says is spot on. I couldn't agree more.
Here’s my take on Battlefield 3 Multiplayer—which, honestly, remains one of the most CPU-intensive titles out there, even more demanding than BF4 in some ways. I’m running this on a gtx 660 ti with Linus Tech Tips hardware references in mind.
Think of it this way: you’re looking at an FX 8350 pushed to a rock-solid 4.6 GHz—a benchmark that any individual unit should be able to hit reliably. On the other side of the coin, you have the i5-4670K hitting an optimal overclock of 4.2 GHz, which should also be a standard achievement for every single chip in that lineup.

http://s14.postimg.org/ye6nqa54x/pic.png

It’s common sense that games optimized for just two to four cores will pull higher FPS on an Intel chip due to superior IPC; seeing a Pentium or an i3 outperform an FX 8350 isn't exactly a shocker. Honestly, I don't find those specific benchmarks all that relevant. For instance, older titles like StarCraft II are still going to run beautifully on an FX processor. On the flip side, an i3 3 xxx simply can't keep up with even a mid-range card like a GTX 650 Ti when you're playing Battlefield 3 multiplayer.

It’s much smarter to look toward the future. We're heading into an era where next-gen titles will become the standard, whereas right now, those kinds of demanding games are really just the exception to the rule. That's exactly why the i5 K comes out on top in most of our testing.
Most people stick with the same PC for several years at a time. You've got heavy hitters like Watch Dogs, the new Witcher, The Division, or a new Dragon Age coming to Xbox... we aren't exactly talking about playing Tetris here.

If you already know you’re going to be grinding that specific game and running its dedicated software around the clock, then investing in specialized hardware is absolutely the way to go. It's all about efficiency. For something like Guild Wars, though, an FX 83xx is definitely overkill.

If you're planning to use this PC for more than just gaming—say, if you're diving into heavy rendering tasks or if you're the type of user who streams while playing and multitasking all at once—then the fx83xx is actually a solid choice.

Keep in mind that back then, those games weren't even fully utilizing all of the FX cores yet. There’s a chance performance could actually improve down the road if developers finally figure out how to optimize properly for that many cores. To me, this whole situation feels exactly like the old battle between the Q6600 and the E8400. You had that dual-core chip performing better in the games of its era, but then the next generation of software arrived and completely blew everything out of the water.
Now, all of that is just my own speculation...

And now we reach the most critical metric of all: the price-to-performance ratio.
At the end of the day, people just need to get the best bang for their buck, and your budget dictates everything.
Let's talk about the first serious motherboards actually built for overclocking—roughly in this same class of performance and feature sets.

An FX 8320 paired with a Gigabyte 990 XA-UD3 or an M5A97 EVO R2.0, cooled by a Hyper 212—that setup will run under 2. $67
With an i7-3770K, an Extreme3 motherboard, and a Hyper cooler, you can pull the whole setup together for under $2,800.
4670K + extreme 3/asus K + hyper = 2 900/2 950

Basically, you have $600$283 left over for the rest of the build. Since everyone eventually asks how a specific game will run, you really want that extra cash going toward a beefier GPU to build a true gaming powerhouse. Of course, if you're sitting on a massive budget and building a PC strictly for gaming, an i5 K is a fine choice. However, in my opinion, the 8320 is hands-down the best-buy CPU on the market right now. It’s a total all-rounder—great for work and serious gaming—and incredibly affordable considering how much future-proofing it offers.

Most games are GPU-bound anyway, so a Piledriver FX 8xxx series chip isn't lagging far behind any i7 (and it's half the price!). It’s incredible value, plus it's overclockable. With FX, all CPUs are unlocked by default; you just need to invest in a solid motherboard and an aftermarket cooler, then it's entirely up to the user if they want to push the clocks. I should also mention again that the FX8320 is essentially the same CPU as the FX8350, just clocked higher out of the box. The latter costs a few hundred more, which makes it a pretty poor value compared to this one...

Here are a few more examples to supplement my previous post, showing the i7 in various single-player games (to avoid just showing CPU-heavy multiplayer titles)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LPs...utu.be&t=7m52s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVG...utu.be&t=4m13s
http://static.techspot.com/articles-...nch/CPU_03.png

Watch Dogs just came out too
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,3833-8.html

Intel, hands down.

Drew Sanchez82 said:Intel, hands down.

Give me a break.😳😁

Look, I’m a hardcore gamer through and through, so I'm looking at this strictly from that point of view 😁
With them, I’ve always felt pretty confident they won't overheat on me. I remember my old Celeron used to crank up to 100°C without even breaking a sweat 😁

I would personally always go with Intel. When you look at the quality, power consumption, noise levels, and temperatures, everything just leans heavily in their favor. Honestly, I can't think of many high-end gamers out there running an AMD setup paired with some high-end graphics card or even an SLI/CFX combo—let alone those crazy triple SLI/CFX configurations, for that matter.

I actually have to agree with you on this one for once 😁

It’s like trying to build a house on quicksand. You think you have a solid foundation, but then everything just sinks. analogtiger19 says:
What kind of future are we looking at here? They aren't making the Ryzen 7 anymore, and Intel will probably drop the 1151 socket sometime in 2015.

I was talking about the value of the CPU on one hand and the socket longevity on the other. Sure, AM3+ is a dead end, but with the 1150 platform, you've still got Haswell coming next year.
So, will an old Ryzen 7 or an i5 actually hold up for the next five years? I’m picking five years just as a random benchmark, mostly because my old C2Q 8200 lasted me over five years and still handled most games without breaking a sweat.

The New Guy analogtiger19 said:It’s a relative question because it all depends on what you're actually doing with the rig—what software are you running, which games? If you need an all-rounder for things like rendering and heavy gaming, go with the Ryzen 7. But if you're strictly gaming and planning to drop the same amount on both parts, stick with an Intel combo. An i5 might squeeze out some extra FPS in certain titles if you pair it with a high-end GPU. Then again, that Ryzen 7 is way more cost-effective. It's the better value.

The question was strictly about a gaming rig. It was meant to spark some discussion, not to start an argument over what to buy. (Thanks for the links.)😉)

I'm pretty much on the same page as most of you here—for actual gaming, an i5 is going to crush any Ryzen 7 or whatever AMD equivalent they're pushing lately.

Who knows where we'll be in five years? Honestly, these days, even a single-core processor struggles just to handle basic web browsing. I say that because technology moves at such a breakneck pace—everything shifts constantly, and you're always needing more powerful hardware just to keep up