AMD FX 8350 vs Intel i5 6600k - Crazy, I know


Recommended Posts

Okay so I bought all these new parts to replace my aging AMD system. I upgraded to an i5 6600k. So as I'm reading, people are saying that the i5 6600K is not much better than the FX 8350. How true is that? Should I have gone i7? Sorry for my ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Danielx64 said:

One thing that I would expect that the I5 would be cooler (as in won't get so hot) and use less power (so your electricity bill would be lower).

Neither of which is an issue.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your single threaded performance should be much better on the i5.

 

I do wonder how the current AMD CPU architecture  would be doing if they had moved them to 14nm added support for DDR4, USB 3.1 G2, and PCI-E 3.0. They could've increased the transistor count moving to 14m as well.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, slamfire92 said:

Your single threaded performance should be much better on the i5.

 

I do wonder how the current AMD CPU architecture  would be doing if they had moved them to 14nm added support for DDR4, USB 3.1 G2, and PCI-E 3.0. They could've increased the transistor count moving to 14m as well.

 

 

 

More Cores! MOAR CORES!!!

sorry, couldn't resist :p 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 9:13 PM, slamfire92 said:

 

I do wonder how the current AMD CPU architecture  would be doing if they had moved them to 14nm added support for DDR4, USB 3.1 G2, and PCI-E 3.0. They could've increased the transistor count moving to 14m as well.

 

 

 

You mean Ryzen?

 

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 9:48 PM, The Evil Overlord said:

More Cores! MOAR CORES!!!

sorry, couldn't resist :p 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2017 at 0:48 AM, The Evil Overlord said:

More Cores! MOAR CORES!!!

sorry, couldn't resist :p 

Yeah, i imagine in general the Intel will be all around better. but... for certain things that take advantage of many cores like x264 video encoding that's where i imagine the AMD CPU would shine being it's got twice the cores even though in terms of performance per core the Intel would be faster (as Intel has been faster than AMD since about mid-2006 if i recall correctly(my old PC was March 2006 and at that time AMD CPU's were better than Intel but once Intel came out with i think it was 'core 2 duo', AMD lost the speed crown)) but i would imagine the AMD having double the amount of cores (8 vs 4) it would end up being faster than the Intel in terms of x264 video encoding. i never looked into the details but i would imagine this is true unless of course each core on the AMD CPU runs at half as fast of the Intel in which case i think it would roughly balance out even though i would say Intel wins then because it does not drink as much power. but i doubt the Intel CPU is that far ahead. so in other words... i would imagine for those who encode x264 video a fair amount (which i don't think would be much of a factor for most people) the AMD CPU would likely be noticeably faster because it's got double the cores and x264 encoding seems to really take advantage of that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, illegaloperation said:

You mean Ryzen?

 

 

No, I mean a modernized Bulldozer architecture.

 

Ryzen isn't based off of Bulldozer from what I understand. Excavator is the last Bulldozer revision but its still stuck on 28nm and hasn't been updated to DDR4, PCI-E 3x, etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.