Intel CPU advice vs 8350

N

narsbars

2[H]4U
2FA
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
3,332
What is the least expensive Intel cpu that will blow the doors off a 8350?
One catch, this will go on a run of the mill MB not a performance MB due to buying for work and them giving me a limited budget so it is a tough comparison.

I run an 8350 at home and use a Crosshair V. What will it take with NO oc and a $100.00 mb to see a true performance difference? No gaming, but lots of large file transfers, a lot of multitasking and MS products.

Both will have a 500gig SSD and 16 gigs of no OC memory.
Thinking Gigabyte or Asus for the MB but not locked in. Also looking for something that can be left on 24x7 for the next two years.

C'mon hit me!
 
A 3770k or 4770k in all categories

A 3570k or 4690k in games (for the most part)
 
narsbars said:
What is the least expensive Intel cpu that will blow the doors off a 8350?
One catch, this will go on a run of the mill MB not a performance MB due to buying for work and them giving me a limited budget so it is a tough comparison.

I run an 8350 at home and use a Crosshair V. What will it take with NO oc and a $100.00 mb to see a true performance difference? No gaming, but lots of large file transfers, a lot of multitasking and MS products.

Both will have a 500gig SSD and 16 gigs of no OC memory.
Thinking Gigabyte or Asus for the MB but not locked in. Also looking for something that can be left on 24x7 for the next two years.

C'mon hit me!
Click to expand...


No cheap Intel CPU blows the doors of a FX-8350 running the tasks you describe.
But I guess an i5 could do that stuff just fine while using alot less energy.
 
i5 3470 or better will be equal to or have a definite lead performance wise in most things, run cooler (most times) use less power (most times) have better single threaded performance for sure, and acceptable multi-threaded performance (in most things due to compiler issues AMD gets shafted over)

I would say for sure SSD as this will make a difference no matter the system in use.

Other options are from the A series AMD offerings or even older or lower end chips such as Athlon II, mid range FX, the new Pentium Anniversary edition (seen a build complete minus case, power, optical, os for under $300 and it was overclockable via Asus magic) i3 etc.

One thing I have noticed with my AMD systems vs the Intel ones I have used from different generations (minus my old coppermine 866) I can leave mine running for weeks on end and its speed is no different then if it was fresh booted, the Intel ones I have used over the years they seem to want/need a reboot more often or they seem to get slower feel less "snappy" not sure why.

Anyways, from the sound of it, you probably do not need an i5 it will more then likely be not worth the cost for its intended use, so,

A series AMD, i3, Pentium, Athlon II and the like probably would be the best bet, for given price to performance. Some of the mid range i5 might be worth looking at as well of course.

A series cause it has the gpu built in though they are not insane performance chips they are actually quite good all rounders, i3 with gpu built in for same reason acceptable performance, great power use and cool running.

The Pentium Anniversary Edition is one very much worth looking review as an example here at as well(they are known to have extremely nice overclocking ability, temps and performance that is great when this is done) shame they didn't make it a quad or even a dual with hyper, and stripping it down to a 1333 memory controller instead of the 1600 was an odd choice for saving so little cost compared to others in the same family, but it is what it is and a decent price as well I suppose and it can handle programs and even high end games quite well considering its TDP and only dual core.
 
Fascinating info on the Pentium Anniversary, I agree that my AMD chips never seem to have the lagging that some experience in 24x7 Intel units. Since I may have to use this machine at some point I am looking to build a real performance jump from the 8350 and I am hoping that the lack of gaming may help cut the price.
Thanks for the info, I will look at the i5 chips.
 
I'm just curious, but are you truly CPU bound at the moment? Most of what you describe as your usage scenario (file transfers & MS products) aren't typically gated by CPU performance. I/O is typically the limiter, followed by memory.
 
narsbars said:
I run an 8350 at home and use a Crosshair V. What will it take with NO oc and a $100.00 mb to see a true performance difference? No gaming, but lots of large file transfers, a lot of multitasking and MS products.
Click to expand...

Realistically, nothing is really going to blow the doors off compared to your FX-8350 if all you're doing is transferring files and running office software. Even my i7-4930k doesn't 'feel' a whole lot faster than my FX-8320.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Realistically, nothing is really going to blow the doors off compared to your FX-8350 if all you're doing is transferring files and running office software. Even my i7-4930k doesn't 'feel' a whole lot faster than my FX-8320.
Click to expand...

This. The only reason to upgrade to Intel for your purposes is for the lower power consumption. And at this point, you may as well just wait for Broadwell, which will have even lower power consumption than Haswell.
 
Thanks for the ideas. The real reason for the upgrade is because my job will pay for the upgrade within limits as part of my A+ certification. LOL, building PCs, gaming, and an H member for many years I am not very worried about taking lessons telling me how to install memory or test a power supply.
They want me to take the course and pay for it, who am I to argue? Just figured I might have some fun and replace my current Core 2 duo E8400 while I am at it.:D:D:D:D
 
In which case..Brand-new Haswell Chip build :D
"DC"
Get them to throw in Areca 1882-ix While you're at it
 
Haha. Well you can definitely upgrade from a C2D8400 and feel it. Good luck on the A+ :)
 
The feel is subjective and even though benchmarks may not tell the whole story, they are a reasonable indicator of performance between the different platforms. I have owned almost exclusively Intel since my Phenom II 1090T and in day to day tasks, they don't feel any faster, though there have been games/benchmarks where it was noticeable.

The biggest performance boost I have experienced was upgrading to an SSD. Beyond that, the feel of running an i7-2600K, then later an i7-3770K, then back to an i7-920, to ultimately end up at my i3-2105, wasn't significantly different. The big difference I've noticed has been in power consumption and therefore heat output.

So, on to the main point: since you're already running an SSD and you will have ample memory (16GB is plenty unless you're going to jump into virtualization, and even then it is fine for a reasonable number of hosts) then any i5 or better CPU will not feel slower than your 8350. Personally, even on a $100 motherboard, I would consider getting an i7, simply because the potential benefits of the extra threads are worth it to me and theoretically should keep the CPU relevant for a bit longer.

As I'm typing this, I'm on my office PC at work, which is running an i5-3470 and 8GB of memory. If it had an SSD I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between this computer and any of my home PCs for what I do most of the time. There hasn't been a significant improvement between Ivy Bridge and Haswell, or DC from the looks of it (maybe 10 - 15% in some areas between them) so I would say even sticking with LGA 1155 will not disappoint.
 
I think that the 8350 is actually quite a baller chip in comparison to the Intel offerings. I was under the impression it was about the same as a 2500k sandybridge. So take a 15% improvement in ivy or the 3770k, then maybe another 10% to haswell for the 4770k. Actually the FX9590 really closes the gap to the 4770k so maybe a generation behind at the 3770k level. With the AMD chips you also get a bunch of cool features that are not always on the Intel chips like the virtualization stuff (vt-d), so for example a 4770 will have it but be locked, while a 4770k wont but will be unlocked.

That being said if work is paying for it get a 4770k setup or even a haswell i3 and you might see a little of it because the per core performance is still performance king. In reality most applications are still single threaded even to this day so as long as you aren't loading a bunch of apps up at the same time you really will not notice the difference. Also look at avoiding the SATA ports for you SSD and you will get a boost there. So like PCIE or M2 socket.
 
Well if one gets a chip that can overclock, you could take an i7 or i5 or even said 9590, lock x core and overclock the remainder so you get solid core performance AND reduce power/temps, every chip always seems to have 1 or 2 cores that really like to go faster then others and still use lower volts and so give lower temps, just an idea, then if one finds out that they do in fact need more then those 1 or 2 core of performance you can open it up.

FX series are not bad chips by any means, they are just quite power hungry and suffer IPC cause AMD tried to make sure they hit high speeds more then they focused on the IPC that they were given, even the cache which has always been slower on AMD chips took a hit to ensure they could keep up with the cores at this higher speed.

If you take an 8350 as an example, it can keep up to Intel offerings, but, in most things you need to clock it up quite a bit so you end up with a hot power hungry chip.

But, if you just look at them on their own merits, they are not at all slow, there is just better offerings if you look at certain segments. power to performance, performance to cost, cost to performance, outright performance, efficiency (as in overall power to temperature) etc. I do not believe there is a single chip out there that hits all of these though some are close they still lack, A10-7850k is a great chip but slower then the lowest price chip Intel offers and slapping a dedicated card with it.

SSD wise, M2 or that sata express or whatever they are called I believe are only on the most modern Intel chipsets though there are some coming out for AMD as well from Asus and I believe MSI and Asrock, Asus has a direct manufacturing agreement for AMD for their next chipsets, Asus will provide the design to other makers.

anyways, still is and always will be on the programs being used, many times it does make more sense to go Intel, however, there are occasions that AMD offering can save some cost and still get the job done, and one thing I do agree on, many of AMD motherboards and chips tend to offer the most features without having to shell out the big $, even if they are a bit slower relatively speaking.
 
I have to agree that daily with a Thuban is..Cadillac-ish..very snappy.
Must be something about the pipelines or something.
 
Hey thanks to everyone. I am definitely going Intel. Since I have to stay in the $under 400 range, I am still going to try for Haswell because any MB I pick will then have some upgradeable time. You guys have been great and given me plenty of solid information to go on. I will close the thread later, but wanted to leave it open to say THANKS! Stay H.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top