i5-4440 quad @3.10 or AMD FX 8350 octa @4.00?

Hi everybody,
I'm going to dump my ancient rig (Mac Pro 1.1, 2x Dual Core Xeon 5150 2.66mhz, 9gb ram, Sapphire 7850 2gb OC Edition) because it is so very cpu limited (architecture limited at all, I suppose) that as soon as there is more than 1 car on track, fps drop from 100+ to 40-30, no matter which graphical settings I use, with a GPU usage around 30/40%.
Given the limited budget I have to buy the motherboard + cpu + ram combo (I would keep the 7850), I found two seemingly viable options: Intel Core i5-4440 quad @3.10 or AMD FX 8350 octa @4.00.
Which one would be the best option, considering I mostly only play AC?
Would the game benefit more from the 4 i5 cores or from the 8 FX cores?
On paper the AMD solution would be the winner, more cores, more mhz, but IRL in your experience?

 

Intel Core cpu's are significantly faster per clock than AMD. More mhz doesn't mean its faster what so ever. Also 8 cores would likely be overkill for AC.

Passmark i5 4440 - 6419
Passmark fx 8350 - 8947

But passmark benchmarks heavily favor more cores, for tasks like rendering.

Passmark i5 4440 single thread performance - 1,876
Passmark fx 8350 single thread performance - 1,504

Now we see that the i5 is actually faster despite having less mhz.
I would recommend the i5, unless you plan to do some rendering on the side. Both cpus would be quite the upgrade tho.

passmark Xeon 5150 - 3505
passmark Xeon 5150 single thread - 1015

 

Thanks, things sound more clear, now. Actually I work with Maya, so AMD would be a better choice maybe!

 

Also, AMD consumes more power, but can be overclocked, unlike the i5.

 

If power consumption was a problem to me, I wouldn't drive a car that never does more than 10km per 1lt of fuel!
Seriously, it was never a concern to me, and the possibility to oc the cpu sounds nice.
I think I will go with the FX8350!

 

Those are just synthetic tests and don't have to directly translate to gaming performance. Compare those CPUs in gaming test reviews just to be sure.

 

The tune seems to be something like "They're even, Intel is better at single threading, Amd at multi threading, Intel consumes less, Amd more...".
Since AC seems (afaik) to use more cores to compute physics, Amd sounds like the best choice to me.

 

Search the benchmark thread for users with the hardware you looking for.

Στάλθηκε από το m2 note μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1368?vs=697

 

I would suggest you to invest 50 euro more and considering to take i5 6600k or i5 6600 if you do not intend to overclock. Both choice are good because you will be fine for a couple of years with it. Assetto corsa is CPU hungry and fx 8350 is obsolete now (zen coming) and that means if you will upgrade your 7850 in future, you will have bottlenecking issues with amd processor. Yes,taking intel means adding 50 more bucks now, but you will save power(less cost in bills) and you will be fine for longer.

ps:ho visto che sei di milano e ti consiglio di dare un occhiata al sito "tao computer" che fa ottimi prezzi e potresti trovare l'i5 anche a 190 euro rispetto ai 230 soliti degli altri market.

 

I agree with haxxx. I moved from 8350 to 6600k last year and have no regrets. The newer technology will last you longer considering you are buying the parts "today".

 

Well, if you pay your own electricity bill and you plan to keep the PC for 3-5 years the i5 is much cheaper.

 

But do you do 3d animation or rendering? which is something the OP is gonna be doing (besides playing AC) Which does benefit the multi threading and that he can overclock the chip.

@KeithEsenkoola To be honest, im running an Nvidia 970, AMD 6300 (6 core) 3.5 GHz (OC'ed to 4GHz) with 16gb ram. I can play Assetto on very nice gfx settings with at least 12 cars on track and it plays fine.. I can then Quit the game and go load a 3d application and start playing about with Lidar scans of american towns (which consists of about 6 million polygons) without any issues what so ever (this is both my work computer and my play computer) Can't say ive had any issues since switching to my new rig (which i got late last year) Work great for games (haven't found a game i can't play YET) And works great for Cg rendering/animation..

The AMD will give you decent results for games (not THAT much different from the i5) and of course it will also benefit greatly for the CG stuff.. So i think you know which one you will be going for

 

8350 could be better in rendering but not that much and the gap between the two cpus are big especially when gaming. I5 6600k is significantly faster in single thread and assetto corsa like 90% of games doesnt care about "more cores" so intel right now is the best choice if you want gaming. I think that is not worth taking an 8350 when zen is also coming and intel is a better investment right now.

 

But he doesnt want it for JUST gaming, that is the whole point. The game can use one of the AMD cores just the same as it can use a single core. But he DOES NEED some thing that also works well with CG. and in CG you need all the cores and threads you can get your hands on.

So yes i totally agree with you on the fact of. If he was only playing games the intel would indeed be the chip he needs to go for. BUT.. As its not just about playing games, a chip that is only really good for games is NOT the correct choice to go with..

 

You have no idea how a PC consumes electricity.
Never watch on the pure TDP and yes the actual FX cpu needs little bit more juice, but u wont notice it on your bill. Thats nonsense.
CPU's and GPU's dont eat electricity "in a straight line like 300W ---------------------------", they are changing their consume in millisecond range at every situation...

 

Also, the AMD cpu, no matter how power hungry, will probably consume 4x less electricity than his current dual xeons, so there's that....

Both CPU's are on a obsolete platform; the poster does not seem to care if he has the last gen tech, and he probably doesn't plan to upgrade again until he has to, maybe in 5 years... which is a reasonable thing to do. I actually think AC can use more than 4 cores, and more and more games will do so in the future, so AMD is not that much worse choice than Intel.

 

Word!

You got that right, I'm not the want-it-all kind of guy, I want to have what I really need and not a dime more.
Actually I bought that cpu and mobo combo and going from the Dual Xeons to the FX8350 has been a dramatic improvement, I couldn't even drive at first because everything seemed too smooth and fast.
And yes, as somebody stated, being a 3D modeler, the AMD's eight cores mean much to me, especially since I mostly use VRay and it squeezes the hell out of every core.
Thanks to everybody who answered this thread, sincerely.

(Signature updated, yay!)

 

Just wait for new CPU and GPU coming out in the next 2-3 month from AMD. Massive performance gains for dirt cheap. You would be silly to purchase right now. Search AMD POLARIS and AMD ZEN

 

I can agree about Polaris, I already have that upgrade in mind, but afaik the Zen platform should only be server oriented, no consumer grade cpus are scheduled.
And anyway, if I only used my pc for gaming I might have delayed the purchase, but I use it to work as well, so there was no time to waste waiting for a cpu that is still numbers on paper only.