Battlefield 4 Retail GPU and CPU Benchmarks


Russian website has done an outstanding job, again, and again. They recently put up some very nice CPU, GPU, VRAM, and Video Stutter benchmark tests running on Nvidia and AMD graphics cards as well as Intel and AMD CPUs. RAM benchmarks were also preformed.

BF4 is running on the new Frostbite 3 engine which has several upgrades including improved tessellation technology. It also features Destruction 4.0, which enhances the in-game destruction over its predecessors. It was announced that DICE would be including support for the mantle (API) into Frostbite 3, with Battlefield 4 being the first game to implement the low level tool set through a patch in December 2013.

As with most FPS games, Battlefield 4 has both basic and advanced graphics settings: ultra, high, medium and low which allow the user to manipulate individual settings to improve performance.

Recommended hardware specs are:

OS: Windows 8 64-bit [More on why Win8 is recommended]
Processor (AMD): Six-Core
Processor (Intel): Quad-Core
Memory: 8 GB
Hard Drive / Solid State Drive: 30 GB
Graphics Card (AMD): AMD Radeon 7870 [Amazon]
Graphics Card (NVIDIA): NVIDIA GeForce GT 660 [Amazon]
Graphics Memory: 3 GB

For comparison, check out the Alpha benchmarks here and the Beta benchmarks here.

Testing at maximum quality settings 1920×1080  no AA


At a resolution of 1920×1080 at maximum settings, an adequate FPS video experience is at the level of Radeon HD 6870 or GeForce GTX 560 .  Optimal graphics solutions will be the Radeon HD 7850 or GeForce GTX 480 or 570 and above.

Testing at maximum quality settings 1920×1080  MSAA 4X

 1920 msaa

At a resolution of 1920×1080 at maximum settings and MSAA 4X, an adequate FPS video experience is at the level of Radeon HD 7850 or GeForce GTX 480 .  Optimal graphics solutions will be the Radeon HD 7850 or GeForce GTX 660 Ti and above.

Testing at maximum quality settings 1920×1080  MSAA 4X resolution 200%

1920 200 

At 1920×1080 at maximum settings and MSAA 4X 200%, an adequate FPS video experience is at the level of Radeon HD 7990 or GeForce GTX 780 SLI

Testing at maximum quality settings 2560×1600  no AA


At a resolution of 2560×1600 at maximum settings, an adequate FPS video experience is at the level of Radeon HD 7870 or GeForce GTX 660 .  Optimal graphics solutions will be the Radeon HD 6990 or  GeForce GTX 680  and above.

Testing at maximum quality settings 2560×1600  4X MSAA

 2560 msaa

At a resolution of 2560×1600 at maximum settings and MSAA 4X, an adequate FPS video experience is at the level of Radeon HD 6990 or GeForce GTX 680 .  Optimal graphics solutions will be the Radeon HD 7990 or GeForce GTX 780 and above.

Testing at maximum quality settings 3840h2560  no AA


At a resolution of 3840×2560 at maximum settings, an adequate FPS video experience is at the level of Radeon HD 7970GE or GeForce GTX 780.  Optimal graphics solutions will be the Radeon HD 7990 or  GeForce GTX 780 SLI and above.


memory GPU

Testing the memory consumed by the game program was conducted with MSI Afterburner.

Testing at maximum quality settings memory GPU 

bf4 vram

Used the recommended 2GB amount of memory for this game. For ultra resolution and maximum settings you will need to be about three gigabytes of memory.




Testing at maximum quality settings Micro-Stuttering  GPU 

ms bf4

Indicators delay Micro-Stuttering are quite acceptable levels in different modes.

CPU Testing at maximum quality settings 1920×1080 

bf4 proz 2

Indicators of CPU performance in Battlefield 4 were better than expected, even on dual-core models can comfortably play the single player campaign.

Download cores  at maximum quality settings 1920×1080 Intel%

bf4 intel

Download cores  at maximum quality settings 1920×1080 Intel%

bf4 amd

The game fully utilizes almost all the processor cores optimized for multi-threading, AMD is slightly higher.


Testing the memory consumed by BF4  was carried out directly through the Windows Task Manager Windows.The test was conducted on the basic configuration of Core i 7 3970H@4.9 GHz c preset memory of 16GB DDR3 2400 MHz.

Testing at different quality settings

bf4 VRAM

As we can see, the basic settings for different qualities of memory consumed in Battlefield 4 Beta is located at 1600-2200 megabytes. Thus, for a comfortable game, you must have at least 3  GB of RAM installed in your PC. The optimum will be the presence of 4 gigabytes.


  • mokobon

    wow, those intel fanboys must have red faces right about now. Yes I’m sure you’ll say something along the lines of “I’ll just overclock my intel CPU” but hey, now people can really say that AMD’s price to performance is better than Intel when it comes to fx vs i5 anyway. The i7 is in it’s own league, not just performance wise, but in the ridiculously priced range too. I’m not a fanboy, I look at both sides of the battle, and right now the battle is good.

    • MildlyFeasible

      Now that games are starting to utilize more cores AMD is finally a legit high end option. Also, it looks like this game is hurting all graphics cards, I hope new drivers come out for both AMD and Nvidia. :/

      • John Rambo

        A Legit high end option? What are you smoking? i5 are midend cpu and AMD cant beat them.

        • MildlyFeasible

          Look at these cpu benchmarks. For current games the i5 can beat AMD in some (even many) things just barely. But now that next gen consoles have more cores game developers will start optimizing for more cores to increase fps. Hence why the FX-8350 beat the 4670k. The evidence is all here, please have an open mind.

          • Cleroth Sun

            Yes, because CPUs are only for gaming.

          • MildlyFeasible

            That wasn’t my point… This is a discussion about gaming. If all you’re going to do is game, why bring anything else up? It’s irrelevant to the topic, although yes, Intel and AMD CPUs can be used for video editing and whatnot.

          • kirilmatt

            FX easily beats i5 in video editing/rendering, and most other high-end workloads because they are multi-threaded.

          • Cleroth Sun

            Yes, because i5s obviously only have one logical core! The FX definitely has a very good price/performance ration, but it all depends on what you need and what your price range is. The i7-3930K is slightly more expensive than the fastest FX, and it performs better.

          • kirilmatt

            I do believe the 9590 costs much less now, but it is irrelevant. I am talking about the 8350. Everyone knows the 9590 is overpriced. Most every multithreaded benchmark favors the FX, sometimes very significantly with it matching the i7.

          • Brandon Micheal Lovett

            Then that right there tells me Intel is not the best for it’s value.

          • Cleroth Sun

            So? That wasn’t my point. If you need something good and you have the money, do you get the best, or are going to settle with shit?

          • Mike M Rusniak

            Don’t forget the FX also has an advantage on live streaming over the i5

          • nashathedog

            Rubbish, you’ll probably never see this but if you do remember to check the rendering times as well as the streaming and gaming results.


          • Proton

            I-5 WAS good FX killed it i-7 is the only thing in AMD’s way in any other aspect AMD is better

        • Brandon Micheal Lovett

          My question to you is, What the hell are you smoking? AMD has in fact outclassed intel i5 in several Benchmarks.

          • Brandon Micheal Lovett

            It has even outclasses the i7 in a few areas. such as video rendering.

          • Cleroth Sun

            “The i7″? Since when does the best/reasonably-priced AMD processors beat the best Intel processors in anything…? Even in this freaking blog post you’re posting in, the Intels beat the AMDs, so I don’t see your point.

          • Brandon Micheal Lovett

            Can you say fanboy?

          • Brandon Micheal Lovett

            If you actually look at some of the “UNBIASED” videos on youtube, You will clearly see there are more than a few areas the FX 8350 was able to beat your 3770K. Be sure they are unbiased non intel/amd fanboy videos.

          • Cleroth Sun

            I didn’t say anything about 3770k. Can you say schizophrenic?

          • Brandon Micheal Lovett

            Can you say I don’t give a flying fuck about your opinion? Fuck off somewhere hippy,

          • Cleroth Sun

            … You reply to a 3-month old topic to say you don’t care? Seriously, you have issue, dude.

          • Brandon Micheal Lovett

            Kind of like your beard. That’s the biggest issue.

          • Cleroth Sun

            Don’t be jealous. You also can be a man if you try.

          • nashathedog

            Your wasting your time, Here’s an unbiased review for the newest i5 and the 8 core FX’s, It says everything that needs to be said.


          • John Rambo

            Yeah, they “outclassed” 2 years old cpus – Sandy Bridges only if Sandy Bridge is running on 3,4 ghz and Amd FX shit is running on 4.7 or 5.0ghz. Typical pathetic stupid AMD fanboy. Overclock i7 to 4,5 ghu ans start crying how pathetic and slow FX shit is.

          • CDS

            Such as? Keep in mind we are discussing gaming here, not multi-threaded benchmarks that amount to nothing in reality for most of us, especially gamers.

          • John Rambo

            Show me this benchmarks.. They “outclassed” Intel, when Intel was running on 3.5 ghz and AMD on 5ghz. So man, go cry to the corner about the shit you bought. FX 9590 on 5ghz cant beat i7 4770K which runs only on 3,5ghz. QQ more.

          • Brandon Micheal Lovett

            Your 4770K is complete and total crap. I have had to replace it 4 times because it would always crash on me. I could not seem to run more than 2-3 VM’s on it at the same time. which is a huge deal for me. the 9590 I was able to run far more that the 2-3 the intel alloted me.

          • nashathedog

            Here’s an example video for you comparing the 9590 to the 4770k.

            And here’s another,


            I’m sorry if they don’t fit in your shiny new processors world.

          • Brandon Micheal Lovett

            Where are your statistics? Where is the proof of your almighty 4770K?

      • calical26

        battlefield 4 will be the first to use amd mantel api they said the performance with amds hd 7000 and there new gpu will run way better

    • John Rambo

      Yeah, Intel fanboys must be blue..

      i5 with 3,4ghz owning Failoser with 8 cores at 4.ghz

      i5 user will OC his cpu to 4,5 ghz and it will own even more..

      Failoser user will OC his amd fail cpu 4,5 ghz and will start crying..

      Fxshit cant still beat i5 in clock to clock perfomance still, so QQ more.

      I bet you bought some FXshit.

      • mokobon

        well you should stop betting and learn to read everything I said instead of the first sentence. Lol you’re saying exactly what i put up there which proves my point, and besides, I actually bought an i7 4770…

        • CDS

          Well I mean what you posted was pretty silly, if you had actually done your research you’d know Intel is still on top and nothing AMD has right now is going to change that. The # of cores still doesn’t matter all that much, even with BF4, my i7-2700k @4.7GHz rarely goes above 60%, I paid $200 for this almost 2 years ago now.

          I also don’t trust these GPU benchmarks, some of the numbers seem off. My Radeon 6970 overclocked is nowhere near as low as they are quoting for 1920 ultra quality, and I don’t see any GTX 470 beating my card lol.

          • mokobon

            so you’re saying the number of cores doesn’t matter even though you’re using an i7? and you’re overclocking it. Have you seen how old the fx series is? what did I say up there about how the i7 is still in it’s own league? can you not read either?

          • CDS

            I was referring to the 6-8 core AMD cpus that really give no advantage and just make up for them being weaker cpus (if you’re lucky enough to play BF4, the one game that will use them). Being that my 4 core processor isn’t even close to full load, 6-8 cores wouldn’t help me at all, so yes, my overclocked 4 core is in it’s own league and the 6-8 core AMDs are still behind regardless of their extra cores.

          • mokobon

            check out techspot’s review and they show that overclocking any cpu while using high/ultra settings yeilds little results as the game draws from the GPU more at those settings.

          • wHaCkEd

            Of course it doesn’t matter Mokobon, most games don’t support more than four cores.

          • Annihilation01

            I have to agree regarding the GPU. I have HD6990 and it shows it falling 10fps behind the GTX590. Even if they are running at bios option 1 (830mhz) this seems wrong. Nobody runs that card at 830mhz. Everyone at least runs it at 880mfz. I run my at 920mhz with aftermarket Artic Cooling.

        • kirilmatt

          don’t forget his spelling: Its Faildozer, not Failozer. He can’t even bash AMD without screwing up.

      • Brandon Micheal Lovett

        You sir john, Need to learn how to spell and use your grammar. I’ll even bet that you never made it out of 5th grade. I bet as you sit there reading this message you are yourself crying about your poor use of grammar.

        • John Rambo

          at least, I have enough money for i7 and i am not a poor bastard like you who can afford only cheap FXshit. QQ more.

    • Herpa Derp

      No we still beat you so it don’t matter AMD payed Battlefield for these fake ass tests

    • Joshua Michael Bro’Shea

      uh, the developers said that they worked with AMD stuff so it would be easier to port to the new consoles so there would be an advantage for AMD systems. if the new consoles used intel stuff, there would be an advantage for intel.

      • mokobon

        not necessarily, that’s like saying AMD games are better on AMD, sometimes NVIDIA cards perform better regardless. Sure the AMD processors will benefit, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get a noticeable advantage… in the end it all depends on how the CPU is utilized in the games… CPUs and GPUs are two different worlds, mate.

    • Peter Pan

      Must suck being poor…

      • mokobon

        must suck not being able to read…

    • Proton

      i agree because Intel has lesser clock speeds and that’s FX-9590 is worth it’s money

    • LOL

      Lol theese tests are fake as… :v

      here you have real benchmarks :

      • Azza

        Intel bias

    • John Farrell

      Intel fanboys be like “well the $1050 i74960X is only slightly more expensive than the $280 Fx 9590″

    • nashathedog

      April 2014, Looking back at this now shows how pathetic things are, Now that it’s not just AMD who have had an opportunity to optimize it’s a very different story, We always get rubbish like this when a game is in beta or just released, Who’s getting the better scores at this stage in the games life depends on who worked on development 99% of the time, and more importantly any brand will run it okay, Sadly too many chumps focus on points like this instead of what’s more important, Get a life.

  • Branden Jew

    was this windows 7 or windows 8 for the benchmarks? The game is supposed to run better on Win 8.

    • wHaCkEd

      Lol if it “runs better” with windows 8, its only because of directx 11.1

      • Pudim

        if (system->isWindows8()) {
        controller->wait(1); //Microsoft paid us big bucks for this line, do not remove!!!

      • This guy.

        Still runs better. It’s like saying the dude with a Ferrari beat you in a race because only because his car had a faster engine.

  • zonzon

    CPU tests should have been run on LOW quality.
    On VHQ, the GPU bottlenecks the CPU infinitely faster.

    Do someone know what the max CPU usage on FX-8350 is ?
    If the game is really running in 8 threads, it should be around 100%.

  • gamerk2

    Both Tomshardware and PClab benchmarks shows that the FX-8350 ~ i5-2500k. Much like in BF3 and Crysis 3, GameGPU is the only site whos benchmarking shows the FX-8350 significantly faster.


    • Moinaldo

      I know. Although the FX is cheaper, I’m happy with my 2500k performance, but sometimes I feel I should have bought the FX to have a more general purpose cpu.

      • CDS

        No, you shouldn’t have, buy a better cooler and overclock your 2500k if you want, it’s plenty fast and you aren’t missing anything.

        • This guy.

          Spend $100+ more on the processor, then an additional $60+ Cooler to oc it? In day to day activities and even most gaming you won’t gain more than a few fps.

          • CDS

            He already has the processor. I bought my cooler for $40 and run my i7 2700k @ 4.7GHz and definitely a noticeable difference in games that don’t use more than 2 cores and max out those cores.

      • Brandon Micheal Lovett

        The FX 8350 is not a bad option at all. I picked mine up for under 150.00 USD And I don’t regret it either.

        • John Rambo

          Then go play Arma 3, Arma 2, Skyrim or any heavy cpu dependent game on the market and watch the low fps. Benchmarks in games proved enough, but still not enough for AMD fanboys, lolololol. You shitty cpu never outclassedi7 with the same frequency and only sometimes i5. Stop spreading lies.

          • harley upshaw

            This again goes to the fact games are not optimized for the 8 core cpus TRUE Intel is better currently but if games were made to run on lets say 6-8 cores with little support for 4 cores…it would be the same. However games are not made to use 6-8 cores so Intel will lead…for now

    • CDS

      You are posting beta benchmarks, just saying. I agree with your point but beta benchmarks isn’t the way to prove it :)

  • JB

    What program are they using to benchmark this my 4770K, 2400mhz, and 660ti are getting 45-80 fps at 1920×1080 with 4x MSAA

  • fire lion

    I really wish they tested Windows 7 vs windows 8.

    • Brandon Micheal Lovett

      I have noticed that most of the benchmarks are in Windows 7. But the newer hardware is supposed to have advantages in the newer windows 8 – 8.1.

  • herpaderp

    These benchmarks are totally fictitious.

    I am not sure where they are getting these from….

    Off from real performance.

  • herpaderp

    i5 3570K @4.3GHZ / GTX 650tib OC @1240mhz core 6036 mhz mem. using Gforce Exp for settings. 4x msaa most settings on ultra with some post set to med.

    low 40fps high 120fps average 75FPS

  • Brad Holder

    I wonder if these AMD fanboys even notice that that they are heralding heralding the performance of the 600 and 900 dollar cups that that get beat by the 4770k(260 on sale) easily.

    Seriously.. Get a clue.

    In other news, two 770s with with a 3770k @ 4.4ghz runs 100-160 fps on ultra, which is a bit off from what I’m seeing from other cards that should be similar or better(2x780s for example). With that said, I’m gonna question most of these benchmarks to begin with.

    • Maxwell

      I love how you talk about AMD fanboys but all im seeing from you is being a Intel fanboy. Let people figure out if they made a bad decision on what they bought on their own. If they have the money to blow let em. I personally chose amd cuz it was cheaper. only thing that effected my decision.

    • Luka

      Oh, so you are saying that they are heralding a 150$ CPU that is little behind in gaming and a lot better in everyday use and professional applications than a 260$ CPU, if so then they are right


    weird numbers, done on 30th meaning this was done on beta or what? TechSpot has the wrong CPU numbers or what did you measure them in? Nothing on the x-axis so I’m not too sure. TS show that a x4 980 holds up perfectly, ~5% slower than a 3960x :O, Please correct me on this. Would like to know if i should finally switch over to an OP(overpriced) CPU for well coded titles.

    (-Note- *gaming* PC)

  • Alexander Olsen

    Where the fuck is the new R9 series from AMD agian? I have nvidea cards, but wtf, even I know we are more or less getting crushed both at preformance and preformance/buck….

  • ImUrAssassin

    My OS running on a normal HDD and BF4 on a Raid 0 (2 disks) WD Blacks with 8gb 1866mhz Patriot, 2.8ghz Phenom II X6 Thuban 1055T, HIS Radeon 6790 IceQX 1gb. No Game boosters of any sort and Windows Aero on. Running at 60mhz 1920×1080 I get an average of 40fps on the “Pre” setting of Medium Detail.

  • Brandon Micheal Lovett

    It is starting to wreak of “Intel” fanboys in here. How sad because, I bought my AMD FX “8350″ a year ago and I just can’t seem to slow it down. I do a lot more than just VIDEO gaming, I do video editing, as well as gaming. I also do some photo editing and programming as well. This cpu only uses about 35-45 percent of it’s allotted rescources. And guess what intel fanboys, I paid $150.00 for it so suck a dick.

    • Seth Abbott

      TRUE THAT !

    • ludjer

      Personally i am a AMD fanboy but ever since the i7 Extreme editions came out i have been going for them especially for the extra dims my I7 3970X has 8 dim slots allows me to get 64 gigs of memory in my pc and since i do allot work with VM’s it allows me to use my pc to the fullest with AMD i dont think it would have handled it.

      For value for money AMD is still the best but for work/laptops intel all the way.

  • Brandon Micheal Lovett

    System Specs:
    Case: XCLIO windtunnel advanced
    Processor: AMD FX 8350 @ 4.0 GHz “No need to overclock this puppy” (Watercooled)
    Graphics Card: NVIDA GeForce GTX 770 From (EVGA)(Stock Clocks)
    Storage: x2 Seagate Barricuda 3TB HDD’s and 1 Samsung 250GB SSD(OS only)
    x2 LG Blu-Ray Burners(Yes I use more than one.)(With an all in one card reader)
    RAM:x4 4GB Ripjaws ram memory modules(16 GB total)
    OS: Windows 7 Ultimate / Windows 8 Pro.(Dual OS’s)

    • Guest

      Almost the same as mine except at the last minute I switched from getting the 8350 and went with the 4770k, And I’m glad I did as now AMD have released there bridgeless crossfire system (Nvidia will obviously do this aswell at some point) and they said that it was made possible because of the extra bandwidth that pcie 3.0 provides. So not only is the 8350 slower at just about everything but it’s also been made obsolete by it’s own company. Currently pcie 2.0 will run bridgeless crossfire x2 but as it’s developed further it won’t and if you want more than 2 cards your screwed.

  • Filip Sopp

    Not even fourth gen i7 porcessors…

  • john clark

    Simply put, Most programs are starting to run multi core… I hate to drag this into a higher pee contest but Consoles (God they’re annoying) run Amd + ATi hardware, and would it not be logical if that if they also use X64 architecture, AMD AS A COMPANY would be the leader in Graphics and Processing technology… Because Kids… Its about MARKET LEAD who dictates the market… Intel basically dropped the ball… The Profits AMD/Ati will make out of the PS4 and XboxOne deals will put them in the lead of manufacturing and RandD… So it follows, following PC’s will work better than consoles. Because they are the lead platforms in R-and-D

  • Proton

    well AMD FX-9590 is Undeniably awesome because i-5 is totally outclassed by FX-8350 the only thing that matches FX-9590 is intel i- 4960 and above

  • Proton

    My 7990 crossfire works fine with my Intel i-7 4990k LOL

  • Anonymous

    Can someone pls explain these benchmarks and which graphic cards are the best cause im new to this whole cp thing. thanks

  • Xeryus Susannah

    Bang for your buck it’s hard to not consider some of the AMD’s. in low and medium gamming builds I think its a good option, and suits some people budget for sure. arguing about this is just silly, and likely just your die hard AMD or INTEL mindset projecting the truth. High end gaming is all intel for sure at present and I don’t see a amd fanboy argueing this… but at the end of the day its marketing brainwash… benchmarks are a guide, but the real world difference are most times not even noticeable by the inefficient human eye ( this should always be keep in mind as to not buy marketing brainwashing).

  • Sups Fisher

    guys while you discuss about the specs of AMD and Intel also see the wiki for the both cos, you will find that intel is using threats and malpractice to keep MAD away from market. and Intel has been fined for this for next 5 yrs.

    also read this On August 31, 2011, in Austin, Texas, AMD achieved a Guinness World Record for the “Highest frequency of a computer processor”: 8.429 GHz.[66] The company ran an 8-core FX-8150 processor with only one active module (two cores), and cooled with liquid helium.[67] The previous record was 8.308 GHz, with an Intel Celeron 352 (one core).

  • Wan Noraiman

    Hahaha. Stupid humans. So what if you have better cpus or gpus than the other. People share info so that it can help everyone in purchasing for what their needs. These comments prove how stupid humans can be. If the fact is wrong so what? Let them be. You arguments do not save people from starvation, do not make any technological advancements, do not make yourself brighter only richer or spoiled, do not make you look cool, do not do anything good to you. Get a life idiots.

  • Adi Pod

    guys, don’t forget forget with the amd u have higher electricity costs.. if u count everything u have to count the more electricity costs over the lifetime of the product. let’s say, the prozessor ‘lives’ 4 years, u pay 4 years more in the long run. here in germany electricity costs are very high compared to usa for example. and lets compare the i5-4670k with the fx-8350. this fx beats this i5 for 2fps (two in word!). but u pay 160euros here for the fx boxed. i don’t know one amd-fanboy who doesn’t buy a good cpu cooler for his amd. what makes it more expensive. plus more electricity costs over about 4 years. i payed 170 for my i5. i dont need a better cpu cooler because i5 is cool enough.. and i will save more than 100 euros over 4 years in electricity costs. if this electricity costs are worth 2 fps ok.. pay it! i won’t… ;)

    • Joe Golden

      If we’re counting everything, why did you neglect to add the difference in cost for the Mobo? They’re NOT the same price for similar features. the 8350 is $190, the M5A97 LE R2.0 is $75. With the 4670k I suggest you get at least a asrock z87 extreme4 for $135. 4670k is $230.
      Intel = $365
      AMD= $265
      $100 difference.

      Then the frames per second are more like a difference of 13 once we add our cpu cooler and oc to speeds around that of the 9370.
      You only need a 212 evo cpu cooler and it performs better than a lot of liquid coolers and it’s only $30. So now AMD has 13 frames per second more and we’re $70 cheaper.

      But what if YOU’RE going to overclock that 4670k, well, you better get the same cooler also. You’re stock cooler is great if you’re not OCing but if you ARE OCing, you better get at least the same 212 evo cpu cooler. Now we’re back up to a difference of $100 because YOU need to buy cooler also, unless you want to be 13FPS slower…..
      but the 4670k doesn’t overclock as well as the 8350. So now the difference in frames per second are around 5. And it’s a $100 difference.

      As far as the electricity, yes, the 8350 will cost roughly twice as much. If you’re using the computer 8 hours a day, @ 0.09 KWH, it will cost you about $20 a year more. So after 5 years of usage the cost is equal but we still have 5 more FPS.

  • Sir Mister

    AMD CPUs need much more maintenance. Intel is more reliable. AMD spreads themselves across too thinly putting too many cores on an unstable chip that can destroy itself and your motherboard if you don’t have an expensive motherboard and liquid cooling.

  • Redstorm

    Intel fanboys wont be too happy with this.. AMD is right up there (the 950 almost twice as good as the single threaded intel i5′s. And it probably wont be long before they release another over the top i7