Is it worth Getting an AMD build?

Which mobo do you have in mind for 50$?.. Because Intel motherboard are more expensive than AMD in my opinion no?

If ya total system budget is less than $850, Id consider a AMD build

personally I searched out results for the games I play & found the stock fx-6300 quite acceptable (my overclock makes it nice).

The main reason I actually bit was that I found the CPU cooler (CM seidon 120m for $15 AR and the $115 mobo had the features I wanted. I have owned the $50 intel motherboards in the past and I was quite disappointed, I would not buy something without sata 6.0 (for ssd) and usb 3.0, but on top of that the on board audio on my new one actually sounds good for once. Now you're talking a ~$70 or $80 Intel motherboard and the comparison becomes a little less clear on price.


That and the fact that I like to use VMware, and that I appreciate having more parallel CPU power from the 6 core setup.

i5 setup is definitely a little better for the average workload, but I'm enjoying my build so far. It may not always be worth it but some times it comes out a very comparable option.

As mentioned, a $50 Intel mobo is a very bad idea. You should at least spend the same ~$100 on a decent Intel mobo. Also, if you plan on overclocking, you'll need something more like $50-$100 for cooling to get close to the most overclock out of either an Intel or AMD CPU.

In addition, bear in mind that most software compiled in the last ~3 years or so is increasingly multi-core/multi-thread optimized, and really, what we're talking about when we say 'cores' is integer cores (which is what AMD means when it says, for example, that the FX-4350 is a '4 core' CPU, or the FX-6300 is a '6 core CPU'. A lot of people have criticised AMD for calling their cores 'cores', but it's quite a valid approach, as x87 FPU code is depricated and virtually never used any more, as FMA/AVX/SSE optimizations are far more efficient, or the floating point is simply offloaded to the GPU (hence AMD's push for HSA).

So why buy AMD? Simple. First, the integer processing power you're getting is much greater than what Intel is selling you at the same price points. Many don't seem to grasp this, but it is becoming increasingly apparent, when, for example, the old Phenom II X4 CPUs suddenly started to beat the Core i3 in newer, multi-threaded games. It's integer cores that matter now, and will only continue to matter more and more as the floating point calculations are offloaded to the GPU. Second reason to pick AMD over Intel: you can take the $50 or so that you saved over the Intel CPU to put towards that increasingly important GPU. These days, $50 makes the difference between getting a GTX660 or a GTX760 on the nVidia side, or between a Radeon 7850 and a 7950. In other words, quite a significant impact on your gaming experience. Third reason to go AMD is AMD's socket longevity. AMD customers can often upgrade CPUs two or even three times before having to buy a new mobo. Intel is already saying the Broadwell chips won't work on the existing socket 1150 platform they just released for Haswell. Do you really want to support company that does that to you? Fourth reason to go AMD? Well, in addition to the extra value proposition and generally longer platform life, AMD could also REALLY use your money right now. Buying an AMD CPU now will mean AMD will be around to produce Steamroller, Excavator and beyond.

This seems like flame bait to me but here goes.

I have three rigs and all three can handle any game I have and then some.
First:
FX-8120 OC to (4GHz multiplier only)
MSI 890FXA-GD70 motherboard
16gig DDR3 G. Skill 1600
2x Sapphire HD 7950 Crossfire

Second:
FX-8350
ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 Motherboard
16gig G. Skill DDR3 1600
2x Sapphire HD 7970 Crossfire

Third:
i5 3570K
Asus Z77 Sabertooth
16gig G. Skill DDR3 1600
2x Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI

All three have there own triple Asus 27" monitor setup in Eyefinity/Surround and can handle any and all games i have and that is over 250 in Steam and over 50 in Origin plus over a hundred boxed editions.

Both of my FX rigs can keep up with my i5 3570K in every game with no problems at all. Fitting a FX CPU with a good motherboard and GPU can make a system every bit as capable of a gaming rig as a i5 with out a doubt.

It really depends on your budget and personal preference. The two best gaming CPU's in terms of performance for the money are the i5-3570k (4670k) and FX-8350 which roll in around $200-$240, respectively. Neither of these will bottleneck even the most powerful GPU's (Titan, etc.) and both are overclockable.

If on more of a budget, I would suggest nothing lower than an i5-3350 or FX-6350, if you still want very good performance. Anything less than that, stick with AMD and overclock as much as you can. Intel really doesn't have many strong budget CPU's as their lower-end offerings seem to only be dual-core parts. IMHO, dual cores, even with hyper-threading, just won't cut it anymore in terms of gaming, going forward.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The i5's are stronger in stock form, but the AMD's catch up no problem with overclocking. Personally, if I were to build a system on a tighter budget, I would build an AMD system mainly for the cost/performance value. Intel makes nothing in the $120-150 range than can compete with the FX-6350. Again, the core i3's *might* keep up in certain games, but that is a quickly diminishing light moving into the future where more cores will become essential for gaming.

The APU's from AMD, while somewhat impressive (compared to IGPU's of the past), they require higher speed RAM (2133 for the A10-6800k) for the best performance, which is more expensive. If you factor in the cost for the A10-6800k and the more expensive RAM required, you'd be better off with an Athlon X4 750k, cheaper 1600 RAM and discrete GPU like an HD 7770/7850 or similar for the same amount. That combo will blow the A10 out of the water. But don't get me wrong, the APU's have their place, but here were talking in terms of more heavy gamers on a budget. APU's IMO are not quite there just yet.

Boiling it all down, AMD is actually in a great position at the moment and there are many reasons to go that route. They have the low-end and mid-range gaming market pinned as all their CPU's are at least quad core parts with a ton of overclocking potential, while Intel only has dual-core offerings on anything new below $180. In terms of mid to high-end gaming, AMD is very competitive with the 8350 (which, btw is compatible with faster 1866 RAM if you want that little extra edge).

Power consumption, I think people make a bigger deal out of this than it really is. The difference isn't so drastic and if you're like me, you care more about the performance than a few extra watts under heavy load.

I'm going with an i5-4670K for my build, but a major part of that decision came from the fact that there are no AM3+ (AMD FX series) motherboards in the m-ITX form factor, and I'm building a Fractal Design Node 304 gaming rig in the $1200 range, thus, I don't have much of a choice. If I had to chose between the 8350 and 4670k, it would be a difficult decision for me (not that I wouldn't be happy with the 4670k...).

Going back to personal preference; what is it you'll be doing with the machine? What form factor? Are you energy-conscious or do you just want the best performance per dollar? Are you in to overclocking or prefer to just build it and leave it? Weigh all the options, compare apple to apples, ask questions and make your decision based on facts, not fluff.


(Before anyone jumps on me, please note the prices I stated are Canadian)

Kebbz, can you list your entire setup (CPU, Mobo, GPU, Ram (including ram speed), PSU etc.) so we can see all the components you're running? That will help us make a better recommendation.

Thanks.

Ok, there are a few things with this set up that could be related to the less than adequate performance you're experiencing.

First off, I wouldn't expect i5 performance from an FX-6100. Overclocked, it would be closer but ultimately still not quite there. An FX-6350 overclocked could probably trade blows with an i5-3350p. That being said, the HD 7770 is probably more responsible for the bottlenecking in your system. Upgrading to a 7850 with 2GB of ddr5 and you'd probably see a good bump in gaming performance. If you can stretch it, a 7870 or even 7950 would be even better. Prices have dropped drastically making those cards a great bargain right now.

Cheap motherboards do not necessarily hinder gaming performance. However they will hinder overclocking potential. They generally consist of lower-grade components and lack a lot of features.

Another thing that stuck out to me is the RAM you have, which I'm assuming is two sticks of 4GB, both at 1600, but from different manufacturers. Your motherboard supports up to 8GB max. and dual-channel. What I would suggest is swap out the RAM you have with an 8GB dual channel kit (will be 2x 4GB sticks). Dual channel RAM will perform better than just 2 single sticks added together.

One thing to always remember is that you get what you pay for. I'm guessing you built this system on a low budget? In such a case, you can't and shouldn't expect it to be super-fast. However, that being said, there are some things you can do to optimize and make your system run better.

While I wouldn't advise overclocking on a cheap motherboard, I don't think the CPU is what's holding your system back in terms of gaming performance any ways. Upgrading your graphics card and swapping the RAM for a proper dual channel kit would be better use of your money if you want to see immediate improvements and not break the bank.

Skyrim is a 2+ year old game...it was poorly optimized to start with. That's not a game that represents modern titles at all.

What other games do you play?

Also, look at Tom's Hardware's K10 vs. FX comparison, the FX 6350 @ 3.9 GHz was hot on the heels of the 3570k, and @ 4.5 GHz the difference was marginal.

The FX 6300 is a 15% performance bump over your 6100. You just bought a CPU that wasn't well refined yet. Sell yours or trade it, and get a 6300 it will be FAR better than what you're getting now.

EDIT:With a 990FX board, 4.5-4.6 GHz is very typical on a 6300, many hit higher than that with air cooling

I've never heard of running 2 different sticks of ram in dual channel, but if you say so...lol. learn something new everyday. The ram is not as detrimental to gaming performance as the CPU/GPU parts are any ways, so long as you have enough of it, which you do.

Important question: What games are you playing and at what resolution/settings?

You mentioned earlier that it couldn't be your GPU because it was only at 50% load. I don't think that necessarily tells the whole story. Your GPU only has 1GB of Vram, which isn't a whole lot.

I'm guessing your being forced to run bf3 on medium because your running out of Vram. The GPU itself is having no trouble on the processing side, but has limited memory.

Running a 7850 2GB version would probably yield a significant improvement. I'd almost put money on it.