AMD or Intel

Bosox1196 · Dec 12, 2013

I had planned on originally buying the
Intel Core i5 3570K for my new build, i have been alternatively looking at the AMD FX 6300 which is 100$ cheaper at the moment.

Is the 3570k really worth the extra 100 dollars?

my gpu is radeon 7770.

Of course i would be building this for gaming.

prudhvirazz · Dec 12, 2013

Oh yes 3570k, I heard, is very good for overclocking and good performance.

If you are looking at something cheap. FX 6300 is the best choice. It is also good for over clocking. Don't expect superior performance that you get from 3570k but still its quite good.

mauller07 · Dec 12, 2013

with ps4 and xboxone ports for games that are made for them and not 360 or ps4, more cores will be better in the end, in the long run the 6350 will be better especially with games made with mantle support.

Novuake · Dec 12, 2013

mauller07 :

Not this again...

SERIOUSLY?

mauller07 · Dec 12, 2013

Novuake :

Please enlighten me then.
the majority of game atm are made with support for around 3 cores only because of the xbox 360 having a tri core processor.
i.e made with the lowest common denominator in mind.

and with mantle enabled games, mantle gets rid the major processor overhead induced by directx and all the driver threads that are produced.

TwilightBlitz · Dec 12, 2013

mauller07 :

1. You are also aware that there a current games that support more then 4 cores and intel still wins?
2. AMD Mantle, all seems very nice but still only speculations
3. Those CPU's in consoles are rather weak compared to pc cores... just saying

mauller07 · Dec 12, 2013

dirtyferret :

Talking about the numbers of threads the majority of games are made to run with because of the xbox 360 being the lowest common denominator with a tri core processor, they will tend to run with 3 threads doing the majority of the processing even if the pc port supports more threads.

newer games are an exception if the game engines they run on are ramping up with more support for newer consoles or the game is/was a pc only titles to begin with.

Novuake · Dec 12, 2013

mauller07 :

First of all, you CAN NOT use the previous gen console in ANY comparison as they are fundamentally different than PCs.

Second, both of those assumptions are exactly that ASSUMPTIONS, you CAN NOT make promises for Mantle especially.

Thirdly, if you want to discuss this, then lets open a new thread or go PM, since this has flooded to many a thread on the forum previously, many of those where me and you were directly involved.

mauller07 · Dec 12, 2013

threading in an application is independent of the architecture of the hardware except where it is constrained by the number of processing cores available or any specific ISA the processor may have such as hyper-threading.

but the application if made cross platform will be programmed to a lowest common denominator for hardware support of the lowest common denominator.

i.e 3 major threads due to the 360 being triple core.

the major reason games on pc have such a huge disparity with processors with different IPC levels is due to the overhead of directx and all the driver threads it spawns leading to games running better on processors with higher IPC even though the game code runs fine on a less powerful hardware, i.e the processor in the xbox 360 when it does not have to deal with this overhead with the game running on 3 heavy threads mainly.

now with the game running many more lighter threads the IPC disparity decreases as shown with performance by the cpu benchmarks in highly threaded games such as battlefield 4 as threads are spread more evenly across all cores leaving each core with less work allowing each core to better cope with the overhead caused by directx.

Reynod · Dec 13, 2013

Did any of you respond to the OP's request for information ... at all?

No.

You essentially pushed the entire discussion toward consoles?

Consoles?

What do consoles have to do with processor choice for a mid range single card based gaming box?

Nothing.

At least put up a linkf for the guy to the Intel of AMD cpu's he is asking about and the pros and cons of his choice or stay out of the conversation.

Typolo · Dec 13, 2013

From the research I did on my build, the 3570k would yield higher performance in practically every area. however, the fx sreies of chips are built for gaming and if your primary focus here is gaming, the fx 6300 will yield comparable performance. Either way I think you would be very pleased with the processor.
Also the extra $100 could help you improve other components or pick up a few games

JOOK-D · Dec 13, 2013

Overall, the i5 would perform better. You could instead get a comparable FX 8320 (essentially a downclocked 8350) which would yield better performance, better than or similar to the i5. For the most part, especially in older games, the i5 would perform better. Pretty equal in newer titles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

Typolo · Dec 13, 2013

JOOK-D :

I second jook-d, I forgot to think of the magical 8-core cpu

Hagaxe · Dec 13, 2013

AMD has a better price-to-performance ratio
Intel has better performance in general, but you aren't getting it for little amounts of money

Reynod · Dec 13, 2013

That comment wasn't helpful ... either discuss the pros and cons of the particular processors to give the guy the best bang for his buck or don't post.

Frankly most mods close Intel vs AMD threads straight away becaus they turn into flamefests for the fanbois.

I don't mind as long as you focus on good advice to the user.

As soon as it spirals into a discussion outside the intent of the thread another mod will close it.

Last calls for advice before a general agreement on bang for the buck and then we will allocate a BA and close the thread.

Thanks.

jeffredo · Dec 14, 2013

It depends on your budget. If you want to spend as a little as possible and still get acceptable performance an FX-6300 paired with a 970 chipset motherboard will cost less than an Intel CPU alone. If you use a decent aftermarket cooler (which I would regardless of AMD or Intel) it can be OC'd pretty easily to at least 4.2 to 4.3 Ghz without half trying. Plus if you have no intent on upgrading your GPU there's really no reason to spend more.

Reynod · Dec 14, 2013

OP here is some info for you:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3570K-vs-AMD-FX-6300

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

JOOK-D · Dec 14, 2013

Reynod :

Do you really trust those sites? I'm just curious. Personally, synthetic tests don't tell me anything (not to mention the intel-complier cinebench scandal etc.) and I'd rather see real-world performance - notice how I got called out as soon as I did that. ¬_¬

As for the hierarchy, there was a thread about this a while ago, it does seem a little off compared to benchmarks.

Anyway. The i5 would be the better chip, but it costs more. Up to OP.

JOOK-D · Dec 14, 2013

dirtyferret :

So you call me a fanboy after I've said that the i5 is better? Ok. Just stop, smh.

Reynod · Dec 14, 2013

dirtyferret :

Your off-line now for 3 days for inappropriate behaviour here since I have already warned people.

Don't poke the bear with a stick next time.

AMD or Intel

Honorable

Distinguished

Splendid

Champion

Splendid

Honorable

Splendid

Champion

Splendid

Administrator

Honorable

Dignified

Honorable

Honorable

Administrator

Distinguished

Administrator

Dignified

Dignified

Administrator

Share this page