Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

Intel vs. AMD: Which is better for gaming?

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • AMD
  • CPUs
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
January 18, 2014 3:55:07 PM

Hey there. I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to the tech world. I'm also in the process of picking out parts for a gaming rig on a $500 budget. I'm stumped on processors. I hear Intel has better performance. Though some AMD processors are faster and have more cores. Which is best?

More about : intel amd gaming

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
a b å Intel
January 18, 2014 4:05:35 PM

For $500 it's unlikely you'll be able to get an intel chip in there (that's the budget for the full PC, not just the CPU right?).

Anyway here's my draft for the difference between the AMD and intel chips, some of it may not apply to you as it is a draft.

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform much better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future, see here: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/ ).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.
For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks for AMD FX 83xx vs i5/i7:
Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
Gaming and Streaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
Having shown that, the intel wins 9 times out of 10 in most purely gaming benchmarks as AMD cannot match its per-core performance. Also these particular benchmarks have been scrutinised many a time. If you wish to find out more you can google benchmarks for each processor.


In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have caught up in performance and in some cases deliver better performance than the intel's for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.
Share
January 18, 2014 4:25:38 PM

JOOK-D said:
For $500 it's unlikely you'll be able to get an intel chip in there (that's the budget for the full PC, not just the CPU right?).

Anyway here's my draft for the difference between the AMD and intel chips, some of it may not apply to you as it is a draft.

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform much better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future, see here: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/ ).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.
For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks for AMD FX 83xx vs i5/i7:
Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
Gaming and Streaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
Having shown that, the intel wins 9 times out of 10 in most purely gaming benchmarks as AMD cannot match its per-core performance. Also these particular benchmarks have been scrutinised many a time. If you wish to find out more you can google benchmarks for each processor.


In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have caught up in performance and in some cases deliver better performance than the intel's for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.


Thank you very much! The $500 is for the entire tower, including the OS (I already have the peripherals). I will use this computer for gaming (not heavy gaming, but at the same time not light gaming), hosting a small Minecraft server, recording Minecraft sessions, and doing generic computer stuff (i.e. Word, internet browsing, etc.). I also might do some video editing, but nothing really serious. For the record, I am a huge Minecraft fan.
Score
0
Related resources
January 18, 2014 4:36:19 PM

Quick little question also since I'm quite a noob to pc gaming...

I intend to solely play 'DayZ Standalone' when I pick one up, could you tell me how well these specs would run it??

Intel® Core™ i5 Processor K5130
8Gb DDR3 RAM
1Tb SATA hard drive
Integrated Graphics
Microsoft Windows 8

Thanks
Score
0
January 18, 2014 9:55:34 PM

Headhigh said:
Quick little question also since I'm quite a noob to pc gaming...

I intend to solely play 'DayZ Standalone' when I pick one up, could you tell me how well these specs would run it??

Intel® Core™ i5 Processor K5130
8Gb DDR3 RAM
1Tb SATA hard drive
Integrated Graphics
Microsoft Windows 8

Thanks


Hey if you want to ask a question post your own question, when and if you do I'll be happy to come answer your question, until then stop using other peoples posts.

Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 115 À AMD
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
January 18, 2014 10:30:21 PM

Here's the thing. On this site you will get mostly conjecture and opinion instead of fact and sometimes when you do get the facts, they are presented in a dishonest manner trying to slant you in one direction or the other. I simply speak from my own experience (been building PCs for literally 25 years). Now, I am a gamer, in fact I am a HARD-CORE gamer. Gaming is the main raison-d'etre for me having a PC to begin with. I love running modern games completely maxed-out. Now, if you look at my specs (bottom right of this post), you'll see that my processing components (CPU and GPU) are COMPLETELY made of AMD hardware. The reasons are as follows:

1.) The Intel i5 is a faster gaming CPU, but the difference between the i5-3570 and the FX-6300/8350 is so slight that I can't tell the difference.
2.) The Intel i5 is a faster gaming CPU but only RIGHT NOW. As games (and other programs) become more and more threaded, my FX-8350's performance will INCREASE over time while the i5 will remain more or less where it is. That means that my FX-8350 will be useable and relevant for longer than the current i5 because of this. Remember that the FX series architecture is still relatively new and can only get better with more advanced program designs that can actually use all of it.
3.) The FX-6300 has almost identical gameplay numbers as the FX-8350. I only bought the 8350 because I got an "I can't say no to this" deal on it. The FX-6300 is literally half the price of the i5 and again, runs games more or less the same.
4.) The money I saved with the FX-8350 made it possible for me to get my twin Radeon HD 7970s. No game (except maybe Arma III) is even capable of making these cards break a sweat at max settings. I would have had to get weaker GPUs if I had chosen the i5.
5.) The AMD-based motherboards tend to have more features on them than Intel-based boards but are still less expensive. Now, before people start screaming about 4-channel RAM, just remember how the X58 platform with its 3-channel RAM worked out. It didn't. Before people start screaming about PCI-Express v3.0, remember that the Intel boards that have PCIe 3.0 only run multi-card in x8/x8 mode. Since PCIe 3.0 is SUPPOSEDLY twice as fast as PCIe 2.0, it means that since my 990FX chipset does PCIe 2.0 x16/x16, the speed will be the same.
6.) Remember that both the Xbox ONE and Playstation 4 use 8 AMD cores with AMD Radeon graphics. Console ports will most likely perform better on a similar design. Since most PC games are console ports, this will be a very relevant concern.

Since I wanted to have my cake and eat it too, I chose AMD because I wanted maximum performance for my dollar but still wanted maximum performance. I definitely made the right choice because given the same choice again, I would take the same route and not even think twice about it. Remember that even though Intel looks better on benchmarks, human limitations don't allow us to notice those differences. So much the better, it means we don't have to pay top dollar to get a top-shelf gaming experience from our PCs.
Score
1
January 19, 2014 1:07:02 AM

@JoelsJet you are the precise reason forums get a bad name.. A lengthy pointless response.

Anyways thank you too the other 2 for the help! Appreciated
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
February 28, 2014 11:10:25 AM

"Hosting a small Minecraft server, recording Minecraft sessions, and doing generic computer stuff (i.e. Word, internet browsing, etc.). I also might do some video editing, but nothing really serious. For the record, I am a huge Minecraft fan."

What is the ip to the server and your youtube channel?
Score
0
June 7, 2014 7:44:22 PM

JOOK-D said:
For $500 it's unlikely you'll be able to get an intel chip in there (that's the budget for the full PC, not just the CPU right?).

Anyway here's my draft for the difference between the AMD and intel chips, some of it may not apply to you as it is a draft.

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform much better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future, see here: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/ ).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.
For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks for AMD FX 83xx vs i5/i7:
Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
Gaming and Streaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
Having shown that, the intel wins 9 times out of 10 in most purely gaming benchmarks as AMD cannot match its per-core performance. Also these particular benchmarks have been scrutinised many a time. If you wish to find out more you can google benchmarks for each processor.


In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have caught up in performance and in some cases deliver better performance than the intel's for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.


Thank you so much for this post! I was going to go totally intel, but then I started looking at the price which came to 1300 on PCpartpicker! After reading your post which was the most informative post I've ever read, I decided to go with AMD and get a R9 290! I am excited and it's thanks to you. Keep up the good work, and should I go with the 8350 or an APU with a graphics card?

Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 8, 2014 4:20:17 AM

PCnerd21 said:
JOOK-D said:
For $500 it's unlikely you'll be able to get an intel chip in there (that's the budget for the full PC, not just the CPU right?).

Anyway here's my draft for the difference between the AMD and intel chips, some of it may not apply to you as it is a draft.

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform much better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future, see here: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/ ).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.
For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks for AMD FX 83xx vs i5/i7:
Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
Gaming and Streaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
Having shown that, the intel wins 9 times out of 10 in most purely gaming benchmarks as AMD cannot match its per-core performance. Also these particular benchmarks have been scrutinised many a time. If you wish to find out more you can google benchmarks for each processor.


In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have caught up in performance and in some cases deliver better performance than the intel's for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.


Thank you so much for this post! I was going to go totally intel, but then I started looking at the price which came to 1300 on PCpartpicker! After reading your post which was the most informative post I've ever read, I decided to go with AMD and get a R9 290! I am excited and it's thanks to you. Keep up the good work, and should I go with the 8350 or an APU with a graphics card?



:lol:  It's funny how my position has changed with experience of the chips, and time.

I find it very hard to recommend AMD CPU's now, unless you're solely focused on video editing/rendering/encoding and on a very strict budget. The AM3+ socket is essentially a dead-end, it won't be seeing any more updates in the future.

Also, I was previously very optimistic that games were going multi-threaded. It's been months since the new consoles released and there has been no change, so I'd recommend a quad core i5 over an 8 core FX. The fact of the matter is, the FX can only outperform an i5 in possibly 1 or 2 games. That's no reason to go with it, nor is hope that properly efficient multi-threaded workloads becoming the norm.

So, honestly. Grab something like an i5 4590 and a H97 motherboard, it will have you set and outperforming the FX for a long time coming.

If you'd like, you could drop your pcpartpicker build in this thread and I could have a look through it?
Score
0
June 8, 2014 7:04:55 AM

JOOK-D said:
PCnerd21 said:
JOOK-D said:
For $500 it's unlikely you'll be able to get an intel chip in there (that's the budget for the full PC, not just the CPU right?).

Anyway here's my draft for the difference between the AMD and intel chips, some of it may not apply to you as it is a draft.

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform much better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future, see here: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/ ).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.
For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks for AMD FX 83xx vs i5/i7:
Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
Gaming and Streaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
Having shown that, the intel wins 9 times out of 10 in most purely gaming benchmarks as AMD cannot match its per-core performance. Also these particular benchmarks have been scrutinised many a time. If you wish to find out more you can google benchmarks for each processor.


In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have caught up in performance and in some cases deliver better performance than the intel's for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.


Thank you so much for this post! I was going to go totally intel, but then I started looking at the price which came to 1300 on PCpartpicker! After reading your post which was the most informative post I've ever read, I decided to go with AMD and get a R9 290! I am excited and it's thanks to you. Keep up the good work, and should I go with the 8350 or an APU with a graphics card?



:lol:  It's funny how my position has changed with experience of the chips, and time.

I find it very hard to recommend AMD CPU's now, unless you're solely focused on video editing/rendering/encoding and on a very strict budget. The AM3+ socket is essentially a dead-end, it won't be seeing any more updates in the future.

Also, I was previously very optimistic that games were going multi-threaded. It's been months since the new consoles released and there has been no change, so I'd recommend a quad core i5 over an 8 core FX. The fact of the matter is, the FX can only outperform an i5 in possibly 1 or 2 games. That's no reason to go with it, nor is hope that properly efficient multi-threaded workloads becoming the norm.

So, honestly. Grab something like an i5 4590 and a H97 motherboard, it will have you set and outperforming the FX for a long time coming.

If you'd like, you could drop your pcpartpicker build in this thread and I could have a look through it?


want the Intel build or AMD build?

Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 8, 2014 7:27:53 AM

Either or both. :lol: 
Score
0
June 8, 2014 7:52:28 AM

Here is my intel build should I go with a z87 or z97 motherboard? And is my graphics card a good pick? If there are any other parts that you would change that I can save money on what would they be?

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/kGRkgs
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 8, 2014 8:04:12 AM

Z97, there's no reason not to. It's priced essentially the same as Z87 but should support Broadwell when it releases.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/brCLwP

So I made a few changes. I swapped out the Hero for a Z97 Extreme4 - generally the ROG series are very expensive, and I think a mid-high end Z97 should allow you to achieve what you want without costing an arm and a leg. I put the money saved into a NH-D14 which should give you a far better overclock than the CM Hyper 212 EVO would.

I then changed the R9 290 - you seem to have selected a very expensive one, when you can get them for far cheaper.

I cannot fault the rest of your part choice, though I wouldn't personally spend that much on a case.

Depending on when you order this system, you could potentially wait. The i5 4690k is releasing around the 26th of this month, which will reach higher overclocks than a 4670k.
Score
0
June 8, 2014 6:33:00 PM

JOOK-D said:
Z97, there's no reason not to. It's priced essentially the same as Z87 but should support Broadwell when it releases.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/brCLwP

So I made a few changes. I swapped out the Hero for a Z97 Extreme4 - generally the ROG series are very expensive, and I think a mid-high end Z97 should allow you to achieve what you want without costing an arm and a leg. I put the money saved into a NH-D14 which should give you a far better overclock than the CM Hyper 212 EVO would.

I then changed the R9 290 - you seem to have selected a very expensive one, when you can get them for far cheaper.

I cannot fault the rest of your part choice, though I wouldn't personally spend that much on a case.

Depending on when you order this system, you could potentially wait. The i5 4690k is releasing around the 26th of this month, which will reach higher overclocks than a 4670k.


Thanks for the help I appreciate it. Just got off work.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2014 11:57:24 PM

This is my config

AMD 8350 (stock clock 4 GHz)
GIGABYTE 880FXA UD3
CORSAIR H110
SAPPHIRE R9 280X DUAL X (Stock)
RAM 8 GB CORSAIR XMS3
CORSAIR GS700 PSU
AUSU XONAR D2X Sound Card
HDD WD Caviar Green


my fps I get in gaming is much lower than i5 (games like BF3, BF4, CSGO)
its actually half of what my friend is getting. (i5 3570k, ATI 7950)
Score
0
June 9, 2014 8:41:01 AM

ONKI said:
This is my config

AMD 8350 (stock clock 4 GHz)
GIGABYTE 880FXA UD3
CORSAIR H110
SAPPHIRE R9 280X DUAL X (Stock)
RAM 8 GB CORSAIR XMS3
CORSAIR GS700 PSU
AUSU XONAR D2X Sound Card
HDD WD Caviar Green


my fps I get in gaming is much lower than i5 (games like BF3, BF4, CSGO)
its actually half of what my friend is getting. (i5 3570k, ATI 7950)


How is the 280 compared to the 290? Is the 290 worth it?
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2014 1:44:38 AM

PCnerd21 said:
ONKI said:
This is my config

AMD 8350 (stock clock 4 GHz)
GIGABYTE 880FXA UD3
CORSAIR H110
SAPPHIRE R9 280X DUAL X (Stock)
RAM 8 GB CORSAIR XMS3
CORSAIR GS700 PSU
AUSU XONAR D2X Sound Card
HDD WD Caviar Green


my fps I get in gaming is much lower than i5 (games like BF3, BF4, CSGO)
its actually half of what my friend is getting. (i5 3570k, ATI 7950)


How is the 280 compared to the 290? Is the 290 worth it?


Im not at all satisfied with my PC, either its the graphics card problem or the Processor..
frames are sad. AMD says u get better performance if ur resolution is higher..

I play at 1024 x 768 I get 110 fps on bf3 and if I play full HD I get 80. and that also fluctuates a lot.

I am sure 290 x will be better...280 x peacefully sits at 45-60 degrees at Indian heat.
Score
0
August 20, 2014 9:48:59 AM

PCnerd21 said:
JOOK-D said:
Z97, there's no reason not to. It's priced essentially the same as Z87 but should support Broadwell when it releases.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/brCLwP

So I made a few changes. I swapped out the Hero for a Z97 Extreme4 - generally the ROG series are very expensive, and I think a mid-high end Z97 should allow you to achieve what you want without costing an arm and a leg. I put the money saved into a NH-D14 which should give you a far better overclock than the CM Hyper 212 EVO would.

I then changed the R9 290 - you seem to have selected a very expensive one, when you can get them for far cheaper.

I cannot fault the rest of your part choice, though I wouldn't personally spend that much on a case.

Depending on when you order this system, you could potentially wait. The i5 4690k is releasing around the 26th of this month, which will reach higher overclocks than a 4670k.


Thanks for the help I appreciate it. Just got off work.


Hey, isnt the water cooler better than heatsinks or the vacuum thing. like i heard that the H100i is good
Score
0
September 24, 2014 5:55:28 AM

Headhigh said:
Quick little question also since I'm quite a noob to pc gaming...

I intend to solely play 'DayZ Standalone' when I pick one up, could you tell me how well these specs would run it??

Intel® Core™ i5 Processor K5130
8Gb DDR3 RAM
1Tb SATA hard drive
Integrated Graphics
Microsoft Windows 8

Thanks


An Intel's integrated graphics aren't going to run DayZ SA at all well. Maybe everything on the lowest settings at about 10-15fps.
Score
0
September 24, 2014 4:33:52 PM

ONKI said:
PCnerd21 said:
ONKI said:
This is my config

AMD 8350 (stock clock 4 GHz)
GIGABYTE 880FXA UD3
CORSAIR H110
SAPPHIRE R9 280X DUAL X (Stock)
RAM 8 GB CORSAIR XMS3
CORSAIR GS700 PSU
AUSU XONAR D2X Sound Card
HDD WD Caviar Green


my fps I get in gaming is much lower than i5 (games like BF3, BF4, CSGO)
its actually half of what my friend is getting. (i5 3570k, ATI 7950)


How is the 280 compared to the 290? Is the 290 worth it?


Im not at all satisfied with my PC, either its the graphics card problem or the Processor..
frames are sad. AMD says u get better performance if ur resolution is higher..

I play at 1024 x 768 I get 110 fps on bf3 and if I play full HD I get 80. and that also fluctuates a lot.

I am sure 290 x will be better...280 x peacefully sits at 45-60 degrees at Indian heat.


Just because you don't get a higher number fps you are completely dis-satisfied with your system? Really? 80 fps is a perfectly acceptable frame rate. That higher number is a perk, nothing more.

Be happy that you saved atleast a hundred dollars by going AMD over Intel and can play the game at over 60 fps.
Score
0
October 3, 2014 3:54:58 PM

True
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
a b å Intel
October 13, 2014 1:15:26 AM

Meg2015 said:
So basically Pentium are both inferior and more expensive as per usual.

AMD is the way to go, because old games play fine on it because old games arnt that demanding, and they will last alot longer as more and more games make use of multi cores, and they definately will do that, theres no way around multi cores now even the consoles are packin 8 cores.

So basically AMD are better and alot cheaper.

If you want to go with pentium you are an idiot, with an identity crisis, you think you are intel and will do whatever it takes to defend intel (you) irrationally.

If you look objectively AMD are better, because Intels only significant claim of superiority is that a single core is a bit better, but the single core on an AMD machine while not as good is plenty good enough to run any single core games well. So the only advantage intel has isnt really an advantage and it cost more!? Madness!


Sorry Meg but you're wrong there.

Throwing insults and calling people irrational doesn't make a statement correct. Multithreading has been a possibility for a long time now, and it's still not well implemented. Games that do use it run heavily on a few main threads, and spawn subthreads for other cores - ultimately it'll still run better on a few fast cores than multiple slower ones as a result. So "So basically AMD are better and alot cheaper" is incorrect.

There's actually nothing wrong with pentiums, especially the newer one which you can overclock on just about any chipset - you can even get it to match the i3's, which as I've told you before, often outperform the FX's that AMD offer. Intel's per-core performance is singificantly better. Look up benches of just about any game that is heavily dependent on a single core and intel tends to stomp AMD, not just "a bit better". Intel costs more for the reason, and that reason is better performance.

Please just stick to getting advice on your thread rather than giving it to others as of yet, spreading misinformation is worse than not getting any information at all. You also resurrected an old thread completely unnecessarily.
Score
0
October 28, 2014 3:21:05 PM

Guys, lately i've seen developers put fx 6300 on the category of i5 2500k or i5 3570k and the fx 8350 on the i7s category on their minimum or recommended requirements, Assassins Creed Unity for example... Is reality really changing or are they just giving a hand to AMD?
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
October 28, 2014 3:24:37 PM

Tristtan said:
Guys, lately i've seen developers put fx 6300 on the category of i5 2500k or i5 3570k and the fx 8350 on the i7s category on their minimum or recommended requirements, Assassins Creed Unity for example... Is reality really changing or are they just giving a hand to AMD?


I dont know what they're doing because I wouldnt make those comparisons at all

Score
0
November 11, 2014 9:33:04 AM


HY i am buying new pc for the gaming and i am in the dilema betwen i5-3570 or amd fx series x8 9590
OR intel i7 3770S or amd fx series x8 9370
OR intel i7 3770K
i want the max performance and so i can play all the new games that will come out on max what is your pick betwen this 5?
THANKS IN ADVANCE :) 

Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2014 9:40:09 AM

Tristtan said:
Guys, lately i've seen developers put fx 6300 on the category of i5 2500k or i5 3570k and the fx 8350 on the i7s category on their minimum or recommended requirements, Assassins Creed Unity for example... Is reality really changing or are they just giving a hand to AMD?


Neither. They're just trying to sell games.
Score
0
November 13, 2014 7:09:24 PM

VenBaja said:
Tristtan said:
Guys, lately i've seen developers put fx 6300 on the category of i5 2500k or i5 3570k and the fx 8350 on the i7s category on their minimum or recommended requirements, Assassins Creed Unity for example... Is reality really changing or are they just giving a hand to AMD?


Neither. They're just trying to sell games.


Making people think they need to buy a new PC for playing the game doesnt seem like a smart way to sell games.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 14, 2014 2:06:34 PM

Tristtan said:
VenBaja said:
Tristtan said:
Guys, lately i've seen developers put fx 6300 on the category of i5 2500k or i5 3570k and the fx 8350 on the i7s category on their minimum or recommended requirements, Assassins Creed Unity for example... Is reality really changing or are they just giving a hand to AMD?


Neither. They're just trying to sell games.


Making people think they need to buy a new PC for playing the game doesnt seem like a smart way to sell games.


I'm not sure I follow you. How do you think they're trying to tell anyone to build a new PC? They have no idea, nor do they care about what you have in your case.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 14, 2014 3:33:10 PM

Almost a year old thread. Take it somewhere else?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 14, 2014 3:46:12 PM

JOOK-D said:
Almost a year old thread. Take it somewhere else?


What's the difference? It's the same as the 27 other Intel vs AMD threads that pop up every day. Gotta talk about something...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 14, 2014 4:07:38 PM

If you're gaming, NEVER get an AMD CPU, you're merely going to handicap yourself. It's 100% myth that AMD CPUs perform better than Intel in multi-threaded games.

Look at the benchmarks for Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare which is a heavily multi-threaded game:


Then Look at Battlefield 4, another heavily threaded game:


AMD CPUs are in the absolute gutter right now, DO NOT get AMD CPUs for gaming. The myth that somehow they're going to magically outperform Intel in the future is NOT holding up in any of these new multi-threaded games.

Furthermore, if you're on a budget DO NOT get an i7. Get an i5-4690K instead and overclock that beast to 4.5-4.7Ghz. Look at the benchmarks how close the i5 is to i7 but the i7 is $100 more. Totally not worth it.

So in short, get an i5-4690K and Gigabyte Z97X-SLI motherboard. Can be had for under $400. Totally worth it.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 15, 2014 7:25:25 AM

VenBaja said:
JOOK-D said:
Almost a year old thread. Take it somewhere else?


What's the difference? It's the same as the 27 other Intel vs AMD threads that pop up every day. Gotta talk about something...


Most people won't read threads unless it's their own. This conversation has been had a billion times as you pointed out. This isn't helping anyone.
Score
0
November 25, 2014 7:44:32 AM

Sorry for posting in this old thread, im in a somewhat same situation as the thread starter so thought id ask here since its been going on for a while.
There are great answers but i still want to ask, it seems Intel outperforms the AMD cpus, but performance-wise does this actually affect gaming a lot? Is it a very big noticeable difference?

As in ONKIs case, when hes getting lower FPS than his friends using Intel i5's, how much of a performance difference is it actually, as in is it still playable? or was it just that the FPS was lower, but still really good?

On a rather tight budget so i will probably not be able to get all Intel parts so im really curious about exactly what 'outperform' and 'lower FPS' actually says here. If it does actually affect a lot i guess ill have to wait for hot discounts.
Which one gives more bang for the buck?

Score
0
November 25, 2014 6:09:50 PM

VenBaja said:
JOOK-D said:
Almost a year old thread. Take it somewhere else?


What's the difference? It's the same as the 27 other Intel vs AMD threads that pop up every day. Gotta talk about something...


The difference is new games seem to really be getting advantage of AMDs 8 cores finally. I´ve seen recent benchmarks for games like DA Inquisition where the 8350 does as well as the 2x priced I7s.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 26, 2014 5:34:17 AM

Tristtan said:
VenBaja said:
JOOK-D said:
Almost a year old thread. Take it somewhere else?


What's the difference? It's the same as the 27 other Intel vs AMD threads that pop up every day. Gotta talk about something...


The difference is new games seem to really be getting advantage of AMDs 8 cores finally. I´ve seen recent benchmarks for games like DA Inquisition where the 8350 does as well as the 2x priced I7s.


Everyone please stop necroing this thread. However, it seems your findings are true,



Interesting results.

However, it seems there might actually be quite a heavy GPU bottleneck there. When the GPU strain is alleviated, the itel CPUs pull ahead again.



In any case, the adoption of well-implemented multithreading is becoming more widespread, and that's a good thing for everyone.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2014 2:25:04 PM

Tristtan said:
VenBaja said:
JOOK-D said:
Almost a year old thread. Take it somewhere else?


What's the difference? It's the same as the 27 other Intel vs AMD threads that pop up every day. Gotta talk about something...


The difference is new games seem to really be getting advantage of AMDs 8 cores finally. I´ve seen recent benchmarks for games like DA Inquisition where the 8350 does as well as the 2x priced I7s.


That is a singleplayer game, which have always run similarly on everything from a dual core to an i7. Large multiplayer games are what demand more CPU performance. You'll find precious few multiplayer benchmarks, because it's not a reliable, repeatable thing to bench. Anecdotal evidence from just about anyone who's switched from AMD to Intel will tell the true story though.

The are about 20 threads a day on this subforum from people with buyer's remorse looking to "upgrade" from an FX series processor to an Intel i5 or i7. In contrast, I've yet to see anyone looking to swap an i5 or i7 for anything from AMD. I've also yet to see anyone that has had buyer's remorse and switched from AMD to Intel come back and say "Crap guys, I never should have switched. My performance is so much lower with Intel!"
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2014 4:16:07 AM

Mayonnaisu said:
Sorry for posting in this old thread, im in a somewhat same situation as the thread starter so thought id ask here since its been going on for a while.
There are great answers but i still want to ask, it seems Intel outperforms the AMD cpus, but performance-wise does this actually affect gaming a lot? Is it a very big noticeable difference?

As in ONKIs case, when hes getting lower FPS than his friends using Intel i5's, how much of a performance difference is it actually, as in is it still playable? or was it just that the FPS was lower, but still really good?

On a rather tight budget so i will probably not be able to get all Intel parts so im really curious about exactly what 'outperform' and 'lower FPS' actually says here. If it does actually affect a lot i guess ill have to wait for hot discounts.
Which one gives more bang for the buck?



its a personal choice I wud say few people like amd and few intel
I used AMD for a longer run when I never cared abt fps and in games like cod4.
now after realizing the fact abt the fps and the new games with much higher detail in graphics its totally an intel win.

I would suggest you to go for a cheaper intel rather than an AMD. trust me u will enjoy every penny u spend for an intel cpu.
Score
0
December 1, 2014 4:32:01 PM

JOOK-D said:
Tristtan said:
VenBaja said:
JOOK-D said:
Almost a year old thread. Take it somewhere else?


What's the difference? It's the same as the 27 other Intel vs AMD threads that pop up every day. Gotta talk about something...


The difference is new games seem to really be getting advantage of AMDs 8 cores finally. I´ve seen recent benchmarks for games like DA Inquisition where the 8350 does as well as the 2x priced I7s.


Everyone please stop necroing this thread. However, it seems your findings are true,

In any case, the adoption of well-implemented multithreading is becoming more widespread, and that's a good thing for everyone.


Yes my friend, that seems to be the case, i,ve found some more examples on latest releases that seem to be on the same direction. and as you say, it is good for everyone.
Score
0
December 3, 2014 7:08:38 PM

Headhigh said:
@JoelsJet you are the precise reason forums get a bad name.. A lengthy pointless response.

Anyways thank you too the other 2 for the help! Appreciated


JOOK-D said:
PCnerd21 said:
JOOK-D said:
For $500 it's unlikely you'll be able to get an intel chip in there (that's the budget for the full PC, not just the CPU right?).

Anyway here's my draft for the difference between the AMD and intel chips, some of it may not apply to you as it is a draft.

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform much better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future, see here: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/ ).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.
For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks for AMD FX 83xx vs i5/i7:
Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
Gaming and Streaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
Having shown that, the intel wins 9 times out of 10 in most purely gaming benchmarks as AMD cannot match its per-core performance. Also these particular benchmarks have been scrutinised many a time. If you wish to find out more you can google benchmarks for each processor.


In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have caught up in performance and in some cases deliver better performance than the intel's for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.


Thank you so much for this post! I was going to go totally intel, but then I started looking at the price which came to 1300 on PCpartpicker! After reading your post which was the most informative post I've ever read, I decided to go with AMD and get a R9 290! I am excited and it's thanks to you. Keep up the good work, and should I go with the 8350 or an APU with a graphics card?



:lol:  It's funny how my position has changed with experience of the chips, and time.

I find it very hard to recommend AMD CPU's now, unless you're solely focused on video editing/rendering/encoding and on a very strict budget. The AM3+ socket is essentially a dead-end, it won't be seeing any more updates in the future.

Also, I was previously very optimistic that games were going multi-threaded. It's been months since the new consoles released and there has been no change, so I'd recommend a quad core i5 over an 8 core FX. The fact of the matter is, the FX can only outperform an i5 in possibly 1 or 2 games. That's no reason to go with it, nor is hope that properly efficient multi-threaded workloads becoming the norm.

So, honestly. Grab something like an i5 4590 and a H97 motherboard, it will have you set and outperforming the FX for a long time coming.

If you'd like, you could drop your pcpartpicker build in this thread and I could have a look through it?


ONKI said:
This is my config

AMD 8350 (stock clock 4 GHz)
GIGABYTE 880FXA UD3
CORSAIR H110
SAPPHIRE R9 280X DUAL X (Stock)
RAM 8 GB CORSAIR XMS3
CORSAIR GS700 PSU
AUSU XONAR D2X Sound Card
HDD WD Caviar Green


my fps I get in gaming is much lower than i5 (games like BF3, BF4, CSGO)
its actually half of what my friend is getting. (i5 3570k, ATI 7950)


This I find very hard to believe unless he is running a better GPU, you probably have a chipset driver or GPU driver issue or he is running a much better GPU. Simply going with a stronger CPU will not increase your FPS by half, that is rediculous. If your friend has a 7990 I would believe it because they are a smoken card.
Score
0
December 4, 2014 3:51:00 AM

I'm a sys admin and have been building PCs for 20 + years (yep built my first one with a 286 chip :) )

Personally I have gone with am AMD chip and an nvidia GPU all most all the time. I just ordered a GIGABYTE GV-R927XOC-2GD GPU to replace my GTX 550.

The main issue here in cost vs performance. The AMD motherboard normally give you a better deal then the Intel one do. Also the AMD chip are almost always half the price of the Intel of similar level. Then you have the overclocking on the AMD which is fun to play with. In the end you can build a very playable AMD based system for much less money then the Intel system.


Everybody looks at all these numbers, but honestly how many of you notice a FPS difference if it is over 60-70 anyway?





PC:
x-UFO case -water cooled (17 in x 17in aircraft aluminum -- very cool case :) )
GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 MB
Nvidia GTX 550 TI to be replaced by new GPU
AMD FX-8320 CPU
16GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X memmory
SeaSonic X-1050 PSU
Score
0
December 4, 2014 1:56:08 PM

ok, now, should i get a z97 with a haswell or should i wait for skylake? :p 
Score
0
December 8, 2014 11:31:58 PM

Dismanrc said:
I'm a sys admin and have been building PCs for 20 + years (yep built my first one with a 286 chip :) )

Personally I have gone with am AMD chip and an nvidia GPU all most all the time. I just ordered a GIGABYTE GV-R927XOC-2GD GPU to replace my GTX 550.

The main issue here in cost vs performance. The AMD motherboard normally give you a better deal then the Intel one do. Also the AMD chip are almost always half the price of the Intel of similar level. Then you have the overclocking on the AMD which is fun to play with. In the end you can build a very playable AMD based system for much less money then the Intel system.


Everybody looks at all these numbers, but honestly how many of you notice a FPS difference if it is over 60-70 anyway?





PC:
x-UFO case -water cooled (17 in x 17in aircraft aluminum -- very cool case :) )
GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 MB
Nvidia GTX 550 TI to be replaced by new GPU
AMD FX-8320 CPU
16GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X memmory
SeaSonic X-1050 PSU


guys like you should just be banned of tech forums, giving false info to people who will actually spend real money basing on that.
Claiming you build systems since 20+ years but saying
intel and amd cpus are equal for half the price - wrong
chapter about amd overclocking - let me inform you intel does overclock too, and way better
talking price/performance and getting a nvidia
building a gaming pc with an amd 8520 and a 550ti - do you run everything on 1024x768?
have a 1050x psu with this system - building systems since 20+ years, go lie somewhere else, or advise your clients to save money asking someone else lol
and the top of most, talking budget and having a ufo case... i cant believe you exists!!

Only reason to use amd cpu for gaming is money, amd is very good for that, with a decent game experience at most. intel cpus are far better for the time being, for a definitely higher price, but thats what happens where there is a huge gap. for gpus its another story, amd is very good with perf and has decent prices.
Score
0
December 9, 2014 11:42:51 AM

I'm sorry for this but I had to reply...

tomalh said:
Only reason to use amd cpu for gaming is money, amd is very good for that, with a decent game experience at most. intel cpus are far better for the time being, for a definitely higher price, but thats what happens where there is a huge gap. for gpus its another story, amd is very good with perf and has decent prices.


This...

After lurking these threads for a LONG time, it really comes down to money. How much do you have to spend? If you're gaming on a budget, you're seemingly well served to install an AMD CPU into your system. Why? So you don't have to downgrade your GPU to save money and fit your build into your budget. If you have a decently sized budget to build, purchase an Intel CPU. Why? You can afford BIG GPU & BIG CPU.

This whole fight over which is better, the argument is always, well AMD performs almost as well at a better price. Bingo. Exactly. Almost as well and at a better price. "IF" performance is very close, what's argument? PRICE. What can you afford? THAT'S the bottom line. And will always be the bottom line.

Score
0
December 9, 2014 11:46:06 AM

Pizzaman633 said:
Hey there. I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to the tech world. I'm also in the process of picking out parts for a gaming rig on a $500 budget. I'm stumped on processors. I hear Intel has better performance. Though some AMD processors are faster and have more cores. Which is best?


One of the best AMD CPU's:
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd8350frhkbox
Score
0
December 9, 2014 5:51:59 PM

Well, First of all, If it says AMD and Quad core for the same product, what it really means is dual core with hyper threading. I checked my cousins machine with an FX 4150 and it said 2 physical and 4 logical cores. So if you plan to buy a quad core FX, just get the i3-4150. They run really cool and are "quad core" according to AMDs standards. I tried an i3 out, and on 1080p with a gtx 660, I can play at ultra on Bioshock and other AAA titles. So the i3 definitely isn't a bottleneck unless you have gtx 770+ or 970+ and you wouldn't have that anyways on a budget build. I recommend i3, gtx 750ti, 8gb ram, 1tb hdd, 500w evga psu, b85 MotherBoard, and a cool looking cheap case
Score
0
December 10, 2014 12:14:05 AM

tomalh said:
Dismanrc said:
I'm a sys admin and have been building PCs for 20 + years (yep built my first one with a 286 chip :) )

Personally I have gone with am AMD chip and an nvidia GPU all most all the time. I just ordered a GIGABYTE GV-R927XOC-2GD GPU to replace my GTX 550.

The main issue here in cost vs performance. The AMD motherboard normally give you a better deal then the Intel one do. Also the AMD chip are almost always half the price of the Intel of similar level. Then you have the overclocking on the AMD which is fun to play with. In the end you can build a very playable AMD based system for much less money then the Intel system.


Everybody looks at all these numbers, but honestly how many of you notice a FPS difference if it is over 60-70 anyway?





PC:
x-UFO case -water cooled (17 in x 17in aircraft aluminum -- very cool case :) )
GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 MB
Nvidia GTX 550 TI to be replaced by new GPU
AMD FX-8320 CPU
16GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X memmory
SeaSonic X-1050 PSU


guys like you should just be banned of tech forums, giving false info to people who will actually spend real money basing on that.
Claiming you build systems since 20+ years but saying
intel and amd cpus are equal for half the price - wrong
chapter about amd overclocking - let me inform you intel does overclock too, and way better
talking price/performance and getting a nvidia
building a gaming pc with an amd 8520 and a 550ti - do you run everything on 1024x768?
have a 1050x psu with this system - building systems since 20+ years, go lie somewhere else, or advise your clients to save money asking someone else lol
and the top of most, talking budget and having a ufo case... i cant believe you exists!!

Only reason to use amd cpu for gaming is money, amd is very good for that, with a decent game experience at most. intel cpus are far better for the time being, for a definitely higher price, but thats what happens where there is a huge gap. for gpus its another story, amd is very good with perf and has decent prices.


Let’s just look at what we both said
“Claiming you build systems since 20+ years but saying intel and amd cpus are equal for half the price – wrong”
I HAVEbeen building for 20+ years. And I never said the CPU are equal … I said that “half the price of the Intel of similar level”
I see the fX-8320 and i7-3770K compared a lot for gaming, the i7 bets the AMD by about 5%+. The cost is Amd ~ $150 i7 ~ $300. Yes you can go with a high end i5 and get the cost down to ~$200, but then you need to look at the MB. The AMD MB normally has lots more goodies then the Intel one’s do.

“chapter about amd overclocking - let me inform you Intel does overclock too, and way better”
Yes Intel does overclock, but not to degree that AMD does. Most people agree on this.

“talking price/performance and getting a nvidia”
If you notice I did say I just got a new GIGABYTE GV-R927XOC-2GD. The GTX 550 TI was best I could afford at the time. And that was almost 2 years ago.

“building a gaming pc with an amd 8520 and a 550ti - do you run everything on 1024x768?”
Nope I have been playing Dragon Age Inquisition @ 1680x1050 with no issues at all. In fact I have played all the Dragon Age with this setup @ 1680x1050 with no issues.
I will say the new GPU did make a difference and I can now play with everything on Ultra.

“have a 1050x psu with this system”
Yep got a new SeaSonic X-1050 about 2 months ago when my old 550W Thermaltake I bought 6+ years died. The X-1050 is a good investment.

Oh and the X-ufo case I have; I bought in 2003 when I had some money, I put $6000 into that case and system ATT. The only thing still left is the case and the water cooling system; everything else has be replace at least 2-3 times.

It’s all about the bang for the buck. If you have no cash issues go with the Intel i7 system and the Radeon GPU. As I said most people get caught looking at the numbers. (ie FPS… more than 80 is normally a waste anyway; the eye can only see about 80). If you have a low budget look for expandability/upgradability normally AMD CPU with a Radeon GPU is a very valid way to go.
Score
2
a b 4 Gaming
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
a b å Intel
December 10, 2014 8:08:48 AM

Score
0