AMD VS INTEL processors

qasim issa · Jan 7, 2015

Iam build a gaming pc but i need a good cpu with good graphics but i dont know which brand is better if u know plz tell me the company and which model in the company in the is good but one which is not very costly

-Lone- · Jan 7, 2015

90% of the people probably will say Intel is better because each of their single core is stronger and they use less power. What's your max budget, that'll tell us what's the best CPU for you.

iisfitblud · Jan 7, 2015

AMD is the way to go if you don't have much money to spend. Intel CPU's are great after the £150/$200 dollar mark.
I currently run an AMD FX-8350 which cost me £130 and it's able to run all of my games on ultra combined with my AMD R9 290. So I say go AMD and either pick up the FX-6300 or the FX-8350, whichever is better for your budget. Just be aware that you will need an AM3+ Motherboard, and may also need to update the bios on it to use the CPU.

If you have a budget, I can help you out with your build

qasim issa · Jan 7, 2015

I can pay up to 600$ i want the best one i dont care if its intel or amd i only need which one good for gaming

-Lone- · Jan 7, 2015

$600? What's your max budget you can spend for your entire build? If it's a lot, I'll make you a x99 build, but if it is not over $2,500, then I'd say go for i5 4690k for gaming purposes only and i7 4790k if you're going to do gaming plus a bit of editing and streaming.

-Lone- · Jan 7, 2015

Also, are you in the US? If not, I'll have to do some converting with $.

qasim issa · Jan 7, 2015

I can spend good for cpu + motherboard+case + gtx 970 + cpu cooler +hp 27xi monitor+ power supply

mr91 · Jan 7, 2015

I suggest you just get an 4790k and a high performance cooler with an Asus ROG MOtherboard...

-Lone- · Jan 7, 2015

qasim issa :

Can you give me a max amount? That would be much more helpful, also in which country? Since prices are different.

yumri · Jan 7, 2015

AMD if you are on a tight budget but Intel if the preformanc gains are worth spending the extra cash. In most applications they will be about the same then maybe +/- 0%~1% in games if you get equevent processors of course. For highly optimized multithreaded games which are few and far between AMD does better but for the ussual 2 or 3 core games Intel does better. Memory management is about the same i think Intel can push DDR3 to around 3300MHz or so while AMD can only push it to around DDR3 2980 ~ 2999 but that might just be my chip and sticks of RAM as they are fairly close to one another.
Neither one at the higher end will bottleneck your GPU the GTX 980 nor the R9 295X2 nor even SLI x4 of GTX 980 nor Crossfire with 2 R9 295X2s the CPUs at the higher end of both AMD and Intel can do it with room to spare.
You then have the arguement of heat which yeah the AMD A4 generates some more heat but doesnt seem to be enough to really warm up the room more so than the Intel i5 i have. So if heat is a problem at stock speeds check yoru cooling solution(s) as if even the stock ones are set up correctly they will do a good job at cooling it down.
Power consumtion well yes AMD takes more power at stock and alot more power when overclocked with alot more heat when overclocking but not so much that you will see any benefit by going to Intel for that reason.
Ease of installing the CPU is about the same put the chip into the slot close the slot and apply the thermal paste then put the cooling device onto it be it a heatsink or a liquid cooling block then attach the cooling device to the motherboard and do the post work of getting the rest of the cooling device working.

So I will personily go with a i5-4440 or a FX-6300 as you will not see much differnece between them unless you start doing benchmarks. In that most applications, games, and etc. will not take full advatage of either just they run alot better than the CPUs under them is all.

mr91 · Jan 7, 2015

This is now always true, see the toms hardware article below.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-fx-8370e-cpu,3929-7.html

I noticed a significant difference in some games when going from a stock 3570k to a 4790k @ 4.6. The results in tomshardware is based on single player. The variance will increase when playing multi player depending on the map.

In some games the faster processor doesn't give you much more performance but slowly new games are demanding more cores and single core performance.

yumri · Jan 7, 2015

mr91 :

Even though yes slowly newer games are taking advanage of more and more cores it is the breaking up of loads that yeild that and thus games that have been in production for a few years already will not do that due to so much recodeing of it haveing to be done. For a gaming computer atm a quad core with or without hyperthreading will do good for your preformance improvement it was probably because of the games that you play and/or the speed increase of the CPU.

mr91 · Jan 7, 2015

I said I notice a significant increase in some games.

BF4 Crysis 3, Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein are examples of games that benefit form more than 4 threads.

Borderlands 2 and Arama 3 will benefit from the more powerful single core performance of the Intel processors.

B-man33 · Jan 14, 2015

qasim issa :

Are you saying $600 for the CPU only? Or are you saying $600 for CPU ,CPU cooler, motherboard, GTX
970, case, power supply and 2 X 27" monitor?

If $600 for CPU only then I would recommend the i7 5930k

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117403

Or if you want to save some cash the i7 5820k is also a good one

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117402

For a complete $600 PC on the other hand... errrr.... take a look here, but it is not with 2 X 27" monitors....

http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/BqwhTW
http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/BqwhTW/by_merchant/

Hope this helps

01002920 · Jan 14, 2015

not this again!. Mate check the gaming laptops, most of them use Nvidia with core i7, check best gaming CPUs on top there is Intel. Go for intel if you want reliability. Go for AMD if you want power with less money.

WhitewolfZ · Jan 14, 2015

qasim issa :

I'm on the intel side, I've used both but intel seemed to provide me with a better gaming experience. I agree with the previous comment about budget. Intel is more costly but smoother running. I also paired my processor with an ASUS Nvidia gtx970 GPU and NVIDIA 3D glasses. Great in game graphics. Good hunting!

alcatrazsniper · Jan 14, 2015

Well, the short story is Intel performs better. Significantly better. It's not even up for debate anymore. Now if you bring price into the equation, an AMD processor will give you great short-term value (lower price now, but spend another $600 later when AMD CPUs can't handle games anymore).

The reality though is that, unless you are REALLY desperate to save $30 bucks from an i5 on say an FX 8350, which is AMDs top of the line CPU, the be my guest. I certainly regretted it, I wanted to purchase an i7 and a GTX 970, but I just had to get an FX 6300 that would bottleneck anything more than a 760.

I'm just being real with you here.

Coonah · Jan 15, 2015

alcatrazsniper :

Well, the short story is Intel performs better. Significantly better. It's not even up for debate anymore. Now if you bring price into the equation, an AMD processor will give you great short-term value (lower price now, but spend another $600 later when AMD CPUs can't handle games anymore).

The reality though is that, unless you are REALLY desperate to save $30 bucks from an i5 on say an FX 8350, which is AMDs top of the line CPU, the be my guest. I certainly regretted it, I wanted to purchase an i7 and a GTX 970, but I just had to get an FX 6300 that would bottleneck anything more than a 760.

I'm just being real with you here.

Coonah · Jan 15, 2015

Dude... the FX 8350 is NOT the top of the line AMD processor. It's the FX-9590 which comes with a water cooler as standard.... It's a beast!
Also I run an fx 6300 and I would not buy into the bottleneck rubbish. Bottleneck using a GTX 970 you might notice 1-5 FPS difference from an i7 intel. With a decent motherboard and 8G of RAM or more the 6300 is surprisingly fast and on games like Battlefield 4 it uses all 6 cores and doesn't miss a beat.
You would need to crossfire it before you would begin to see a bottleneck and even then it wouldn't cause a huge issue.

Supernova1138 · Jan 15, 2015

Coonah :

The problem is most games are not using 6 cores right now, even with the new consoles out, and the FX 6300's single threaded performance isn't that great unless you put a hefty overclock on it. The FX 6300 is fine for Battlefield and Crysis 3 which actually do scale up to 8 cores, but it gets trounced by i3s in just about every other title and will hold back a GTX 970 on games that are CPU bound but still aren't scaling beyond 2 or 3 cores. The FX 6300's only saving grace is it might age better than an i3 if developers actually start to support multithreading, and that has been something we've been waiting for ever since the FX line started all the way back in 2011 and for the most part it still hasn't happened.

Coonah · Jan 16, 2015

Supernova1138 :

Coonah :

The problem is most games are not using 6 cores right now, even with the new consoles out, and the FX 6300's single threaded performance isn't that great unless you put a hefty overclock on it. The FX 6300 is fine for Battlefield and Crysis 3 which actually do scale up to 8 cores, but it gets trounced by i3s in just about every other title and will hold back a GTX 970 on games that are CPU bound but still aren't scaling beyond 2 or 3 cores. The FX 6300's only saving grace is it might age better than an i3 if developers actually start to support multithreading, and that has been something we've been waiting for ever since the FX line started all the way back in 2011 and for the most part it still hasn't happened.

Coonah · Jan 16, 2015

Yeah, I actually totally agree with you. I do think that the fx6300 is a really good performer for the price though.

I find that if your multitasking, like running a virus scan, transfering data between drives and having multiple tabs open in your browser all at the same time it doesn't miss a beat. Whereas doing this on higher end i3's I've worked on (I'm an IT technician) they get pretty sluggish.

It is a very effective CPU, but your right on the single threaded performance, you need a fairly power hungry over-clock to get it up to the average i5 or high end i3 level of performance.

Also the stock coolers are rubbish so over-clocking is risky without spending 50-60 bucks on an after-market cooler. I'm about to put a Coolermaster H212 cooler on mine because it's so hot where I live.

But seriously, for $130 Australian (and even cheaper now) they are hard to beat for a cheap grunty CPU.

AMD VS INTEL processors

Reputable

Admirable

Honorable

Reputable

Admirable

Admirable

Reputable

Distinguished

Admirable

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Reputable

Distinguished

Reputable

Reputable

Reputable

Reputable

Illustrious

Reputable

Reputable

Share this page