Intel or AMD

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

DonutMasta

Commendable
Jun 15, 2016
41
0
1,530
So I'm looking at buying a new CPU and I'm not entirely sure which of the two is best. To my understanding intel is currently better, but AMD has more cores and multi-threading which will be utilized much better in the future eapecially with the release of DX12. I use my PC for gaming entirely aswell. I was looking into the i5 skylake but hadn't really picked out an AMD yet. Any and all advice/info appreciated!
 
Solution
Ecky
Here's one example of an early DX12 game:

rise_proz.jpg


Remember that the intel 4xxx CPUs are already 3 years old, too, and have been replaced by Broadwell and Skylake, which brought significant improvements.

Over time, things may get better, but that's what people have been saying since Bulldozer was first released in 2011, and it's still a poor performer 5 years later.
Sort by date Sort by votes
ThatVietGuy

ThatVietGuy

Titan
Nov 6, 2007
11,718
314
70,240
There's absolutely no reason to go with AMD at this time. Their new chips (Zen) will be out soon (possibly October) and may achieve parity with equivalent Intel chips, but there's no way to know until it's released.

Don't let core count fool you - just because the FX-8xxx has more cores, it doesn't mean anything since each core doesn't perform as well as the cores on an equivalent Core i5/i7 chip.

If you need something now, your only choice is Intel.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ecky

Ecky

Illustrious
Feb 3, 2013
7,592
2
38,960
AMD's FX CPUs are already 4 years old, and are a poor choice for basically anything right now, with only a few exceptions. A core i5 performs better even in multitasking than an FX-8xxx CPU, and a Core i3 is similar in performance to an FX-6xxx CPU, but many tasks are still single-thread bottlenecked and as a result, a $110 Core i3 still crushes even the most expensive FX CPU in most tasks.

AMD's APUs are getting a bit dated too, with their integrated graphics (their strongest selling point) being barely faster than what Intel includes on all of their CPUs.

Depending on your budget, one of the less expensive Athlon X4 CPUs is arguably a better choice than the cheapest Intel Pentium and Celeron CPUs, but once you hit the $100 mark, there's no reason to look at any of AMD's offerings.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ecky

Ecky

Illustrious
Feb 3, 2013
7,592
2
38,960
Here's one example of an early DX12 game:

rise_proz.jpg


Remember that the intel 4xxx CPUs are already 3 years old, too, and have been replaced by Broadwell and Skylake, which brought significant improvements.

Over time, things may get better, but that's what people have been saying since Bulldozer was first released in 2011, and it's still a poor performer 5 years later.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Supernova1138

Supernova1138

Illustrious
Mar 22, 2011
5,340
54
37,690
AMD's cores are about half as fast as Intel's at this point, so something like an FX 8350 can only really match an i5 if you're running software that perfectly scales across 8 cores. Some productivity software can do that, but games won't even with DirectX 12. If you need to build now, you might as well go with Intel unless you are on such a tight budget that your only CPU options are a Pentium or an Athlon X4 860k, in which case you could maybe make an argument for the Athlon if you have absolutely no prospect of being able to upgrade the Pentium within the foreseeable future. AMD's current offerings outside of the low end are all nearly 4 years old, and will soon be replaced, though it's looking like it won't be until early next year before Zen hits store shelves.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom