Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD or Intel

Last response: in Systems
Share
February 14, 2011 12:20:38 PM

I am new to these forums and I have a few questions about the system I am considering to buy. I have narrowed it down to two systems.

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item...
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item...

I am unsure about the GPU's in the systems. I am buying a new computer to run crysis 2 maxxed out. I want to either buy a new GPU or buy a second and run crossfire/sli. Any help or comments are appreciated. Thanks in advance.

More about : amd intel

February 14, 2011 12:39:05 PM

AMD or Intel it really doesn't matter for gaming.
The system with the better graphics card will usually have the best performance.
In your examples one has a $210 video and the other has a $120 video card.
Both systems will run CFX/SLI and both have enough power for two.

Without any changes in the bundles AMD Phenom II X6 1100 / Radeon HD 5850 is the better gaming option.

If you can find a Phenom II X4 955/965 or i5-760 bundle that can still handle CFX/SLI and has a better video card for the same price - that would be a better gaming option.
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 12:47:20 PM

I just noticed you posted in the pre-built section.
You probably noticed those bundles are kits and not pre-assembled for you - you'll need to do that yourself.
Just checking you're aware of that.

There are a few niggles in the packages. Like a lower power (slow) HDD which is not a good match for a gaming rig.
And the PSU and case cost $200, a bit high considering the over all cost of the parts.
Anything that would help you move up in a graphics card to a HD 5870 for example would improve your gaming performance.
m
0
l
Related resources
February 14, 2011 3:00:28 PM

The reason I am considering a six core rather than a quad is because I don't want to have to upgrade anytime soon. Is that a good way to view it or am i still better off with a quad? And in regards to the GPU i might just keep it for a while till i can afford a better one.
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 3:09:20 PM

If a quad gets you into a better graphics card you'll come out ahead in a gaming build.
And you'd never upgrade from a quad to a hex core CPU anyway.

The single video card then upgrade is always a good option.
With a decent graphics card you can sell it and help fund the new card.
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 3:17:16 PM

As WR2 mentions, at this point, a hex-core provides no additional gaming benefit over a quad-core except possibly in a very very small number of games.

Most games are still just using 2 cores, the 3rd and 4th are rarely touched, except for some RTS games (and GTA IV). Typically, software developers are a couple of years behind hardware, because they need to make games that are playable on everyone's system ranging from brand new to 2-3 years old.
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 9:42:49 PM

I'd like to add to some already good advice from WR2 and coldsleep. 4 core games are really just now emerging, and most of those run OK on 2 cores, 6 cores isn't even a gaming factor, and IMHO, won't be for quite awhile. GPU speed and memory seem to be the trends right now as far as gaming goes. While SLI and X-fire are popular options, many of the modern games don't support these techs. A single GPU is the best choice for gaming, with SLI and X-fire considered for a cheaper future upgrade. Although 2 GPUs' do tend to double performance, they don't double memory or clock speeds, generally just processing speeds. A single card with double the performance of two is also usually more cost efficient (cheaper).
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 10:59:36 PM

One of the things with the 6 core is there is the turbo option so i can increase the speed to 3.7 ghz on 3 cores. Im not trying to argue with you guys im just trying to find my best options. I appreciate all of the input so far its been very helpful.
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 11:05:43 PM

I don't think it matters what brand you go with. But i think you should atleast go quad core since alot of the new games are actually using quad. GTA4 for example runs better on my quadcore system. But personally i'd go with the i5 2500k since it's only $179.99 at microcenter. If you don't have a microcenter near you but have a Fry's electronics store they do price matching.
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 11:06:01 PM

You think we didn't consider that in our recommendations?
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 11:21:04 PM

umesswitme said:
One of the things with the 6 core is there is the turbo option so i can increase the speed to 3.7 ghz on 3 cores. Im not trying to argue with you guys im just trying to find my best options. I appreciate all of the input so far its been very helpful.

AMDs' Phenom IIs and the i5, i7 intel chips are easily boosted to a higher speed, and in many cases it is a feature. IMHO a hexa core boosted to a higher ghz, but dropped to a 3 core, is not a great boost. Although many games use three cores efficiently, the trend is towards quads. I'm not trying to sell OCing to you, but do want to mention the fact that both Intel and AMD have "turbo" types of options that are advertised by the makers. These are all safe, commonly used system performance boosts with user friendly options.
m
0
l
February 15, 2011 12:49:54 AM

Actually, the i7 in your original post looks good. This new one looks a bit too much. Don't know much, or care to, about water cooling. I was just trying to shed a little light on the AMD X6.
m
0
l
February 15, 2011 1:55:19 AM

In the tests I've seen, the X6 processors rarely boosted their clock speed more than .1 to .2 GHz. What the technology does is boost 3 cores if the other 3 are completely unused. The problem is that they're hardly ever going to be in that state.

On the AMD side, the X4 965 and X4 970 are better buys because they are at/above the clock speed that the X6 will typically get to using its turbo feature. The i5/i7 line also overclock themselves automatically, and more dramatically than the X6 does.

For a gaming machine, that i7-930 is ridiculously balanced. You have a relatively powerful processor and an older, mid-range graphics card. Unless your monitor is 1280x1024, it will not run Crysis 2 maxxed out (even then it might not). Note that the i7-950 you originally linked comes with a weaker graphics card than the AMD system.

If your goal is to run Crysis 2 maxxed out, it would be helpful to know what resolution you intend to run at. You're also looking at spending 30-40% of your budget on your graphics card, rather than the processor. Probably something along the lines of a 6900-series ATI card or a GTX 570.

If your budget is around $1000, and you're only considering pre-packaged kits, I would look at something like this i7-870 kit, it doesn't come with a graphics card, so you're free to spend the remaining nearly $400 on a GPU.

Really though, if you're considering a kit, that's not really any different (except perhaps for some minimal savings) than putting together a build on your own. I'd recommend filling out the "How to Ask for Build Advice" form and see if people can't come up with a better build for you.
m
0
l
February 15, 2011 2:09:27 AM

Approximate Purchase Date: Before March 22


Budget Range: $1,000 after rebates


System Usage from Most to Least Important: Gaming


Parts Not Required: keyboard, mouse, OS (win 7 64bit)


Preferred Website(s) for Parts: newegg.ca, tigerdirect.ca

Country of Origin: Canada


Parts Preferences: No preference


Overclocking: Yes


SLI or Crossfire: Maybe


Monitor Resolution:1680x1050 (Might buy a monitor later on because my current one is not HD)


Additional Comments: Want something that can keep up with some of the better systems out there.
m
0
l
February 18, 2011 12:49:56 AM

the i7 build is in my opinion an absolute no ..it has 12 gigs of ram ..8 is more than enough ..and you wont have any real problems with 4 ..you're spending extra money on it and its just not worth it ..and that's 1600mhz ram ..again spending extra on something that isn't going to give you much of a performance gain ..look into gskill ripjaws 1333 MHz ..8gb of which costs 100$ ..or if you must have 1600mhz look into the 1600mhz variant ..its 60$ approximately ..
and isn't that an haf 932 ?? ..its quite expensive ..why not downgrade to a 922? ..it's still great ..performs great and looks in my opinion at least better than the 932. .the Phenom build just seems more gaming oriented ..
m
0
l
February 18, 2011 1:00:26 AM

hows this for a build?? ..
AMD Phenom II X4 955 180$
gigabyte GA 880 GM USB 2.0 80$
gskill ripjaws 1333mhz 8gb 100$
xfx radeon HD 6950 280$
Samsung spinpoint f3 1tb 60$
cooler master haf 922 110$
cooler master extreme power 500w 70$
880$ ..all prices in us $ and approximate ...
hope I didn't miss anything ..
no mouse ..
no keyboard ..
no moniter ..
a ViewSonic 21" HD display costs around 170-180$ approximately..
fits into your budget without the display ..
this build should play everything at Max settings ..although it is NOT crossfire capable ..
m
0
l
February 19, 2011 9:43:50 PM

CraigHarrison said:
hows this for a build?? ..
AMD Phenom II X4 955 180$
gigabyte GA 880 GM USB 2.0 80$
gskill ripjaws 1333mhz 8gb 100$
xfx radeon HD 6950 280$
Samsung spinpoint f3 1tb 60$
cooler master haf 922 110$
cooler master extreme power 500w 70$
880$ ..all prices in us $ and approximate ...
hope I didn't miss anything ..
no mouse ..
no keyboard ..
no moniter ..
a ViewSonic 21" HD display costs around 170-180$ approximately..
fits into your budget without the display ..
this build should play everything at Max settings ..although it is NOT crossfire capable ..



It all sounds fine except maybe the PSU.... The 600W Corsair CX is on newegg for $69.99 ($59.99 after rebate) and there's also a 10% off promo code too! It's better than the Cooler Master PSU you picked ;) 

Also, Crossfire/SLI in my opinion is not worth it unless you plan to buy a pair or trio of high-end GPU's at the same time.... Some people wait until later before adding a second GPU to their existing (and probably by then obselete) one...buy that time there will aready be a new single GPU that will be more powerful and consume less power.
m
0
l
!