Intel vs AMD + SSD

[Toxic72]

Well, its decision time. I have the option of going Intel or AMD (with some trade-offs)

Intel -
2500k - CPU
ASRock p67 Extreme4 - Mobo
CM H212 - Cooler

AMD -
Phenom II 965 - CPU
Asus 870 - Mobo
CM H212 - Cooler

With the price difference between the two, I would be able to get a 60GB Mushkin SSD with the AMD setup, which I would use as a boot drive and storage for a few select games. I'm really torn between the two sides, a lot of people say the SSD makes the world of difference, but framerates in games would be higher with the Sandy Bridge CPU. Just wanted to hear some opinions... which would you choose and why?

 

[Mutt x]

That's a great question. I can't give you much detail but your FPS are going to be determined most by your GPU and that will be the same for either system.

What a SSD will give you is quick boots every time you start up and will load games/applications quicker. Still, thats a only a few seconds at most but I can see the appeal.

I hope someone weighs in on the "real world" or at least gaming world differences between the 2500K and Phenom II 965 with an idea what the price premium between the two systems really gets you.

 

[Why_Me]

Well, its decision time. I have the option of going Intel or AMD (with some trade-offs)

Intel -
2500k - CPU
ASRock p67 Extreme4 - Mobo
CM H212 - Cooler

AMD -
Phenom II 965 - CPU
Asus 870 - Mobo
CM H212 - Cooler

With the price difference between the two, I would be able to get a 60GB Mushkin SSD with the AMD setup, which I would use as a boot drive and storage for a few select games. I'm really torn between the two sides, a lot of people say the SSD makes the world of difference, but framerates in games would be higher with the Sandy Bridge CPU. Just wanted to hear some opinions... which would you choose and why?

If this is in regards to a gaming build...then the question is moot. Let's see... an SSD to load up a second rate build, or take a second or two longer to boot up a superior build.

So what's the question again ?

 

[axipher]

For general multi-tasking, opening programs, loading maps in between games, the SSD and AMD combo will take the prize. For gaming, it will rely a lot more on your GPU. The only benefit I can see from the Intel i5 set-up would be for heavy loads such as video encoding, drafting, 3D modelling, etc. From what I've seen in benchmarks, the AMD 955 with a mild over clock will power almost any GPU set-up without bottlenecking it.

 

[DXRick]

I would chose the 2500K build with a slow HD. In fact, I already did this near the end of last year, with my i7-950 + Western Digital 1T Black + HD 6870 build. I was actually planning to get an SSD (the Corsair Force 120G), but aborted that plan when I read it would not help gaming performance, except for initial startup and when the game needs to load a new level)

EDIT: axipher's response snuck in before mine.

The first game I played is Oblivion (now that I finally have a build that can play it). This game would actually benefit from the AMD + SSD build, since the AMD 965 is plenty of CPU power and the SSD would improve load times.

My next game is SpaceCraft II, a game that is more CPU hungry. Given the latest games (and even some future ones), I would think the 2500K build would be a better choice. Am I wrong?

 

[Why_Me]

For general multi-tasking, opening programs, loading maps in between games, the SSD and AMD combo will take the prize. For gaming, it will rely a lot more on your GPU. The only benefit I can see from the Intel i5 set-up would be for heavy loads such as video encoding, drafting, 3D modelling, etc. From what I've seen in benchmarks, the AMD 955 with a mild over clock will power almost any GPU set-up without bottlenecking it.

If that's the case...well then every pc hardware site on the net including this one is totally wrong seeing how all the reviews show different from what you just posted in regards to those two cpu's. If I was building a gaming rig and I had a chance to increase my frame rates vs loading up Windows and a proggy or two a few seconds faster then I would go with the AMD if I had just received a frontal lobe lobotomy and had what was left of my brains sucked out of my skull with a shop vac.


http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=288 <----- 965BE vs 2500K

 

[herpity]

Why the hell would you buy a 965?

Rebranded 955 for suckers.

 

[chmcke01]

Why_Me is right. If anyone could see that benchmark comparison and still go with the AMD, they would need to be checked out for mental disabilities.

 

[Toxic72]

Lets not get hostile here... The video card is a 6950 2GB, and two of the main games I will be playing are Fall out 3 and Oblivion (and later Skyrim). This is why I'm having a hard time deciding.

 

[Why_Me]

Lets not get hostile here... The video card is a 6950 2GB, and two of the main games I will be playing are Fall out 3 and Oblivion (and later Skyrim). This is why I'm having a hard time deciding.

If your having a difficult time deciding what cpu to go with, you might want to go with a pre built...maybe cyber power or something.

 

[Toxic72]

Why? That would just cost me more money for something I could do myself...

 

[herpity]

Why? That would just cost me more money for something I could do myself...

It was a subtle insult.

 

[Toxic72]

I see that things get pretty hostile here on the TH forums, I'll take my questions elsewhere.

 

[DXRick]

You seem to be looking for someone to tell you to get the AMD + SSD, since you have ignored Why_me and me (and every site on the net that has shown how unnecessary an SSD is for gaming).

Check out this link. You will see that you are correct for Fallout 3, but look at the Dragon Age score. An SSD would not change the FPS of any game. For Oblivion, I don't have time to read the one sentence screens that are shown while it is loading a level.

So, the choice comes down to:

1. AMD + SSD - Your CPU is going to bottleneck several current games, and may have a problem with future games you want to play. But, the SSD will make the game take 2 seconds to load instead of 4.

2. 2500K + a fast HD - You have the CPU power to handle all of today's games well (especially mated to the 6950) and will be there for future games that require more CPU power. But, the game will take 4 seconds to load instead of 2.

Why would you sacrifice CPU power (and FPS) just to get the game to start a bit faster? We are talking seconds here, not minutes.

 

[extraspicy]

Let's be clear about the difference between an SSD and a conventional HDD.

An SSD will generally read and write at about 270MB/sec. A coventional HDD will read at 60MB/sec and write at 35MB/sec, but you can forget that if the file isn't contigious. Anyway, with some rudimentary maths, we can actually work out that conventional HDD is about 6 times slower than an SSD (not to mention the random reads etc.)

And so, there actually are games developed which read large files on your hard disk to load textures, scenarary, and generally other stuff which we know as graphics. Faster access = fun times.

Ok, the AMD vs Intel thing - generally Intel is better across the board from everything I've ever read, but your £200/$200 AMD quad or hex chip isn't going to give you 1FPS in a game. I'm running an AMD Phenom II 945 @ 3Ghz, with ATI 5770 1GB in 1920x1080 I'm getting no lower than 60FPS in DX11 with Battlefield:BC2 - the human eye isn't capable of seeing more than 60FPS so I'm on to a good thing...

And overclocks are what AMD and ATI where made for. You can really pump out an overclock.

Go for the AMD with SSD any day!

 

[Why_Me]

Let's be clear about the difference between an SSD and a conventional HDD.

An SSD will generally read and write at about 270MB/sec. A coventional HDD will read at 60MB/sec and write at 35MB/sec, but you can forget that if the file isn't contigious. Anyway, with some rudimentary maths, we can actually work out that conventional HDD is about 6 times slower than an SSD (not to mention the random reads etc.)

And so, there actually are games developed which read large files on your hard disk to load textures, scenarary, and generally other stuff which we know as graphics. Faster access = fun times.

Ok, the AMD vs Intel thing - generally Intel is better across the board from everything I've ever read, but your £200/$200 AMD quad or hex chip isn't going to give you 1FPS in a game. I'm running an AMD Phenom II 945 @ 3Ghz, with ATI 5770 1GB in 1920x1080 I'm getting no lower than 60FPS in DX11 with Battlefield:BC2 - the human eye isn't capable of seeing more than 60FPS so I'm on to a good thing.
And overclocks are what AMD and ATI where made for. You can really pump out an overclock.

Go for the AMD with SSD any day!

lol ? AMD hasn't beaten Intel in over clocking since the release of the core2duo back in 2006. You tell me how an AMD beats an Intel on over clocking...especially seeing how these Sandy Bridge cpu's are hitting 4.8ghz - 5.0+ghz on the average.

Yes take the AMD and SSD you say....of course your the only one that see's that. Anymore advice ? Do show us some benchmarks on this AMD over clocking please. I would love to see those links.

 

[majin ssj eric]

Lol....

 

[herpity]

Let's be clear about the difference between an SSD and a conventional HDD.

An SSD will generally read and write at about 270MB/sec. A coventional HDD will read at 60MB/sec and write at 35MB/sec, but you can forget that if the file isn't contigious. Anyway, with some rudimentary maths, we can actually work out that conventional HDD is about 6 times slower than an SSD (not to mention the random reads etc.)

And so, there actually are games developed which read large files on your hard disk to load textures, scenarary, and generally other stuff which we know as graphics. Faster access = fun times.

Ok, the AMD vs Intel thing - generally Intel is better across the board from everything I've ever read, but your £200/$200 AMD quad or hex chip isn't going to give you 1FPS in a game. I'm running an AMD Phenom II 945 @ 3Ghz, with ATI 5770 1GB in 1920x1080 I'm getting no lower than 60FPS in DX11 with Battlefield:BC2 - the human eye isn't capable of seeing more than 60FPS so I'm on to a good thing...

And overclocks are what AMD and ATI where made for. You can really pump out an overclock.

Go for the AMD with SSD any day!

So many things wrong with this post. One has already been covered.

2. " I'm getting no lower than 60FPS in DX11 with Battlefield:BC2 - the human eye isn't capable of seeing more than 60FPS so I'm on to a good thing..."

So you're using a slow chip with a slow GPU and telling the OP to use a slow chip with his fast GPU?

What are you smoking bro?

 

[Why_Me]

So many things wrong with this post. One has already been covered.

2. " I'm getting no lower than 60FPS in DX11 with Battlefield:BC2 - the human eye isn't capable of seeing more than 60FPS so I'm on to a good thing..."

So you're using a slow chip with a slow GPU and telling the OP to use a slow chip with his fast GPU?

What are you smoking bro?

+1

 

[romanrp]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=102
3.3Ghz i5-2500k vs 3.4GHz 965.
The i5-2500k can be OCd to 5Ghz easily On air, although I would recommend 4.5GHz for daily use.

THe phenom caps at around 4ghz.

 

[DXRick]

A year ago, the 965 would have been a good choice. Look at Benchmark Results: StarCraft 2.

Comparing the i5-2400 to the PII 955 you see min/max of 23/45 versus 13/29. 30 FPS is needed for there to be no noticeable slowdown. Which CPU will be better for SC II? Would you rather have faster load times and have to compromise graphics quality to the play the game, or have slightly longer load times and be able to play at high settings? Frankly, this should be a rhetorical question.

Even if you have no interest in SC II, are you going to get the 965, because it's good enough for some other current game (like BF 2), or are you going to consider that in the next 5 years a game will come out that you want to play that requires the power of the i5-2500? The OP says he want to play Fallout 3 now and Skyrim later. I remember when Oblivion came out in 2006. It maxed the best hardware available at that time, making my new P4 3.0 with X800XT build look bad. What will Bethesda do with Skyrim? I will bet that it will require beefy hardware to run at high settings well.

Conclusion: We have no idea what will come out in the next 5 years that will test the current hardware. The 965 gags running SC II at high settings. What will happen when these games come out: Diablo 3, Duke Nuke'em Forever, Skyrim, etc. Would you rather have the option to plop in an SSD in the future or be faced with a new system build?

 

[Toxic72]

Now THAT was a good answer DX. Thank you. This had made my decision quite clear. (Also, I never thought that the SSD would raise my framerates, but I play a lot of games with open environments and lots of textures, so I figured the SSD would help). Deciding to skip it now and just get a WD Caviar Black for the time being.

 

[Why_Me]

Now THAT was a good answer DX. Thank you. This had made my decision quite clear. (Also, I never thought that the SSD would raise my framerates, but I play a lot of games with open environments and lots of textures, so I figured the SSD would help). Deciding to skip it now and just get a WD Caviar Black for the time being.

You were given good answers way up towards the top of this thread along with links to benchmarks. It's not our fault you chose not to click those links and read the benchmarks.

btw that WD h/d is a waste of money. The Samsung F1 1TB beats it out in most benchmarks including the ones that count the most...speed, sound decibels, and price.

 

[herpity]

You were given good answers way up towards the top of this thread along with links to benchmarks. It's not our fault you chose not to click those links and read the benchmarks.

btw that WD h/d is a waste of money. The Samsung F1 1TB beats it out in most benchmarks including the ones that count the most...speed, sound decibels, and price.

Shiny blue link scare me, to big words.

Me need explanation in thread.

 

[extraspicy]

lol ? AMD hasn't beaten Intel in over clocking since the release of the core2duo back in 2006. You tell me how an AMD beats an Intel on over clocking...especially seeing how these Sandy Bridge cpu's are hitting 4.8ghz - 5.0+ghz on the average.

Yes take the AMD and SSD you say....of course your the only one that see's that. Anymore advice ? Do show us some benchmarks on this AMD over clocking please. I would love to see those links.

Right, so please can you point out where I mentioned an Intel chip is better for overclocking that an AMD? I just said the AMD chips are made for overclocking... your analysis of the English I've written here is assuming a lot which I've actually not said.

Besides, I'd feel a lot happier burning out a cheap AMD chip than a more expensive Intel chip - personally I've not exactly got money to literally burn...

And yes, it clearing does make more sense to buy an AMD with SSD for a moderately fast processor and quick disk speeds, than a fast processor which will have slow disk access... I would be happy to say an AMD with SSD will beat most, if not all CPU + disk orientated processes hands down. More or less everything you do with a machine reads the hard disk - So I still say AMD with SSD.