Building a new gaming PC, AMD or Intel?

[ConfusedNoob]

I understand that Intel beats AMD in almost every benchmark. But you can't really tell the difference between 70 fps or 100 fps, and both frame rates offer a good gaming experience.

However, I am looking for Length of Usage, as well as a good gaming experience - is the AMD 8 core better for this?

Because I think future games will support multi-core, will the FX-8120 give me more years of satisfactory gaming experience at a lower price?

Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

FX-8120 can run games at 50-70 fps......for the next 5 years. Because games will start to support multi-core in the future.

Whereas i7-2600K can run games now at 100 fps. But in 2 years, when games start to support multi-core, it will have equivalent or lower performance than the FX-8120, because it has less cores.

However, since the AMD system costs less than the Intel, I would have a longer satisfactory gaming experience, for less money.

Just a thought, wondering what you computer experts think, I am not a computer expert.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

The 2600K would still be best in the long run. Remember that it's Hyper Threaded, so it's basically the same as the faux "8 Core" 8120, just with much better performance.

If you were talking about the 8120 vs. a 2500K, then the argument would be more valid.

 

[sarinaide]

1] 2600K gives you no benefit over a 2500K at the price its rather hefty premium to pay for no gains.

2] Buying a new SB setup with IB out is rather pointless....3570K + Gigabyte GA-Z77-UD5H, can't really do much better and its cheaper than a lot of sandybridge setups.

3] Bad time to buy AMD with Piledriver and Trinity on the horizon.

4] The real difference between AMD and Intel is unnoticable, lay of the synthetics they result in myopic societies.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

1] 2600K gives you no benefit over a 2500K at the price its rather hefty premium to pay for no gains.

2] Buying a new SB setup with IB out is rather pointless....3570K + Gigabyte GA-Z77-UD5H, can't really do much better and its cheaper than a lot of sandybridge setups.

3] Bad time to buy AMD with Piledriver and Trinity on the horizon.

4] The real difference between AMD and Intel is unnoticable, lay of the synthetics they result in myopic societies.

1] Agreed, sort of. No, it doesn't matter now, but he's looking towards the future (when more games use more than 4 threads).

2] Agreed there too, except for someone that wants an extreme OC.

3] 100% Agreed

4] You HAVE to look at synthetic benches to get a general idea of performance, otherwise you would just be going into it blindly, but most gaming benches are close to real world, so I'd say that's a good gauge of performance. Just don't get hung up on the synthetic stuff. In general use and most games, it's true that you wouldn't notice the difference between Intel and AMD, but the difference is quite large (in gaming) nonetheless. How much that means to you is completely up to you.

 

[randomkid]

However, since the AMD system costs less than the Intel, I would have a longer satisfactory gaming experience, for less money.

Just a thought, wondering what you computer experts think, I am not a computer expert.

What you say is true. Intel i7-2600K is for people who are willing to pay more for more than what is needed. If you are focused on what you need rather than what you may want, AMD generally does the job at a lesser cost for what may appear in the surface as the same (ex: i7-2600K & FX8120/8150 will both appear as 8core in task manager although we all know deeper that performance is not the same but whatever extra performance from the i7-2600K is generally excess & will remain untapped under normal usage anyway).