Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

What Is Better For Me? AMD or Intel? Please Help. : )

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 10, 2012 6:53:40 PM

Hi,

I will be building my first system come 6-8 months from now, I know, maybe a long way out in the technology world but I think it's good to ask now since a lot of changes are happening and have happened and will better prepare myself.


SO, AMD or Intel.

Let me start out by saying I have a Quad core AMD Phenom II 1.6Ghz laptop NOW and it's terrible. It's laggy and it's slow and I heard this processor is now on like the top 20 worst buys for processors. Go figure. Its probably due to this was the first quad core processor out for laptops from AMD with a low 1.6Ghz speed. Anyway, it's slow and is terrible and I've heard a lot of people have taken them back. I bought it in 2010.

BUT, I remember using AMD for my desktop computers in the past years ago with my family and they were just fine. Athlons and such. SO, I do think AMD is very good when it comes to desktops, maybe not laptops. Thats my experience.

I know Intel is king, got it, I know this. BUT Intel comes with a price tag and to me, I don't think Intel is very compatible. They've changed sockets, and I heard Haswell in 2013 the socket may change AGAIN for Intel so whatever you buy now, motherboard and such is a waste because you will have to buy a new one and good motherboards from Intel are very pricey - $200+ all the way to $400 - $500. Also, it seems like AM3+ is here to stay which I like until I'm ready to upgrade again in the future anyway. I'll get more into it below but I wouldn't mind buying a new FM2 motherboard, although I'm sure they need to come out with FM3 and FM4, and so on because I'd be keeping my motherboard and system for a long while.

So I wouldn't necessarily say I am on a "BUDGET" per se but I do like to save money and not buy things I don't need.

So I am gearing towards AMD. I've thought long and hard about what processor to get for my needs. When it comes to AMD, you can pretty much have the best processor they offer for very cheap and I don't mind this, might as well have the best when it's only $200 or less SO please don't tell me to get a dual core because I think that's silly, lol. I do like having nice things if the price is right AND even more than I need if the price is right to keep me future proof because I really don't feel like buying new things every year.

OKAY, lol. So, I've thought long and hard about getting one of the current FX 8 cores which will be dirt cheap when I want to build a computer, OR waiting for Piledriver. AND I've even been thinking about going with FM2 with the Trinity APU. It's too bad these aren't 6 six core or 8 core [yet] but maybe you can tell me if I even need 6 or 8 cores from AMD because cores from AMD are different from cores from Intel. I like the idea of having the graphics built into the chip and what I read, the A10-5800K is unlocked, I can overclock it, it comes already at 3.8Ghz and Turbo is 4.2Ghz and Im sure you can overclock past that while still being safe.

So, again, I thought long and hard about what I'll use my computer for and I'd like to be ready for anything basically but here's what I'd use it for the most.

- Music - Itunes - converting FLAC to MP3 [Not a ton, but enough]
- Video - Watching movies, and occasionally converting AVI to MP4 so I can put them on my iPad.
- I don't like to restart my computer often, lol. Like to leave it on and I usually like to have about 15 windows open in my Google chrome.

- I don't really game on my computer, BUT would love the option to if I wanted to. To play maybe 2 or 3 games.
- Have a few programs open at the same time
- Use Winrar to zip up files [wouldn't do this too much but enough]

I just really don't want lag, lol. I've never had a top of the line CPU before so I have no idea what it's like to be without lag, lol. I just want something that's going to be zippy and fast.

Any advice, help, suggestions, and comments are greatly appreciated to give me more of an idea what I should do.


Thank you for reading! : )

More about : amd intel

a c 141 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2012 7:25:52 PM

First of all AMD is no more future proof than Intel. AM3+ is dead after Piledriver because AMD is switiching to APU sockets so either way your're going to have to change you motherboard just as you would if you wanted to upgrade an Intel CPU. I would also like to know why getting a dual core CPU is "silly', why because more cores has to be better right? Even though you look at the benchmarks and it clearly shows that the silly dual core I3 out performs pretty much all the Bulldozer CPU's. I would stay far away from the Bulldozer CPU's they are slow and are beaten out by pretty much all recent Intel CPU's including the dual core I3. For what you want an I3 will be more than enough and cheaper. Pair it with a good video card and you will have a good, fast cheap computer.
June 10, 2012 7:29:11 PM

i dont want to be a jerk but this gets asked quite often and the short and simple answer is that intel is normally a step ahead of AMD, intel just has overall better architecutre. it's like comparing cars, they both get the job done but which one is built better? the 8150 hardly ever goes toe to toe with intels flagship 2600k (or 2700k) and is always the lesser performer. the I3 dual core could probably beat an 8120 in a benchmark. AM3 is a dead platform like 1155 is now but 1155 definatly has better CPUs availible.
Related resources
June 10, 2012 7:34:16 PM

Considering this computer will be mostly everyday use, it looks like AMD is the way to go! Now, if you were building this as a gaming rig, the story would be different, but looking at cost vs. performance compared to performance vs. application, AMD is a clear-cut winner in this case.
June 10, 2012 7:39:19 PM

rds1220 said:
First of all AMD is no more future proof than Intel. AM3+ is dead after Piledriver because AMD is switiching to APU sockets so either way your're going to have to change you motherboard just as you would if you wanted to upgrade an Intel CPU. I would also like to know why getting a dual core CPU is "silly', why because more cores has to be better right? Even though you look at the benchmarks and it clearly shows that the silly dual core I3 out performs pretty much all the Bulldozer CPU's. I would stay far away from the Bulldozer CPU's they are slow and are beaten out by pretty much all recent Intel CPU's including the dual core I3. For what you want an I3 will be more than enough and cheaper. Pair it with a good video card and you will have a good, fast cheap computer.




So you don't think AMD Trinity APU would be the way to go? I get a Quad Core, with the graphics built in with piledriver cores?
June 10, 2012 7:40:29 PM

cyansnow said:
i dont want to be a jerk but this gets asked quite often and the short and simple answer is that intel is normally a step ahead of AMD, intel just has overall better architecutre. it's like comparing cars, they both get the job done but which one is built better? the 8150 hardly ever goes toe to toe with intels flagship 2600k (or 2700k) and is always the lesser performer. the I3 dual core could probably beat an 8120 in a benchmark. AM3 is a dead platform like 1155 is now but 1155 definatly has better CPUs availible.



Hey, yes, I admit all day long hands down Intel is king. It's just DO I NEED Intel? Know what I mean? That's what I am more or less getting at or can AMD do what I need for a lesser price?

Thank you.
a c 141 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2012 7:41:29 PM

UnitedExpress4180 said:
Considering this computer will be mostly everyday use, it looks like AMD is the way to go! Now, if you were building this as a gaming rig, the story would be different, but looking at cost vs. performance compared to performance vs. application, AMD is a clear-cut winner in this case.


Not really. An I3 is not a gaming chip, yes it can game just fine but it's just as much an everyday home business CPU as any AMD CPU. As I said price to performance the I3 will be cheaper then the Bulldozer and it will out perform it in just about everything but the most heavily threaded programs.
a c 184 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 10, 2012 7:41:39 PM

Cheaper intel processors outperform amd processors that cost more!
a c 141 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2012 7:45:28 PM

ttechfs said:
So you don't think AMD Trinity APU would be the way to go? I get a Quad Core, with the graphics built in with piledriver cores?


The Trinity hasn't been relased yet so it's impossible to say until it has been released and benchmarked. My guess is it will probably still fall behind the lowest-end Intel CPU, the Sandy Bridges and Ivy Bridges I3.
June 10, 2012 7:46:09 PM

rds1220 said:
Not really. An I3 is not a gaming chip, yes it can game just fine but it's just as much an everyday home business CPU as any AMD CPU. As I said price to performance the I3 will be cheaper then the Bulldozer and it will out perform it in just about everything but the most heavily threaded programs.




Hmm. That's interesting. A basic i3 Intel chip is going to do everything I listed in my initial post without lag? I mean, like I said, I don't mind spending some money. I wouldn't need an i5?

And IF an i3 can do all those things I listed with ease, then thats pretty impressive.

One more note is if I went the Intel route, I really wouldn't want to get another Intel processor until they go to 10nm architecture with Skymont.
June 10, 2012 7:47:01 PM

rds1220 said:
The Trinity hasn't been relased yet so it's impossible to say until it has been released and benchmarked.



I see benchmarks and data for this all over the internet already, unless you think it's not reliable yet?
a c 141 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2012 7:49:31 PM

ttechfs said:
Hmm. That's interesting. A basic i3 Intel chip is going to do everything I listed in my initial post without lag? I mean, like I said, I don't mind spending some money. I wouldn't need an i5?

And IF an i3 can do all those things I listed with ease, then thats pretty impressive.

One more note is if I went the Intel route, I really wouldn't want to get another Intel processor until they go to 10nm architecture with Skymont.


Yes the I3 will play movies, game, do office work, unzip/zip files and download and play music just fine. Or spend a little more and get a true quad core I5.
a c 184 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 10, 2012 7:49:43 PM

You should stick with an entry level i5.
June 10, 2012 7:55:46 PM

rds1220 said:
Yes the I3 will play movies, game, do office work, unzip/zip files and download and play music just fine.



Yeah, I bet it will. What about converting files?

I just thought Trinity was up my alley due to it gave me the graphics built in. No need to buy a video card while still giving me Quad core at 3.8Ghz.

You think that Trinity chip will be THAT much slower than an i3 or i5 FOR WHAT I NEED it to do, that I would notice it.

Like if I had that Trinity chip in one computer and an i3 or i5 in another and I did the same things on both, I'd notice it all day or no?


Thank you : )
June 10, 2012 7:58:39 PM

Also, one thing I forgot to mention is either way if I bought an Intel or AMD system now, I'd be switching to Intel in 2015/2016 with Skymont's release of 10nm. So, take that for what it's worth. Could I live with AMD until then and such.




EDIT - just trying to make it until then with something decent and then once Skymont is released, I will spend big bucks on a nice system. : )

Best solution

June 10, 2012 8:16:03 PM
Share

ttechfs said:
Also, one thing I forgot to mention is either way if I bought an Intel or AMD system now, I'd be switching to Intel in 2015/2016 with Skymont's release of 10nm. So, take that for what it's worth. Could I live with AMD until then and such.


I think you will be fine with the AMD route. Alot of people round here tend to instantly disregard AMD as an option, which to a degree is right (When gaming/higher end stuff). However in this application where you are by no means a power user and would like to try some casual gaming AMD seems like more of an option. While the CPU in the AMD APU's is weaker than that of an equivalent Intel processor it makes it up by the much better graphics which is just as important. All of my experiences with Intel iGPU's have been terrible and would never consider them however AMD flourishes in this segment.

From what I can tell you are just an average user, sure your files will convert faster with an i7/i5 but what would be the point if you only convert files once a month?
Wait until Trinity and see how that performs, If you go the intel route then a dedicated graphics card would be in need, increasing the price even higher. If you are looking for a lag free experience then an SSD would be perfect. The CPU is only partly the reason that the laptop is so laggy, It will probably have a 5900rpm HDD slowing it down further. IMO grab a 7200rpm 500GB/1TB storage drive and have get a nice sized SSD as a boot drive, store your most used programs on the SSD and they will load almost instantly.

Tl:D r AMD isn't bad for what you want to do as long as it's casual, an SSD will help out more than anything.
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2012 8:19:06 PM

5 different people have chimed in and said that an i3 would be fine for your needs. Ive built machines with an i3, currently have one paired with a 6850 and itll play BF3 at 1080p high to ultra settings with the eye candy turned off. Itll be fine for you. And its about $120. 2015 or 2016 is a long way off. Not to mention there are 942 threads asking the same stuff, all youd need to do is a search of the forums and youll have all the info at your fingertips.
June 10, 2012 8:25:21 PM

Lfluxx said:
I think you will be fine with the AMD route. Alot of people round here tend to instantly disregard AMD as an option, which to a degree is right (When gaming/higher end stuff). However in this application where you are by no means a power user and would like to try some casual gaming AMD seems like more of an option. While the CPU in the AMD APU's is weaker than that of an equivalent Intel processor it makes it up by the much better graphics which is just as important. All of my experiences with Intel iGPU's have been terrible and would never consider them however AMD flourishes in this segment.

From what I can tell you are just an average user, sure your files will convert faster with an i7/i5 but what would be the point if you only convert files once a month?
Wait until Trinity and see how that performs, If you go the intel route then a dedicated graphics card would be in need, increasing the price even higher. If you are looking for a lag free experience then an SSD would be perfect. The CPU is only partly the reason that the laptop is so laggy, It will probably have a 5900rpm HDD slowing it down further. IMO grab a 7200rpm 500GB/1TB storage drive and have get a nice sized SSD as a boot drive, store your most used programs on the SSD and they will load almost instantly.

Tl:D r AMD isn't bad for what you want to do as long as it's casual, an SSD will help out more than anything.



Thanks, that was a big help and a really good answer. I'm not a power user but I wouldn't mind power user power, haha. It's too bad these new Trinity APUs by AMD aren't going to be 6 core or 8 core. That would really be something in my view.

But yeah, I'm just looking for something to "hold me over" that is still a good system until 2015/2016. I think AMD can do it. I'm not a power user but I don't think I'm ultra casual either. I'm in the middle. I agree with buying a solid state drive. I'm probably going to do that too. I'm probably getting 16GB of Memory/RAM for my motherboard as well.

I've looked at motherboards but can't really look if I'm going the FM2 way since they aren't out yet but I'll be buying from Asus or ASRock, one or the other because looking at the FM1 boards they have, good priced, $110 or less. I think the ASRock one I liked was like $85 bucks and offered overclocking of the memory and such. I also like the Interface Bios. So, I think that may be the best bet for me.


Thanks again, any other advice or comments are welcome. : )
June 10, 2012 8:26:53 PM

Only good thing about AMD is that they use same socket. The performance just don't worth it, I would go with Intel.
3570k game
3930k work
June 10, 2012 8:28:48 PM

vrumor said:
5 different people have chimed in and said that an i3 would be fine for your needs. Ive built machines with an i3, currently have one paired with a 6850 and itll play BF3 at 1080p high to ultra settings with the eye candy turned off. Itll be fine for you. And its about $120. 2015 or 2016 is a long way off. Not to mention there are 942 threads asking the same stuff, all youd need to do is a search of the forums and youll have all the info at your fingertips.



You are right, and thank you for the info on the i3 processor about how powerful it really is to my needs. I am taking both Intel and AMD into consideration. I'm trying to gather info and yes you are probably right about there being a ton of other threads but I really don't want to sit here and search for 4 hours when a few of my concerns were pretty personal for me. I just wanted my own thread. Sorry if that bothers you. : \


EDIT - if I am going i3 or i5, should I get the latest and greatest Ivy Bridge or is Sandy Bridge fine?


Thank you again though, appreciate the help.
June 10, 2012 9:26:51 PM

ttechfs said:
You are right, and thank you for the info on the i3 processor about how powerful it really is to my needs. I am taking both Intel and AMD into consideration. I'm trying to gather info and yes you are probably right about there being a ton of other threads but I really don't want to sit here and search for 4 hours when a few of my concerns were pretty personal for me. I just wanted my own thread. Sorry if that bothers you. : \


EDIT - if I am going i3 or i5, should I get the latest and greatest Ivy Bridge or is Sandy Bridge fine?


Thank you again though, appreciate the help.


Depends on the prices. There is about a 5-10% gain with ivy bridge however if you are going to overclock ( which only applies to the 2500k/2600k/2700k/ivy bridge equivalents ) then sandy would be better. A couple of days ago I bought a 2500k and a P67 board as it was roughly £40 cheaper then the ivy/z77 equivalent. You can pair a Z77 Motherboard with a sandy bridge CPU however only certain Z68 motherboards will support the ivy cpu's with less features ( no pci 3.0 ). I would go for the cheaper H61/H67 and 2100 due to the fact you would have to bump upto an i5 ivy. Take into consideration that the Intel's iGPU is complete and utter garbage when it comes to gaming and a dedicated graphics card is a MUST, even if it is a lower end 6570. In terms of your usage, you said you are inbetween a casual and power user so I think you would be right at home with the Intel. Just it's a bit more for that extra CPU performance.
June 10, 2012 9:36:11 PM

Lfluxx said:
Depends on the prices. There is about a 5-10% gain with ivy bridge however if you are going to overclock ( which only applies to the 2500k/2600k/2700k/ivy bridge equivalents ) then sandy would be better. A couple of days ago I bought a 2500k and a P67 board as it was roughly £40 cheaper then the ivy/z77 equivalent. You can pair a Z77 Motherboard with a sandy bridge CPU however only certain Z68 motherboards will support the ivy cpu's with less features ( no pci 3.0 ). I would go for the cheaper H61/H67 and 2100 due to the fact you would have to bump upto an i5 ivy. Take into consideration that the Intel's iGPU is complete and utter garbage when it comes to gaming and a dedicated graphics card is a MUST, even if it is a lower end 6570. In terms of your usage, you said you are inbetween a casual and power user so I think you would be right at home with the Intel. Just it's a bit more for that extra CPU performance.



Thanks. : )

Only concern I had left was what I asked before to someone else but haven't got an answer back which is between the Trinity APU from AMD and an i3 or low i5, FOR WHAT I WANT & NEED, if I were to use one computer with the Trinity APU in it and one with the Intel i3 or Intel i5 in it, am I going to really notice it that much? a huge difference? Is it really that noticeable for what I need it for?
June 10, 2012 9:49:27 PM

ttechfs said:
Thanks. : )

Only concern I had left was what I asked before to someone else but haven't got an answer back which is between the Trinity APU from AMD and an i3 or low i5, FOR WHAT I WANT & NEED, if I were to use one computer with the Trinity APU in it and one with the Intel i3 or Intel i5 in it, am I going to really notice it that much? a huge difference? Is it really that noticeable for what I need it for?


In the real world, I would say no. There is no way to find out how well Trinity is going to do until it is released however that 10% increase will mainly be towards heavy cpu tasks. If you are browsing the internet/listening to music doing ordinary things then no I don't think you will see a difference. The only times it will make a difference is when you go to the more high end stuff such as encoding etc you will see shorter conversion times with the intel system again with a higher price.

To put it simply

Intel = If you have the money then go for it, often better performance at a higher price.

AMD = Will get you by performing most tasks in a cost efficent way

The APU in Trinity will be great for an integrated solution however a dedicated card will often beat it, therefore if you do get a dedicated card then go for intel, for integrated go for AMD.
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2012 9:55:52 PM

Doesnt bother me, my only point is, this has been asked so many times, the answers are out there. Thats all. Good luck with your build.
June 10, 2012 10:15:58 PM

Lfluxx said:
In the real world, I would say no. There is no way to find out how well Trinity is going to do until it is released however that 10% increase will mainly be towards heavy cpu tasks. If you are browsing the internet/listening to music doing ordinary things then no I don't think you will see a difference. The only times it will make a difference is when you go to the more high end stuff such as encoding etc you will see shorter conversion times with the intel system again with a higher price.

To put it simply

Intel = If you have the money then go for it, often better performance at a higher price.

AMD = Will get you by performing most tasks in a cost efficent way

The APU in Trinity will be great for an integrated solution however a dedicated card will often beat it, therefore if you do get a dedicated card then go for intel, for integrated go for AMD.




Ah I see, so the other tasks like opening up itunes, converting FLAC to mp3, AVI files to MP4, I'm not going to want to rip my hair out, not THAT bad with AMD, right? Just a bit longer than Intel? I'm not going to have serious lag or whatnot? Opening up programs like Microsoft Office and surfing the web and watching a movie at the same time?


Thank you again. : )
June 10, 2012 10:17:35 PM

One more [probably stupid question] too, lol. Do I need to buy a wireless PCI Adapter too so my desktop gets wireless internet or is that already built into the motherboard or whatnot? Thanks! lol.
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2012 10:19:45 PM

Just get a USB wireless adapter.
June 10, 2012 10:22:02 PM

ttechfs said:
Ah I see, so the other tasks like opening up itunes, converting FLAC to mp3, AVI files to MP4, I'm not going to want to rip my hair out, not THAT bad with AMD, right? Just a bit longer than Intel? I'm not going to have serious lag or whatnot? Opening up programs like Microsoft Office and surfing the web and watching a movie at the same time?


Thank you again. : )


no problem, and more than likely no. As long as you have an SSD and a reasonably fast CPU then everything should be pretty fast!
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=289 Here is a benchmark comparing the two, the trinity will be a bit better than that. The gaming bench's are with a dedicated card and the synthetic benchmarks measure pure CPU power which obviously as stated before the intel is stronger.
But in many of the encoding/ compressing bench's there is at most a 5 second difference which is nothing.

What vrumour said about the adapter. Ethernet is optimal however a USB adapter will do just fine.
a c 141 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2012 11:07:49 PM

Well you seem hellbent on getting AMD so that's probably what you'll end up with. Even though all but one person told you the I3 will fit your needs fine, at a cheaper price and better performance. You got to love when people come on here asking for advice then decide to ignore it.
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2012 11:18:31 PM

Some people are just fans of one company or another. If he decides not to take the advice, thats his perogative. Ive been an AMD guy for the last 15 years, and when I upgrade again, itll be Intel.
a c 141 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 10, 2012 11:23:04 PM

I really could care less it doesn't effect me. If you really want advice take it with an open mind, if not don't waste our time.
June 11, 2012 12:00:17 AM

rds1220 said:
I really could care less it doesn't effect me. If you really want advice take it with an open mind, if not don't waste our time.




Hey, I am taking it with an open mind, you seem to forget I am not even buying my system for another 6+ months, so anything can change. I'm not a fan of AMD or Intel. I just like value. I just looked at a good i3. It's $150 dollars plus a decent graphics cards, thats another $100 - $130.

So best case, I get both those for around $250. THEN I still gotta buy the Intel motherboard which what? Thats probably another $100 - $150 for a decent one. So now we're up to $350 - $400 for Intel.

AMD, that processor, I dont think there's no way it's going to cost over $150, by the time I buy it, most likely $115, just like Llano is now. So Im going to say $115 + $89 for a motherboard [basing off FM1 pricing], no graphics chip needed so my cost is $204 dollars.


Big difference there. That's just my view. I do appreciate your help though. : )
June 11, 2012 12:01:35 AM

rds1220 said:
Well you seem hellbent on getting AMD so that's probably what you'll end up with. Even though all but one person told you the I3 will fit your needs fine, at a cheaper price and better performance. You got to love when people come on here asking for advice then decide to ignore it.



I'm not Hellbent on anything. Sure, I think AMD offers more value due to it's cheaper but I know Intel is amazing.

I don't necessarily want what I NEED, I want some headroom too, a little more than what I need. I think everyone wants that, know what I mean? Thanks again. : )
June 11, 2012 12:02:26 AM

vrumor said:
Some people are just fans of one company or another. If he decides not to take the advice, thats his perogative. Ive been an AMD guy for the last 15 years, and when I upgrade again, itll be Intel.



Hey, I am not a fan of one or the other but after I build the system I want, my next build WILL be Intel like you once they release Skymont. Thanks. : )
a c 283 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 11, 2012 12:11:11 AM

Good i3 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $124.99

Decent GPU http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $119.99 ($99.99 after MIR).

Good Mobo http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $109.99

Total $354.97

Not as cheap as the AMD route, of course, but MUCH better. Slightly over $350, but the money being spent is worth it in the long run, if for nothing else, for the upgrade path after the i3.
June 11, 2012 12:12:49 AM

vrumor said:
Just get a USB wireless adapter.



Thank you, will do. : )
a c 448 à CPUs
a c 110 å Intel
a c 111 À AMD
June 11, 2012 12:14:00 AM

For everyday use performance willvbe more or less the same between AMD and Intel.

For process intensive tasks like video encoding Intel will perform better. If using Quick Sync supported encoder then Intel will simply dominate.

When playing games using the integrated graphic core Trinity will perform better than Intel's Ivy Bridge. But if using a discrete graphic card Ivy Bridge will likley perform better especially if the game is dependent on the CPU speed.
June 11, 2012 12:14:42 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Good i3 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $124.99

Decent GPU http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $119.99 ($99.99 after MIR).

Good Mobo http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $109.99

Total $354.97

Not as cheap as the AMD route, of course, but MUCH better. Slightly over $350, but the money being spent is worth it in the long run, if for nothing else, for the upgrade path after the i3.



So I was exactly right pretty much, $350 for Intel. I appreciate you pricing that up for me. What do you mean the upgrade path after the i3? My next upgrade will be Skymont and thats years away and Im sure I will need a new motherboard due to a socket change anyway, regardless with AMD or Intel. Both would need to change no matter which I buy.
a c 283 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 11, 2012 12:18:23 AM

ttechfs said:
So I was exactly right pretty much, $350 for Intel. I appreciate you pricing that up for me. What do you mean the upgrade path after the i3? My next upgrade will be Skymont and thats years away and Im sure I will need a new motherboard due to a socket change anyway, regardless with AMD or Intel. Both would need to change no matter which I buy.


You're right, of course that after Ivy 1155 is dead, but a Sandy or Ivy i5 or i7 will still be plenty powerful well into the time of Skylake. Certainly enough to make it worth the upgrade, especially a K series that can be OC'd to come close, if not exceed Skylake at stock speeds.
June 11, 2012 12:22:47 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
You're right, of course that after Ivy 1155 is dead, but a Sandy or Ivy i5 or i7 will still be plenty powerful well into the time of Skylake. Certainly enough to make it worth the upgrade, especially a K series that can be OC'd to come close, if not exceed Skylake at stock speeds.



Ah, you do have a point there. If I was going to buy Intel, everyone is telling me i3, I think I would just spend the extra $100 and get a i5 K edition. I think that would protect me from having to upgrade and hold me over until Skymont but that can also be the case with AMD's Trinity. Quad Core. I mean, it's pretty attractive having the graphics and processor built into each other into one chip at a 3.8Ghz speed that I can overclock that is also quad core. Lol. Thats just my fight with myself right now.
a b à CPUs
June 11, 2012 12:46:24 AM

Honestly man, if you are building a stop gap PC which it sounds like you are til Skylake hits, an i3 would be fine for the next few years. Its a competent little gaming CPU, even got a better score on Unigine with an i3 and a 6850 than I did with my 1090T and a 5870. Kinda scary.
June 11, 2012 12:50:10 AM

vrumor said:
Honestly man, if you are building a stop gap PC which it sounds like you are til Skylake hits, an i3 would be fine for the next few years. Its a competent little gaming CPU, even got a better score on Unigine with an i3 and a 6850 than I did with my 1090T and a 5870. Kinda scary.




Thats crazy, I'll have to keep that in mind, thank you. : )
June 11, 2012 2:12:47 AM

Best answer selected by ttechfs.
May 1, 2013 8:04:01 AM

let me ask this, didn't AMD have better Graphic support that Intel? heard that Amd was better for gamers than Intel chips
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2013 6:21:23 AM

rds1220 said:
First of all AMD is no more future proof than Intel. AM3+ is dead after Piledriver because AMD is switiching to APU sockets so either way your're going to have to change you motherboard just as you would if you wanted to upgrade an Intel CPU. I would also like to know why getting a dual core CPU is "silly', why because more cores has to be better right? Even though you look at the benchmarks and it clearly shows that the silly dual core I3 out performs pretty much all the Bulldozer CPU's. I would stay far away from the Bulldozer CPU's they are slow and are beaten out by pretty much all recent Intel CPU's including the dual core I3. For what you want an I3 will be more than enough and cheaper. Pair it with a good video card and you will have a good, fast cheap computer.


To be fair RDS that's a bit harsh. You paint an extremely broad picture with a huge biased brush with that comment. Piledriver made some pretty significant improvements over the original BD architecture and keeps pace pretty well with the Intel line up; especially for its asking price.

An FX 8320/8350 will significantly outperform an i3 in anything and everything unrelated to gaming. And while the i3 may have a very small advantage in games that take advantage of fewer threads it is NOT enough of a lead to justify purchasing it over its AMD counterpart that will give the end user a way better all around productivity/Gaming PC.

Heck I would get an FX 6300 or 4300 over an i3 just for the simple fact they are both unlocked processors and can achieve better performance in the end. As someone who chooses to put Intel in my rig from now and into the foreseeable future I could not with a good conscience sit here and tell someone to purchase a lowly i3 over any of the piledriver line up.

The new FX line are great processors with uber performance for the money. Faster than Intel? No. But they are sure as heck are a better deal than Intel's low end offering and in many cases a user would benefit more from an FX 8350 over something like a 3570k.

a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 3, 2013 3:44:55 PM

whoa, 6 month old necro...
!