AMD Vs. Intel Which is more "future proof"

I am looking to build a computer from about $1200. I have two different builds, one with AMD, and one with Intel. The AMD build is an FX 4100 (no O/C), an AMD Radeon 7870, 8 gigs of ddr3 1600, 500gig 7200 RPM hard drive, and a 750W psu, along with Windows 7. The Intel build is the exact same except it has an I5-3550 (no O/C), and a 650W psu. However the Intel build supports PCI e 3.0 while AMD supports PCI e 2.1. I do plan on utalizing Crossfire X. Which one is a better build for gaming (as both processors score pretty much equal on the futuremark website), and which one will be more "future Proof"?
28 answers Last reply
More about intel future proof
  1. Intel.

    Comparing an FX-4100 to a i5-3550 is comparing a bike to a motorcycle.
  2. There really ISN'T any such thing as "future proof" in technology, but disregarding that, go with the Intel build.
  3. My main concern is which is more "future proof".
  4. That is why i put "future proof" in Quotatons. I am mainly focusing on which build will allow me to KEEP my mobo longer.
  5. both mobos are about to go away, intel's haswell of next year is not using lga 1155 and amds piledriver FX will be the last AM3+ cpu coming in october.
  6. ^ Correct. Both are dead end sockets anyway.
  7. Talk about bad timing. Ok, so does the PCI e 2.1 vs. the 3.0 matter in this case because I read the thread last night about PCI e 3.0 vs 2.0 and someone mentioned that the PCI e 3.0 dosent matter onless you are going to utalize Crossfire X or SLI
  8. a time machine will be future proof.
  9. gamerguy319 said:
    Talk about bad timing. ok so does the PCI e 2.1 vs. the 3.0 in this case becaus I read that thread last night and someone mentioned that the PCI e 3.0 dosent matter onless you are going to utalize Crossfire X or SLI



    pci-3.0 is barely relevant, a few fps at most, and it would make sense that adding more cards will increase the few fps and make it slightly larger, but regardless 2 mid/high end gpus already can display multiple screens pretty easily.
  10. So, are you saying that a second video card would be useless if im not gonna use more than one monitor.
  11. well not exactly, but if its a single monitor with 2 gpus in them, most people wouldn't mind the few fps differences because the power in the two cards itself is already overkill for most peoples needs.
  12. so, PCI e 2.0 does not really differ than 3.0 and by the time it does mater i would need a now mobo anyways
  13. PCI-E 2.0 hasnt been fully utilized yet. it will take a few gpu generations to max it out. I believe i have seen a gtx 680 benchmark before running at 4x and its performance is still over 90% of it under a 16x lane speed, which shows you how much of the lane is actually being used.
  14. so AMD is a good as Intel in this case
  15. specifically, between the two processors, the i5-3550 has a large advantage
  16. so are you saying i should splurge and go with intel because my limit is really $1200 on the dime while amd is only slightly under (taxes are inclused in this price) and Intel is about a $100 over budget
  17. depends what you want, the fx build is usable I would assume if you want to stay on budget.
  18. If you HAVE to go with the FX build, at least go with the 4170, since you won't be OC'ing...
  19. well i want a want a decently priced gaming computer that could also run a little bit of cad and maybee a little programming but i also love my eye candy
  20. I will be useing Crossfire
  21. the statement that says i plan on using crossfirex supports the reason very well
  22. 1920X1080
  23. so will an fx 4170 paired with a 7950 should be plenty
  24. generally yes, anything past 300$ basically runs all modern games easily.
  25. ok thank you guys for the help
  26. Best answer selected by rolar.
  27. thank you for the help :wahoo:
  28. gamerguy319 said:
    thank you for the help :wahoo:

    Regarding PCIE Bandwith:
Ask a new question

Read More

Build AMD Intel Components Product