AMD Vs. Intel Which is more "future proof"

[gamerguy319]

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"?

 

[amuffin]

Intel.

Comparing an FX-4100 to a i5-3550 is comparing a bike to a motorcycle.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

There really ISN'T any such thing as "future proof" in technology, but disregarding that, go with the Intel build.

 

[gamerguy319]

My main concern is which is more "future proof".

 

[gamerguy319]

That is why i put "future proof" in Quotatons. I am mainly focusing on which build will allow me to KEEP my mobo longer.

 

[dudewitbow]

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.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

^ Correct. Both are dead end sockets anyway.

 

[gamerguy319]

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

 

[rgd1101]

a time machine will be future proof.

 

[dudewitbow]

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.

 

[gamerguy319]

So, are you saying that a second video card would be useless if im not gonna use more than one monitor.

 

[dudewitbow]

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.

 

[gamerguy319]

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

 

[dudewitbow]

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.

 

[gamerguy319]

so AMD is a good as Intel in this case

 

[dudewitbow]

specifically, between the two processors, the i5-3550 has a large advantage

 

[gamerguy319]

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

 

[dudewitbow]

depends what you want, the fx build is usable I would assume if you want to stay on budget.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

If you HAVE to go with the FX build, at least go with the 4170, since you won't be OC'ing...

 

[gamerguy319]

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

 

[gamerguy319]

I will be useing Crossfire

 

[dudewitbow]

the statement that says i plan on using crossfirex supports the reason very well

 

[gamerguy319]

1920X1080

 

[gamerguy319]

so will an fx 4170 paired with a 7950 should be plenty

 

[dudewitbow]

generally yes, anything past 300$ basically runs all modern games easily.