Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Intel Dual-Cores vs. AMD Quad-Cores?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 18, 2012 12:40:17 PM

Intel has better performance, but AMD has inexpensive quad-cores in their Athlon II and Phenom II X4 series. I know that is some games, like Battlefield 3, that if you don't have a quad-core CPU, NPCs simply aren't there! I will be gaming and doing light video editing (not at the same time :D ). I am a patient person when it comes to computers (because I am typing on a Dell Dimension 4700 with a single-core Pentium :p ). Which is more futureproof, and which should I choose? Thanks
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2012 12:56:22 PM

^ Sounds like you have a pretty limited budget - you should specify how much you wanna spend, whether you need everything new or are gonna recycle some components, etc.

For gaming an i5-2500K is generally considered the current best CPU, and if you live near a MicroCenter you can get one fairly cheap when on sale (quite often). However if you can't afford that, then maybe an FX8120 if you want to stay with AMD. The biggest factor for gaming will be the video card - get a good one and it should last at least a couple years..
a c 446 à CPUs
a c 110 å Intel
a c 111 À AMD
August 18, 2012 5:26:40 PM

I would considered buying the Phenom II X4 965 for $110 at Newegg. While the CPU is not as powerful as an Intel Core i3 CPU, it can be overclocked to provide similar or slightly better gaming performance than the Core i3. It will also perform better in video encoding compared to a Core i3.

Which is more "future proof"? If you do not intend on upgrading then you are better off buying the Phenom II X4 965. If you plan on upgrading within a year, then going with a Core i3 CPU will be more "future proof".

AMD's upcoming Piledriver CPU will probably be 10% faster than Phenom II / FX CPUs. That places PileDriver to be as fast as Intel's 1st generation Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs. Intel's current Ivy Bridge CPUs are 3rd gen Core i3/i5/i7. PileDriver will need to be 30% faster rather than just 10% faster to compete with Intel's latest CPUs.

Related resources
a c 214 à CPUs
a c 128 å Intel
a c 102 À AMD
August 18, 2012 5:33:56 PM

If you list a budget that your working with and what your intentions are , a partial rebuild or a whole new build. It makes a difference because of the different cpus that are out there and the different prices there are. You want to compare AMD with Intel but at what price point? For example this cpu is for $149.99.

Intel Core i3-2130 Sandy Bridge 3.4GHz LGA 1155 65W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 2000 BX80623I32130

It's a dual-core cpu but it has hyperthreading which gives you four threads or four virtual cores so it can act like a quad core.
On a similar price point $134.99 you can get this AMD cpu.

AMD FX-6100 Zambezi 3.3GHz Socket AM3+ 95W Six-Core Desktop Processor FD6100WMGUSBX

This is a six core cpu from AMD and even though it has six cores it is rated lower than the i3-2130.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

I don't think that you can get a future proof cpu as they are constantly releasing new processors and changing the socket for each new release. With AMD giving up on direct competition at the highend level cpu then Intel is alone at that level. There will be more competition at the mid-level cpu development and Intel has the lead regardless of level.
Give us a budget and ayour build plan so we can give a more accurate suggestion.

Best solution

August 18, 2012 6:13:56 PM
Share

For budget future proof with how long you have had your PC I think a cheap AMD quad machine would do the job. Mainly due the fact that the extra cores seem to make a good difference in the low end price range on multi threaded applications.

Quick comparison of AMD a8-3850 vs Intel g850
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=404

AMD 8150 vs Intel 2400
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=363

Gives you a vague idea of the differences, for the extreme low end I go AMD, for the mid range I am slightly leaning towards Intel.

If you plan to game a little bit go with the quad core intel, if you just want basic web browsing and video needs go with the AMD FX.
a c 265 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
August 18, 2012 6:42:20 PM

From a gaming point of view, bulldozer was a big disappointment.
Read this article on tom's july best gaming cpu's for the money:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

There are no amd chips on the list at any price point with only a honarable mention for the FX-4100.

If you will be exclusively playing a game that really benefits from many cores, then check out benchmarks for that game.

For planning purposes, my rule of thumb for a gamer is to budget twice the cost of the cpu for the graphics card.
October 18, 2012 4:24:46 PM

For a budget gaming CPU, do you think AMD PII x4 945(115usd) vs G860?

They are about the same performance now, even on Quad games G860 lightly surpasses it, do you think the 4 real cores will show in the future? For me it's questionable since the C2D beats the Quad in all quad optimised games- if they are so
February 13, 2013 7:21:15 PM

Best answer selected by chasectech.
!