Amd or Intel

Hi guys,
I'm building a new gaming system, and I was wondering if Amd Fx 8000 series (or any other Amd CPUs) are good for smooth gaming at about 1920x1200 resolution. If they aren't good enough, I'm willing to go with Intel i5 3570k. Just putting this forum up to see if I can cut down a few bucks by buying Amd CPU.

EVGA Gtx 670 ftw
Corsair h100
Corsair ax750
Corsair Vengeance 8gb (2x4gb)
10 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about intel
  1. Go for 3570K. ;)
  2. Best answer
    It's really the GPU that holds back gaming, not so much the CPU. Sure, you could go for the 3570K, but you'll be spending, what, 75% more for around 20-25% of the performance of AMD's equivalent?

    Go and nab the FX 8000 and overclock it. It'll turn that 25% to 10-15% difference.
  3. Yes, the AMD units are good enough. And yes, Intel is better.
  4. i see no reason not to choose i5-3570k .... it's simply more powerful than amd fx for gaming, while being power efficient.

    depending on your motherboard options, an i5 build and an fx build can cost the same.
  5. OP - since this is a gaming machine, you might be interested in reading these articles on how combinations of GPUs and CPUs do affect gameplay, even at 1020P resolutions:

    A new look at game benchmarking - New methods uncover problems with some GPU configs

    Gaming performance with today's CPUs - Does the processor you choose still matter?

    The 2nd article is probably more on-topic to your question however:

    As you probably expected, the Ivy Bridge-derived processors are near the top in overall gaming performance. Intel has made incremental improvements over the Sandy Bridge equivalents in each price range, from the i5-2400 to the i5-2500K and i7-2600K. The Core i5-3470 offers perhaps the best combination of price and performance on the plot, and the Core i5-3570K offers a little more speed for a bit more money. The value curve turns harsh from there, though. The i7-3770K doesn't offer much of an improvement over the 3750K, yet it costs over a hundred bucks more. The Core i7-3960X offers another minuscule gain over the 3770K, but the premium to get there is over $500
    Sadly, with Bulldozer, AMD has moved in the opposite direction. The Phenom II X4 980, with four "Stars" cores at 3.7GHz, remains AMD's best gaming processor to date. The FX-8150 is slower than the Phenom II X6 1100T, and the FX-6200 trails the X4 980 by a pretty wide margin. Only the FX-4170 represents an improvement from one generation to the next, and it costs more than the Phenom II X4 850 that it outperforms. Meanwhile, all of the FX processors remain 125W parts.

    We don't like pointing out AMD's struggles any more than many of you like reading about them. It's worth reiterating here that the FX processors aren't hopeless for gaming—they just perform similarly to mid-range Intel processors from two generations ago. If you want competence, they may suffice, but if you desire glassy smooth frame delivery, you'd best look elsewhere. Our sense is that AMD desperately needs to improve its per-thread performance—through IPC gains, higher clock speeds, or both—before they'll have a truly desirable CPU to offer PC gamers.

    Fortunately, there are some glimmers of hope emanating from AMD. The Trinity APU, which combines higher-IPC Piledriver cores with an integrated Radeon, beat out an Ivy-based mobile CPU in our gaming tests. Trinity is slated to make its way to the desktop this fall, and it may provide some relief when it arrives. After that, we expect an eight-core chip based on Piledriver and then an APU and CPU refresh based on Steamroller, another architectural revamp. We think the firm is moving in the right direction, which is a change from recent years. Whether it can do so quickly enough to catch up with Intel, though, is the truly vexing question.
  6. ^ FYI, I got my 3770K from Microcenter for $280, so it is closer to the 3570K on the value vs performance chart. Plus I do a fair amount of encoding where the extra threads come in handy.
  7. The FX-8150 will perform at the same level as an Intel i5, if the FX chip is OC'd to 5.0GHz while the Intel chip is underclocked to 3.0GHz. Considering the i5's are hitting 4.5GHz with little to no effort it seems kind of silly to go with the FX chip. You could get an i5-2400 for the same price as an FX-8150 and be getting better performance.
  8. Although i am a massive AMD fan, and all my PCs are Phenom 2 X6 powered, for some one making a completely new build it makes no sense to buy AMD unless you are seriously budget tied or are looking for a SFF PC that can game where buy id recc one of AMDs APUs.

    Im afraid to say at almost all price points Intel is the way to go, for fans like me however who already own AMD AM3+ systems it makes no sense to buy Intel, instead we morally hang on and hope AMD will come up with the goods in the future whilst being AM3+ compatible.
  9. Best answer selected by Superdong.
  10. Thanks for the feedback guys, appreciate it!
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Gaming AMD Corsair