Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is better, AMD or Intel? Why?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 6, 2012 10:36:47 PM

I am currently in the process of purchasing a new CPU for my computer as an upgrade (for gaming), and I am seeing quite the contrast in terms of views.

Some people are devoted AMD fans, whilst others are devoted Intel fans.

Why do I see people claim that an AMD 8-core processor is inferior to a high-end Intel i7 quad-core? Is it the quality of the processor from Intel, or... what? Is Intel the "Apple" of the CPU world, where you are merely paying for brand name instead of the actual quality?

I do not know as to what I wish to purchase to upgrade my system, but I know I want a processor that will last me five years.

More about : amd intel

a b à CPUs
November 6, 2012 10:42:24 PM

The Intel i7 (and i5) offers superior performance, especially in gaming. They also consume less power. There are a bunch of multithreaded apps that the 8 core AMD have the edge over the i5 and in some cases the i7. The FX chips cost much less than the i7's (about $100) and are equal or less than the i5's. AMD offers acceptable performance for a lower price, Intel offers optimal performance for a higher price.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2012 10:43:52 PM

You get what you pay for, for the most part from either brand. The new $200 8 core CPU's from AMD perform right on par with the $200 i5's from Intel, depending on what games your playing. I kind of like AMD, you can spend $60 on a CPU then later upgrade to a $200 one without having to buy a new board because they'll all fit in the same socket. AMD's also run hotter though, but you can OC them pretty high if your into that.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2012 10:44:49 PM

The architectures of both AMD and Intel are quite different. If you are gaming then go for the Intel line of processors, for starters go with a 3570k. At the core Intel processors are more efficient than AMD processors like how you mentioned AMD 8 cores processors are weaker than a high end quad core intel i7. Also what do you mean with a processor that will last you five years? You want one that will keep up with the newest CPUs like the upcoming Haswells? Or just one that will be enough to game with for the next five years?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2012 10:45:43 PM

Depends on what you are doing. Productivity goes with Intel, unless you're going to be using the 8 core AMD FX chip for things like video editing and rendering and what not. But for gaming, not so much.

So if you are on a low budget, I would say AMD, especially for budgets like $300 / $400. They have nice apus which is a processor with a descreet level integrated graphics in there.

But really, if you are on no budget, you can get really nice cpus from intel.

And also for the apple thing, apple products are overpriced and they are not very good. A desktop from apple for $2000 would be like $1000 or even less if you were to build it or maybe even buy a prebuilt.

They have very different architecture, intel being in the lead of most advance / efficient.
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 10:45:44 PM

I'm not choosing any side but if you want your cpu to last for 5 years, I would recommend an Intel cpu. The main reason is that intel cpu's use less power than AMD cpu's. This will save you some money in the long term. In my opinion, AMD is great for budget gaming pc's, and even their APU's are impressive to me.

Check this out and see what the performance difference is between 2 cpu's of the same price range.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

Hope this helps
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
November 6, 2012 10:46:33 PM

Intel has the better CPU's overall (certainly for gaming), but AMD CPU's can hold their own in certain uses. That's the most diplomatic answer I can give you on this Election Day, lol.

Also, a comparison of the i7 3770K vs. a FX-8350: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=551

The 3770K wins almost all benches and quite a few by a very large margin.

The 8350 can hang (and since it's cheaper, it's not a bad buy), but the i7 is superior in almost every way (definitely in gaming, although at high resolutions, it doesn't really matter because you're GPU bound at that point).

Edit: Damn, errbody jumped on this one, :lol: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2012 10:51:59 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Intel has the better CPU's overall (certainly for gaming), but AMD CPU's can hold their own in certain uses. That's the most diplomatic answer I can give you on this Election Day, lol.

Also, a comparison of the i7 3770K vs. a FX-8350: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=551

The 3770K wins almost all benches and quite a few by a very large margin.

The 8350 can hang (and since it's cheaper, it's not a bad buy), but the i7 is superior in almost every way (definitely in gaming, although at high resolutions, it doesn't really matter because you're GPU bound at that point).

Edit: Damn, errbody jumped on this one, :lol: 


I think you did well to stay diplomatic! I sold my blue chip for bill money, but as I current red chip owner, how about a handshake?
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
November 6, 2012 10:53:55 PM

stickg1 said:
I think you did well to stay diplomatic! I sold my blue chip for bill money, but as I current red chip owner, how about a handshake?


*Cyber Handshake* lol
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
November 6, 2012 10:59:22 PM

lol, this thread will easily end up being a flamestorm soon enough. Or maybe I'll be happy and time will prove me wrong.

I will say though that DJ's comparison should take into account the price range, the 8350 is meant to compete with the 3570K's price range, not the i7-3770k which is about $100+ more. A CPU that is that much more ought to outperform one $100 less.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701

Other than that, carry on folks!
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 11:03:49 PM

I am well aware that this will most-likely escalate to a flame war, however... I am attempting to keep it civil. :p 

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2012 11:05:22 PM

^ Moderator will probably close it if it does turn into some serious verbal conflict. Though you have no worries from any of us since we are all civil beings :lol: 
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
November 6, 2012 11:08:08 PM

GoldenI said:
I am well aware that this will most-likely escalate to a flame war, however... I am attempting to keep it civil. :p 

I voted libertarian today. *watches the flame wars start* :lol: 


In all seriousness. Both brands have their strengths and weaknesses. As far as your initial post wanting a processor to last you at least 5 years, thats a lot to ask from any CPU be it Intel or AMD if you expect to constantly be buying new games and wanting them to play in fully maxed out settings. The fact is, more often than not, your video card is the most important factor in determining gaming performance. This is not to say the CPU is not important, and there are certainly a handful of games that AMD's newest processors can take a performance hit in comparison to Intel CPUs at similar price ranges. Most games are not quite so picky. The trick is to find a balance between your video card and CPU, and while you can look at benchmarks to guide you, some of it will fall upon "rules of thumb". I would avoid trying to "future proof" a new build to meet your expected needs beyond 2-3 years.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
November 6, 2012 11:12:22 PM

nekulturny said:
I will say though that DJ's comparison should take into account the price range


Yeah, the only reason I chose that comparison is because the OP specifically talked about AMD's 8 cores chips vs. the i7, but you're right.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2012 11:21:00 PM

socialfox said:
^ Moderator will probably close it if it does turn into some serious verbal conflict. Though you have no worries from any of us since we are all civil beings :lol: 


I would hope the moderator would just delete questionable posts...

As far as original post, it depends. If its just a pass or fail grading system, then either setup will get the job done within a specific budget.

I did a custom build for my daughter with the A8-3870K processor from AMD that includes a Radeon 6550D right on the chip. I put in 8GB of 1600Mhz RAM, and some inexpensive sata hdds to dual boot Win7 and Linux. It very easily plays a game like Dirt 3 at 1080p with medium settings. You could opt for the A8-3850 chip from AMD even, and still get decent overclocks and game performance. That's the budget minded system with an eye on the power its drawing. I'd consider this the minimum rig to check into.

AMD and Intel processors have different designs. Intel seems to have more leverage on the overall market, including software, and seems more prepared and ready to go at launch time. AMD seems to have a different approach where they design what they want without as much collaboration to ensure maximum compatibility and performance, and then has to play catch-up. That's just my perception of the news over the years.

I'd give Intel the thumbs up for long term reliability.
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 11:33:25 PM

Well, I have ~$600 to upgrade the motherboard, processor and purchase a new monitory. Oh, and a new HDD/SSD. . . . .

Perhaps you fellows could recommend me a great CPU that will last me a while? Which one should I go with, if I intend on gaming/programming/occasionally edit images in PS?
m
0
l
November 6, 2012 11:52:05 PM

the answer is "Intel".

years ago AMD would have been better but, since the C2D came out, Intel has always been better across the board, sometimes a lot, some other times a little.

Having said that, depending on what computer you are being offered, you could get a better deal with AMD .. depends on the vendor. AMD products aren't as easy to sell as Intels, so you might get more CPU for your money. I'm being very generic here though, you'd have to do quite a bit of specific research to be sure.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 12:17:35 AM

GoldenI said:
Well, I have ~$600 to upgrade the motherboard, processor and purchase a new monitory. Oh, and a new HDD/SSD. . . . .

Perhaps you fellows could recommend me a great CPU that will last me a while? Which one should I go with, if I intend on gaming/programming/occasionally edit images in PS?

At that budget level, my advice would be to forget an SSD, it would cut into your budget range causing you to sacrifice on things that more directly impact your performance. What kind of monitor are you looking at? Do you need RAM? Power supply? Anything else?
m
0
l
November 7, 2012 12:21:18 AM

nekulturny said:
At that budget level, my advice would be to forget an SSD, it would cut into your budget range causing you to sacrifice on things that more directly impact your performance. What kind of monitor are you looking at? Do you need RAM? Power supply? Anything else?

12GB of Corsair XS3 RAM
850AX Corsair Professional PSU
2x Radeon 6850s

I am good for everything else; I am mainly looking for a motherboard/processor/monitor... I am looking for a nice 1080p monitor, if it is possible.
m
0
l
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
a c 115 å Intel
November 7, 2012 12:28:29 AM

^^^

Yeah, AMD CPUs performed better in games than what Intel had to offer from about 2002 through mid 2006... That's when Intel released the Core 2 Duo / Quad series. That was a game changer. During 2002 to mid-2006 AMD taught Intel that GHz was not the end all be all. They taught Intel that IPC (Instructions Per Clock) execution was far more important. The more IPCs the CPU can execute every 1MHz, the more powerful the CPU will eventually be.

With C2D & C2Q Intel turned AMD's upside down. At this point AMD will never catch up to Intel in terms of overall performance unless Intel let's them. The amount of money that Intel spends on R&D is about 5x more than what AMD spends. Naturally, not every single $1 Intel spends is on desktop CPUs, but the same can be said about AMD since they also have a graphics card division.

For the lack of any better terms Intel serves the performance end of the market for people willing to pay more money for more processing power. AMD serves the value end of the market with less expensive CPUs but also overall less processing power. This is not to say that AMD CPUs are poor performers, instead it just means that Intel has better CPUs to offer (with a price premium).

As long as the CPU is powerful enough not to bottleneck the graphics card, and the game is not overly dependent on the CPU, then the gaming performance between the best AMD CPU and the best Intel CPU should be small.

m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 12:46:20 AM

GoldenI said:
12GB of Corsair XS3 RAM
850AX Corsair Professional PSU
2x Radeon 6850s

I am good for everything else; I am mainly looking for a motherboard/processor/monitor... I am looking for a nice 1080p monitor, if it is possible.

Go ahead and grab an i5 if you want, but the FX-8320/50 wouldn't be a bad choice either.

I'm not too keen on crossfire vs a single, stronger card though.

This is a good monitor,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
although, if you want the extra 3 inches *no dirty jokes intended*, I just picked up one of these about a month ago. Well, not this model exactly, but I don't see the difference looking at the specs:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 12:46:43 AM

jaguarskx said:
^^^

Yeah, AMD CPUs performed better in games than what Intel had to offer from about 2002 through mid 2006... That's when Intel released the Core 2 Duo / Quad series. That was a game changer. During 2002 to mid-2006 AMD taught Intel that GHz was not the end all be all. They taught Intel that IPC (Instructions Per Clock) execution was far more important. The more IPCs the CPU can execute every 1MHz, the more powerful the CPU will eventually be.

With C2D & C2Q Intel turned AMD's upside down. At this point AMD will never catch up to Intel in terms of overall performance unless Intel let's them. The amount of money that Intel spends on R&D is about 5x more than what AMD spends. Naturally, not every single $1 Intel spends is on desktop CPUs, but the same can be said about AMD since they also have a graphics card division.

For the lack of any better terms Intel serves the performance end of the market for people willing to pay more money for more processing power. AMD serves the value end of the market with less expensive CPUs but also overall less processing power. This is not to say that AMD CPUs are poor performers, instead it just means that Intel has better CPUs to offer (with a price premium).

As long as the CPU is powerful enough not to bottleneck the graphics card, and the game is not overly dependent on the CPU, then the gaming performance between the best AMD CPU and the best Intel CPU should be small.


I've never seen anyone say it better than that. Great job. You sir, deserve the best answer gold medal.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
November 7, 2012 1:08:18 AM

nekulturny said:
although, if you want the extra 3 inches *no dirty jokes intended*


:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  I literally LOL'd. A dirty joke may not have been the intention, but I sure as hell took it that way. :lol: 
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 1:57:18 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  I literally LOL'd. A dirty joke may not have been the intention, but I sure as hell took it that way. :lol: 

Lol, Oh I could make it worse I assure you. The downside about this monitor is after awhile, it feels like its normal size. And using the 17 inch monitors at my college, well, they just seem so tiny! Once you go 27 inch, you don't go back. :whistle: 
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
November 7, 2012 2:01:18 AM

nekulturny said:
Lol, Oh I could make it worse I assure you.


Oh, I know you could have, LOL. "The bigger the better" :whistle:  :lol: 

Sorry, I'm done... :whistle: 
m
0
l
a c 116 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 4:04:07 AM

jaguarskx said:
During 2002 to mid-2006 AMD taught Intel that GHz was not the end all be all. They taught Intel that IPC (Instructions Per Clock) execution was far more important. The more IPCs the CPU can execute every 1MHz, the more powerful the CPU will eventually be.

That isn't quite the right reason.

The reason Intel was pushing Netburst so hard at the time was because they had demonstrated execution pipelines running at over 10GHz in the lab and expected clock rates to continue ramping up smoothly most of the way up to there. If Intel had managed to push Netburst to 10GHz as they originally thought they would, P4 would have come out ahead of K7. However, history and even the present showed us that for various reasons, although simple silicon circuits can be pushed beyond 10GHz, practical CPUs have a hard time going much beyond 3.5GHz.

Another thing that put a nail in Netburst's coffin is the rise of power-efficiency as a primary concern. Adding multiple pipeline stages in execution units to keep (trying) to push clocks higher was causing power draw to increase with each generation of Netburst CPUs at a time where datacenters and offices were starting to demand lower power bills to get more green credentials. Since Intel had already split development between mobile/low-power CPUs and desktop CPUs due to the wide power gap between the two, Intel ended up taking the best of both worlds, merging mobile and desktop back together under Core2.

It wasn't that "IPC is more important", it was that Netburst clock rates failed to scale up as Intel originally expected them to in order to balance it out... IPC of 3.0 @ 2.5GHz or IPC of 1.5 @ 5GHz, you get an execution throughput of 7500 MIPs either way and that is the only thing that would truly mave mattered at the end of the day had it not been for the ~3.5GHz invisible brick wall Intel ran into.

BTW, "IPC per 1MHz" is redundant since IPC itself is already a per-Hz figure.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 4:11:25 AM

I guess its fair to say performance now rests on intels side but dynamism is very much in AMD's court, we only have to look at the future product line now delayed for 2014 so see that AMD's target is no longer milking the now ancient and inefficient x86 code, HSA in its brief awakening has shown to be significantly faster than intels best x86 processor doing so on a not that high power envelope, AMD's trump card is HSA and the future Kaveri architecture at least on theory should change the desktop market for the better, it will also in most certainy be the integrated graphics solution to offer mainstream performance at full HD resolutions.

untill then its probably best to roll with intel.
m
0
l
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
a c 115 å Intel
November 7, 2012 6:14:12 AM

InvalidError said:
That isn't quite the right reason.

The reason Intel was pushing Netburst so hard at the time was because they had demonstrated execution pipelines running at over 10GHz in the lab and expected clock rates to continue ramping up smoothly most of the way up to there. If Intel had managed to push Netburst to 10GHz as they originally thought they would, P4 would have come out ahead of K7. However, history and even the present showed us that for various reasons, although simple silicon circuits can be pushed beyond 10GHz, practical CPUs have a hard time going much beyond 3.5GHz.

...

BTW, "IPC per 1MHz" is redundant since IPC itself is already a per-Hz figure.


I didn't want to get overly technical with the answer. Netburst's problem was that if the calculations were incorrect, everything had to be flushed and the data re-calc'ed until they were correct. While the long pipelines meant the clock speeds could be ramped up, what happens is that the exceeding long pipeline (31 stages in Prescott) increased the chances that the calculations were incorrect, thus creating a bottleneck.

Yes, I know IPC is already a per-Hz figure, I just wanted to make it clear to those who didn't know that fact.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 8:30:24 AM

i didnt saw any upper post i m answering to the question:) 

i dont know why everyone here just say that intel is better i think most of the guys just dont know real world performance:) 

gaming is what matters for all?what about a cpu which is the most powerful cpu for gaming but most weakest in multitasking and apps:) 

i know no one will like ^such cpu:) so why only gaming?

an fx 6300 which is for about only $140 it gives somewhat same perfoormance in multitasking as i5 in apps just 5% less then i5 and cost about 50 or more $ less then a i5:) an fx 6300 is very good in performance against similar priced i3 it has the overclocking advantage over i3 + gives u 4 cores more its not a 3 core cpu idk why people say that first read the article of architecture then say any thing pls guys:) it has 6 integer cores and 3 floating cores which means 3+3=6:) i just wanna say that gaming doesnt means everything most of the guys like to surf do multitasking run apps etc u r getting a very cheap amd cpu with such advantages yes its weak in single threaded apps but who cares about that too much because after some years only multithreaded apps are going to be used multithreaded apps are the future of computing most of the games developer are moving towards the mutithreaded softwares so multithreaded performance matter alot:) 

final answer amd vs intel.

intel:-gaming,singlethreaded performance,less powerconsumption,good buil,good overclocking cpu but only k one :) 

amd:-mutithreaded performance,multitasking,good for server pcs,good for future games even the i5 and i7s are good for future,very less price for performance,very good overclocking cpus,cooler cpu against intel:) 

http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/...
m
0
l
a c 116 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 1:41:27 PM

jaguarskx said:
I didn't want to get overly technical with the answer. Netburst's problem was that if the calculations were incorrect, everything had to be flushed and the data re-calc'ed until they were correct. While the long pipelines meant the clock speeds could be ramped up, what happens is that the exceeding long pipeline (31 stages in Prescott) increased the chances that the calculations were incorrect, thus creating a bottleneck.

The data in a long pipeline is not any less correct than the data in a short pipeline and the cost of a mispredict in a 30 stage pipeline at 5GHz would be roughly the same as the cost of a mispredict in a 15 stage pipeline at 2.5GHz. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with longer pipelines aside from extra clock/DFF power as long as clocks can scale accordingly.

Also, with HyperThreading, the P4 could execute deterministic instructions from the other thread while waiting for the conditional branch result for the first thread or vice-versa, which greatly reduces the need for accurate branch prediction and any penalties incurred from mispredicts since a mispredict or stall on one thread frees up associated execution resources for the other. If multi-threaded applications and games had been more common during P4/HT's commercial life, it would have looked much better.
m
0
l
November 7, 2012 2:14:41 PM

nekulturny said:
Lol, Oh I could make it worse I assure you. The downside about this monitor is after awhile, it feels like its normal size. And using the 17 inch monitors at my college, well, they just seem so tiny! Once you go 27 inch, you don't go back. :whistle: 


Well mine's bigger than yours. :kaola: 

I've got 30 inches. ;) 
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
November 7, 2012 5:06:02 PM

sunnk said:
i didnt saw any upper post i m answering to the question


Better grammar and punctuation, please. It was very hard to read that reply...

Anyway, to the content of your reply, let's all go out and buy AMD! The Piledriver FX CPU's are the best CPU's ever made! (absolutely drenched with sarcasm)

That's a fanboy reply if I ever saw one. The way you describe it, Intel is only good for gaming, and might as well not even exist otherwise. Go take all of the rhetoric somewhere else.

This thread was answered perfectly well before you got here and there was no need for a reply like yours, laced with obvious AMD fanboy love.
m
0
l
November 7, 2012 5:23:01 PM

Having once been a happy customer with a AMD 955 BE for a year I decided to go with a Intel i5 2500k build and for me personally I wish I had gone to Intel many years ago. The performance increase over the 955 in gaming was for me very noticeable mostly in BF3 I actually gained a good 7-13 FPS. Extracting large files, rendering video, desktop & general uses just seem so much faster. I would go with a i5 2500k any day and they overclock a treat with a good cooler. Before AMD fanboys start raging you can get decent O/C with AMD but for me i5 wins any day.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 5:28:57 PM

Quote:
Before AMD fanboys start raging you can get decent O/C with AMD but for me i5 wins any day.


*rages*... LOL.. Depends on the i5 in question, otherwise you're right.. But theres some i5s that really aren't that good.. Enter the i5-23xx series.



Although I question the actual importance of 7-13FPS. If you're already getting 60, not much point beyond that.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 5:31:42 PM

Chad Boga said:
Well mine's bigger than yours. :kaola: 

I've got 30 inches. ;) 


:o  *runs and hides*
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 5:36:50 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Better grammar and punctuation, please. It was very hard to read that reply...

Anyway, to the content of your reply, let's all go out and buy AMD! The Piledriver FX CPU's are the best CPU's ever made! (absolutely drenched with sarcasm)

That's a fanboy reply if I ever saw one. The way you describe it, Intel is only good for gaming, and might as well not even exist otherwise. Go take all of the rhetoric somewhere else.

This thread was answered perfectly well before you got here and there was no need for a reply like yours, laced with obvious AMD fanboy love.

Suddenly I feel the urge to break out into my rendition of Bad Romance by Lady Gaga. :ouch: 
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
November 7, 2012 5:46:40 PM

nekulturny said:
Suddenly I feel the urge to break out into my rendition of Bad Romance by Lady Gaga. :ouch: 


:lol: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 5:48:09 PM

well im changing form amd to intel i5 3470 what has a good performce over the phemons
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 6:13:35 PM

Well, obviously there's no single answer. You really have to look at an individual budget and usage plan to decide.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 6:20:38 PM

skitz9417 said:
well im changing form amd to intel i5 3470 what has a good performce over the phemons

Have you not learned anything during the time you've been here? You have a 550 TI, unless you plan on upgrading that, theres absolutely no point. :kaola: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 6:42:49 PM

and im getting a hd 7850
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 6:48:50 PM

yea im going for the hd 7850 or hd 7870 but i live australia
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 6:57:23 PM

Oh, that means bad news for you. Yes, I know how stupidly overpriced video cards and power supplies are for you.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 6:59:36 PM

yea but i can get a hd 7850 for $150 or a hd 7870 for $254
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 9, 2012 5:51:17 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Better grammar and punctuation, please. It was very hard to read that reply...

Anyway, to the content of your reply, let's all go out and buy AMD! The Piledriver FX CPU's are the best CPU's ever made! (absolutely drenched with sarcasm)

That's a fanboy reply if I ever saw one. The way you describe it, Intel is only good for gaming, and might as well not even exist otherwise. Go take all of the rhetoric somewhere else.

This thread was answered perfectly well before you got here and there was no need for a reply like yours, laced with obvious AMD fanboy love.


lol lmfao cant stop laughing lol :lol:  bro i m a fanboy? your post look like that more u r the biggest fanboy of intel i have ever seen:)  :lol:  :kaola:  have u ever used amd fx series cpu and did you compared them to intels core i chips?no i dont think so my one friend have i5 2500k and my one friend have i3 2100 and one friend have fx 4100(low budget build)i have a fx 6100. yeah i know intel is better for gaming and multitasking and many more but i m not telling anything wrong i think you have i5 2500k right pls go and compare your i5 with anyone of your freinds fx 6100 in multitasking and apps u wont see any difference between them:) yeah i agree i5 and even i3 does well against fx 4100 and fx 6100 in single threaded programs and gaming but u think an i5 of $200 is a very good choice over fx 6100 which is of $120 do you think that paying more $80 for gaming worth?first use fx cpus compare it to the cpus which is relative in price:) i think u havent used any fx cpus thats why u are speaking just rubbish :kaola:  wake up bro :sleep:  u also know that an fx cpus are bad but only bulldozers seems a bit bad to me a piledriver isnt that bad and even the bulldozer if u look at the price:) i m a kid of 14 yrs i m in school in 9 th standard dont know that well english but i also know that my english isnt that bad at all i have written that sentence very clear but u cnt read it u are getting difficulties i dont know why i think u r using your mind more then u should:) 

i m not a fanboy at all but can you say that amd doesnt have any advantage over intel when we look at the price?
first go and comepare real world performance dont look at the review:) u will understand then what i m saying:) have a nice day:) u need to refresh ur mind pls clean it its full of dirt and crappy things filled with intels papers i think ur getting money from intel for saying false is that right?i m not giving any bad advice to any people because i dont wanna poor ther money into the water i know the value of money:) if u r elder then me then sorry uncle for behaving rude sorry but u r selfish grandpa:) 
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
November 9, 2012 5:53:27 AM

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  I seriously LOL'd

I'm not even close being a fanboy, but that's fine...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 9, 2012 6:03:04 AM

i talked in that manner because u called me a fanboy but seriously go and check the performance of chip u will be shocked as i got when i saw the performance of fx 4100 up against i3 which cost similar the fx 4100 does well in multitasking and multhreaded apps it does about 20% well but when it comes to single threaded performance then fx 4100 fall behind for about 7% and about 3% in gaming.in only skyrim i3 was getting about 5-6 fps more and in other games it was just giving the same performance and fps in both rigs there were hd 5770 gpus were used in 1336x768 res they both perfomed similar:) because of that i got fx 6100 for my rig i m downloading softwares now i will show you the results after the download will be succeded :) 
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
November 9, 2012 9:53:48 AM

Its bad form to overuse smiley faces. I find it pretentious to use several smileys in one sentence, or in the middle of sentences. I'll tell you what else I find obnoxious, when people use things like >.< or <.< >.> or xD excessively. And don't get me started on people who go jajajaja or trololoolol. I tend to want to introduce them to my chain wrench.

m
0
l
!