Why not an AMD build

Hello Guys,

I am Planning to build a High-End gaming PC.
I would buy my processor and graphics card 2hand.
Planning to buy a i7 3820 or a i7 3930k and of course a graphics card, not shure wich one because there are many graphics cards 2hand.

But i have 2 questions:

Why not go for an AMD build.(Also tell why)
I saw on the internet AMD's with 8 cores for not even 200€ while intel has Processors with 6 cores that costs minimum 500€.
AMD Ghz is more, more cache.Or am i wrong?
Also saw that intel works with L2 4x 256KB and that kind of stuff.
While AMD L2 and L3 is more the same or L3 8MB and L2 4x 2MB.(also dont know what L3,L2,4x2mb,4x256kb means)

What does gaming need, saw that games mostly uses 2 cores sometimes 3? So 6/8 cores is not needed?
How many cache does gaming need, or better what is it for?

So, thanks for listening.
Hopely i get some good advice.
Also sorry for my english :)
125 answers Last reply
More about build
  1. If you want a Room Heater, which is out-performed by dual-core Intels in Single-threaded applications (Gaming, especially), go for an 8-core AMD.

    Otherwise, you are smart enough, "Everything happens for a Reason".
  2. BECAUSE IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT GHZ!

    DAMN IT GUISE.
  3. AMD:
    - High power consumption (125W processors)
    - Low-quality processing power (an eight-core processor is run into the ground by a high-end dual core Intel processor from the i3 line).

    Intel
    - Low-wattage (77W)
    - HIGH processing quality
    - Processing power performs according to what it says that it will perform at.

    All-in-all, when it comes to a processor, you are getting what you pay for. Intel processors are the way to go...
  4. ^ +1

    It's not all about clock speed or core count :lol:
  5. The vast majority of games only use 2 cores. There are few games (in comparison to the huge number of games using 2 cores) that can make use of 3 or more cores. BF3 is a popular example of a game that can benefit from many cores. I think I read somewhere that it is capable of using up to 6 cores, but I can't say if it was a reliable source.

    The last time I read any comparative review about CPU scaling in games capable of taking advantage of more than 2 cores was in early 2011. That point in time there were a few games that were test to see how will CPU scaling did with the games that were tested. Using two cores as a baseline, the average performance increase going to 3 cores was about 33%. Going from 3 to 4 cores resulted in only an additional 6% increase on average. Unfortunately, I forgot which site did that review. I thought it was TechPowerUp, but I searched through their articles and didn't find it.

    In any case, BF3 is a rare exception of a game that can supposedly use up to 6 cores; and only in multiplayer mode. How efficient is the load spread across 6 cores is unknown since the reviewer did not really do any in-depth investigation. It was more or less a very short paragraph with at most 4 sentences.

    From what I understand, games do not really use cache, that is based on a comparative review of the Core 2 Quad Q9400 (6MB) and Q9450 (12MB). For content creation like video encoding, the extra cache does give a very small advantage; I think it was a 3% - 5% performance boost depending on the application.

    At the end of the day, games that are not CPU bound will not really care if there's a high end AMD or Intel CPU under the hood. As long as the CPU is not bottlenecking the graphic card(s), then benchmarks should be pretty close. For games that are CPU bound, then I would say Intel CPUs will have an advantage since it can execute more instructions per clock (IPC) than AMD CPUs can.
  6. I have an AMD fx 8350 and am very pleased with it. Here are the reasons I bought one.
    1. Price per performance - They are super cheap for what they can do. Saying intel is faster than amd is like saying Ferrari is faster than Chevy. Sure they have faster options, but they're way more expensive. Up to $200, AMD offers better cpu's.
    2. Multithreading - When software is wirtten properly for multithreading, cheap AMD cpu's are generally faster than Intel's much more expensive offerings.
    3. Gaming performance - Unless you have 3 way crossfire/sli, your games are going to be bottlenecked by the graphics card, not the cpu. So faster cpu does not equal better performance.
    4. Support the underdog - Intel is approx 90x bigger than AMD. If AMD falls out of the market, Intel will monopolize it and charge more for their processors and will slow down their research.
  7. Quote:
    The vast majority of games only use 2 cores. There are few games (in comparison to the huge number of games using 2 cores) that can make use of 3 or more cores. BF3 is a popular example of a game that can benefit from many cores. I think I read somewhere that it is capable of using up to 6 cores, but I can't say if it was a reliable source.

    Do not forget Arma II (and the to-be-released Arma III). :)
  8. vinaykumar5320 said:
    If you want a Room Heater, which is out-performed by dual-core Intels in Single-threaded applications (Gaming, especially), go for an 8-core AMD.

    Otherwise, you are smart enough, "Everything happens for a Reason".

    I would put my "room heater" against your dual core any day thanks. At any rate, nobody has mentioned in so many words that.. Even for a high end gaming rig, you don't need an i7.. Go with an i5-3570K and you will be more than content. i7s only feature that the i5s don't have is HyperThreading, games don't use it, and most likely never will. As mentioned, games still need to use more of the physical cores, before the theoretical cores will have a purpose. Don't hold your breath.
  9. For gaming Intel wins hand down ... "even an i3 blahblah" ... single threaded performance is just better.

    For productivity, AMDs Piledriver (6300 and 83xx) are actually quite good value. They can keep up with an i5, for less money.

    If you are all for gaming and don't care about money, go Intel. But don't get an i7 for gaming, waste of money. An i5 3570k is enough for that. Better spent that money on the GPU.

    If I had to built a new PC now, I'd prefer an FX 6300, overclocked to 4.5Ghz and a 7950/70 or 670/80 over a 3570k with a slower GPU. Than again, I don't just game with that PC.
  10. OMG! More corez and Ghz! It MUST be better, right? RIGHT? :lol: Sorry, I had to get that out of my system... Continue.
  11. flexxar said:
    I have an AMD fx 8350 and am very pleased with it. Here are the reasons I bought one.
    1. Price per performance - They are super cheap for what they can do. Saying intel is faster than amd is like saying Ferrari is faster than Chevy. Sure they have faster options, but they're way more expensive. Up to $200, AMD offers better cpu's.
    2. Multithreading - When software is wirtten properly for multithreading, cheap AMD cpu's are generally faster than Intel's much more expensive offerings.
    3. Gaming performance - Unless you have 3 way crossfire/sli, your games are going to be bottlenecked by the graphics card, not the cpu. So faster cpu does not equal better performance.
    4. Support the underdog - Intel is approx 90x bigger than AMD. If AMD falls out of the market, Intel will monopolize it and charge more for their processors and will slow down their research.


    1. I'll take a Pentium over a FX4XXX any day.
    2. Even BF3 fails to use the AMD cores... And it's pretty well threaded (x4)
    3. No. You basically said you can't have both a GPU and a CPU bottleneck... CPU bottleneck almost always comes first in gaming builds.
    4. Intel can't monopolize...
  12. Quote:
    1. I'll take a Pentium over a FX4XXX any day.


    You're smoking crack. FX-4300s are fine, 4100s/4170s, you might have a valid point to make.

    ---
    Quote:
    2. Even BF3 fails to use the AMD cores... And it's pretty well threaded (x4)


    WRONG.

    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/2

    Quote:
    3. No. You basically said you can't have both a GPU and a CPU bottleneck... CPU bottleneck almost always comes first in gaming builds.

    That is not as black and white as you think it is. However, the rule of thumb puts you squarely 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Most games are GPU bound, not CPU bound.

    Quote:
    4. Intel can't monopolize...

    Yea the government has plenty of very fair and sucessful measures in place to prevent companies from unfair competition Walmart and Microsoft definitely are kept in check from engaging in antitrust activities. *game show buzzer sound*
  13. nekulturny said:
    Quote:
    1. I'll take a Pentium over a FX4XXX any day.


    You're smoking crack. FX-4300s are fine, 4100s/4170s, you might have a valid point to make.

    ---
    Quote:
    2. Even BF3 fails to use the AMD cores... And it's pretty well threaded (x4)


    WRONG.

    Quote:
    3. No. You basically said you can't have both a GPU and a CPU bottleneck... CPU bottleneck almost always comes first in gaming builds.

    That is not as black and white as you think it is. However, the rule of thumb puts you squarely 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Most games are GPU bound, not CPU bound.

    Quote:
    4. Intel can't monopolize...

    Yea the government has plenty of very fair and sucessful measures in place to prevent companies from unfair competition Walmart and Microsoft definitely are kept in check from engaging in antitrust activities. *game show buzzer sound*


    1. I assumed we're talking about for the same price.

    2. A 8350 stands up to a 3570k in BF3 (multiplayer)?

    3. As the original poster said, with crossfire/sli. Two 670's are going to be CPU bottlenecked. Not GPU bottlenecked.

    4. Not really a true monopoly... I know a lot of people who don't go to Walmart.
  14. Hi, just thought I would throw out some objective sanity here...

    The platform you are considering SB-E is exceptionally overpriced for gaming purposes. It performs on par with Ivy Bridge CPU's which cost considerably less and consume much less power. purchase an extra GTX670 and SLI 2 of em for unbeatable performance with the money you save!

    If you are looking for a powerful intel gaming system go for an i7 3770 (for the lulz right) paired with a good Z77 motherboard and overclock it to 4.5- 4.8 GHz throw in a couple of good SLI'd GPU's and off you go.


    Personally I would still go with AMD, the difference in real life performance is so minimal I have not noticed it in perceptable FPS loss, and I still use my 1090T and a GTX480. The new AMD 8350 performs VERY close to the i5 3750 so its still all about preference the benchmark performance numbers are really just for bragging about your E-peen.

    Have Fun
    Fungi
  15. GoldenI said:
    AMD:
    - High power consumption (125W processors)
    - Low-quality processing power (an eight-core processor is run into the ground by a high-end dual core Intel processor from the i3 line).

    Intel
    - Low-wattage (77W)
    - HIGH processing quality
    - Processing power performs according to what it says that it will perform at.

    All-in-all, when it comes to a processor, you are getting what you pay for. Intel processors are the way to go...


    OP is talking about SANDY BRIDGE-E they are NOT 77W try 130Wat for the i7 39xx and 150W for the newly released chip.

    Fungi

    Forget heating a room Heat the Block!
  16. samuelspark said:
    1. I assumed we're talking about for the same price.

    2. A 8350 stands up to a 3570k in BF3 (multiplayer)?

    3. As the original poster said, with crossfire/sli. Two 670's are going to be CPU bottlenecked. Not GPU bottlenecked.

    4. Not really a true monopoly... I know a lot of people who don't go to Walmart.



    Hey, I love the numbering system. This makes it easier to respond to specific points:

    1. Alright, at the same price, well, the Pentium Ivy Bridge is probably cheaper.. Let me check. $95 for the Pentium G2120 and $129 for the FX-4300. They're not really on par at the price point, I'd rather look at FX-6300s at the $150 price point up against an i3 Ivy Bridge at $130. Yes the FX-6300 costs a little more, so thats not strictly speaking a fair comparison, but I've always said that Intel left themselves wide open with that huge price gap between i3s and i5s.

    2. Believe it or not, it actually does. The games that AMD's architecture really gets throttled are the minority, not the majority. FX CPUs actually do very well as a rule in Direct X11 game performance. Its the older games (although there are some games like Civilization V with Direct X 11 where the FX still takes a beating), but typically its the older DX9/DX10 games that Bulldozer/PileDriver takes hits.

    3. With Crossfire Sli yes, the CPU would be the limiting factor. Although, I would question the sensibility of a Crossfire/SLi of high end video cards with anything less than a 120hz monitor. If you're still running 60hz HD, you'll be fine. If the Ivy Bridge puts out 150 FPS and the PileDriver only puts out 90, yes, thats a 60FPS bottleneck, but on a monitor that is frame limited to 60, well, you get the point.

    4. Well, the difference with Walmart is theres a lot more companies competing for their market, so the impact is not as profound. But its hard to argue that Walmart doesn't have the biggest monopoly out of any Department type/grocery store as of today in the US. The problem with CPUs is, you've got 2 choices. Intel outsells AMD 5 to 1 in the market in CPUs. For all intents and purposes, Intel already is a monopoly when you think how staggering that is.
  17. nekulturny said:
    Hey, I love the numbering system. This makes it easier to respond to specific points:

    1. Alright, at the same price, well, the Pentium Ivy Bridge is probably cheaper.. Let me check. $95 for the Pentium G2120 and $129 for the FX-4300. They're not really on par at the price point, I'd rather look at FX-6300s at the $150 price point up against an i3 Ivy Bridge at $130. Yes the FX-6300 costs a little more, so thats not strictly speaking a fair comparison, but I've always said that Intel left themselves wide open with that huge price gap between i3s and i5s.

    2. Believe it or not, it actually does. The games that AMD's architecture really gets throttled are the minority, not the majority. FX CPUs actually do very well as a rule in Direct X11 game performance. Its the older games (although there are some games like Civilization V with Direct X 11 where the FX still takes a beating), but typically its the older DX9/DX10 games that Bulldozer/PileDriver takes hits.

    3. With Crossfire Sli yes, the CPU would be the limiting factor. Although, I would question the sensibility of a Crossfire/SLi of high end video cards with anything less than a 120hz monitor. If you're still running 60hz HD, you'll be fine. If the Ivy Bridge puts out 150 FPS and the PileDriver only puts out 90, yes, thats a 60FPS bottleneck, but on a monitor that is frame limited to 60, well, you get the point.

    4. Well, the difference with Walmart is theres a lot more companies competing for their market, so the impact is not as profound. But its hard to argue that Walmart doesn't have the biggest monopoly out of any Department type/grocery store as of today in the US. The problem with CPUs is, you've got 2 choices. Intel outsells AMD 5 to 1 in the market in CPUs. For all intents and purposes, Intel already is a monopoly when you think how staggering that is.


    2. I've heard many people complaining about their FX 8120 4.7GHz bottlenecking their high end GPU's.

    3. Still a bottleneck. ;) Also, more realistically, the person would have multiple monitors with a high end CFX/SLI setup.

    4. It's really been like it for a while now.
  18. 2. (the new number one) bwahahah... Well the 8320/8350s are a little better. They still suffer at some things don't get me wrong, but how much of a bottleneck? Thats the question that comes into play. A lot of people talk about bottlenecks like theres only one kind. A 2 FPS bottleneck for example is not particularly profound. While the difference might be "benchmarkable", theres benchmarkable and actual performance. Oh the arguments that used to start over the Phenom II vs the i3. Remember those? Tom's bench showed 6 games in an article showing a 2-5FPS difference, as if it was the difference between night and day.

    Guess what? 2-5 FPS means I could put two identical computers in front of you the only difference being ones a Phenom II and the other an i3. You could play the same games on it, and then I'd ask you which is which. You'd never be able to tell me without guessing.

    3. Well, yes it is. But in that scenario with the 60hz monitor, the bottleneck doesn't negatively impact your gaming performance, despite how profound it would be in my hypothetical benchmark. By all means, I have no argument to offer, if you want a high end system with dual 670s or 7970s and a 120hz gaming monitor, you should be looking at high end i5s or even maybe i7s. The 8350 will still give you great gaming performance overall, but I can't fault someone for spending that much on everything else and not wanting to cheap out on the CPU. Although 120hz monitors are still pretty rare, not many of them on Newegg, and most of them are stupid expensive.

    Take this one for example, it looks pretty nice 23 inch monitor
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001473

    Although, me personally, I'd keep my 27 inch 60hz monitor that was over $100 cheaper. I'm sure somebody with a 120hz monitor could show up in the thread and argue til hes blue in the face, but he'd have his work cut out for him trying to convince me that the refresh rate has more to do with the picture quality than the resolution. And then I could just snicker and say "mines bigger".

    4. Well yes, unfortunately, I don't think thats going to change.
  19. If your gaming you don't need an i7. An i5 will be plenty enough.
  20. nekulturny said:
    2. (the new number one) bwahahah... Well the 8320/8350s are a little better. They still suffer at some things don't get me wrong, but how much of a bottleneck? Thats the question that comes into play. A lot of people talk about bottlenecks like theres only one kind. A 2 FPS bottleneck for example is not particularly profound. While the difference might be "benchmarkable", theres benchmarkable and actual performance. Oh the arguments that used to start over the Phenom II vs the i3. Remember those? Tom's bench showed 6 games in an article showing a 2-5FPS difference, as if it was the difference between night and day.

    Guess what? 2-5 FPS means I could put two identical computers in front of you the only difference being ones a Phenom II and the other an i3. You could play the same games on it, and then I'd ask you which is which. You'd never be able to tell me without guessing.

    3. Well, yes it is. But in that scenario with the 60hz monitor, the bottleneck doesn't negatively impact your gaming performance, despite how profound it would be in my hypothetical benchmark. By all means, I have no argument to offer, if you want a high end system with dual 670s or 7970s and a 120hz gaming monitor, you should be looking at high end i5s or even maybe i7s. The 8350 will still give you great gaming performance overall, but I can't fault someone for spending that much on everything else and not wanting to cheap out on the CPU. Although 120hz monitors are still pretty rare, not many of them on Newegg, and most of them are stupid expensive.

    Take this one for example, it looks pretty nice 23 inch monitor
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001473

    Although, me personally, I'd keep my 27 inch 60hz monitor that was over $100 cheaper. I'm sure somebody with a 120hz monitor could show up in the thread and argue til hes blue in the face, but he'd have his work cut out for him trying to convince me that the refresh rate has more to do with the picture quality than the resolution. And then I could just snicker and say "mines bigger".

    4. Well yes, unfortunately, I don't think thats going to change.


    2. When AMD took a step back with bulldozer. :/

    3. There's a lot of stupid people out there.
  21. Overall AMD is better.
  22. melikepie said:
    Overall AMD is better.


    What?
  23. samuelspark said:
    What?

    Nothing.
  24. AMD is not better than Intel. You could say it is competitive at certain price points but no more.
  25. Intel has that annoying "bum, bum bum bum, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum".
  26. samuelspark said:
    AMD is not better than Intel. You could say it is competitive at certain price points but no more.


    Just ignore him, lol. He's funny sometimes, but if you take him seriously, you'll have a stroke...
  27. funguseater said:
    OP is talking about SANDY BRIDGE-E they are NOT 77W try 130Wat for the i7 39xx and 150W for the newly released chip.

    Fungi

    Forget heating a room Heat the Block!

    My apologies, I thought he was referring to Ivy Bridge. -_-;

    My statement that "You get what you pay for" still stands, however.
  28. I recently switched from an AMD Phenom X6 @ 3.4 Ghz to an Intel 2600k @ 4.0Ghz.

    Both rigs used the same pair of 560's in SLI....

    No perceptible difference in the games I like to play. (Crysis 2 is my current favorite time-waster)
  29. Quote:
    Don't you mean Steamroller?

    Bulldozer: Good night ivy bridge!
    Ivy Bridge: Bum, bum bum bum, bummmmmmmmmmm!
    Bulldozer: What are you doing?
    Ivy Bridge: Bum, bum bum bum, bummmmmmmmmmm!
    5 Minutes Of Silence Later
    Bulldozer: That's Better.
    Ivy Bridge: Bum, bum bum bum, bummmmmmmmmmm!
    5 Minutes Later
    Ivy Bridge: HELP IM SINKING HELP!!!!!!!!!! HELPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
    Bulldozer: That's better!
  30. melikepie said:
    Bulldozer: Good night ivy bridge!
    Ivy Bridge: Bum, bum bum bum, bummmmmmmmmmm!
    Bulldozer: What are you doing?
    Ivy Bridge: Bum, bum bum bum, bummmmmmmmmmm!
    5 Minutes Of Silence Later
    Bulldozer: That's Better.
    Ivy Bridge: Bum, bum bum bum, bummmmmmmmmmm!
    5 Minutes Later
    Ivy Bridge: HELP IM SINKING HELP!!!!!!!!!! HELPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
    Bulldozer: That's better!

    You're retarded, lol
  31. DJDeCiBeL said:
    Just ignore him, lol. He's funny sometimes, but if you take him seriously, you'll have a stroke...


    Has the world flipped upside down? Why do people suddenly think Intel is worse than AMD all of a sudden?
  32. The FLAMEE!!!
  33. samuelspark said:
    Has the world flipped upside down? Why do people suddenly think Intel is worse than AMD all of a sudden?


    Oh, I don't think anyone seriously does, lol. I think even the most ardent AMD fanboy knows better, but that still doesn't keep the trolls away (trying to get a rise out of people for their own pleasure)...

    The good ones are quite fun to watch, though, lol.
  34. look a other forum site about flame war's(this time with lame photo's)Intel vs Amd crap.
  35. Its almost as lame as console war's.
  36. *looks around and wonders what the hell is going on, decides its best to back up slowly*
  37. +100000 :lol:
  38. theAssassin0411 said:
    Hello Guys,

    I am Planning to build a High-End gaming PC.
    I would buy my processor and graphics card 2hand.
    Planning to buy a i7 3820 or a i7 3930k and of course a graphics card, not shure wich one because there are many graphics cards 2hand.

    But i have 2 questions:

    Why not go for an AMD build.(Also tell why)
    I saw on the internet AMD's with 8 cores for not even 200€ while intel has Processors with 6 cores that costs minimum 500€.
    AMD Ghz is more, more cache.Or am i wrong?
    Also saw that intel works with L2 4x 256KB and that kind of stuff.
    While AMD L2 and L3 is more the same or L3 8MB and L2 4x 2MB.(also dont know what L3,L2,4x2mb,4x256kb means)

    What does gaming need, saw that games mostly uses 2 cores sometimes 3? So 6/8 cores is not needed?
    How many cache does gaming need, or better what is it for?

    So, thanks for listening.
    Hopely i get some good advice.
    Also sorry for my english :)


    What else, besides games, will you be running on your computer?
  39. To address the question of the title "why not AMD" I have to say there is no real reason why not other than it depends on "bleeding edge" you want to be and how much cash you have. Generally, AMD is cheaper than Intel while offering comparable performance, read: comparable not identical or better though contextually speaking AMD does come on top with various multithreaded models as shown in the Toms review of Vishera or is within the margin of error to be called the same as the i7-3770. The power consumption difference does add up over time but I think the notion that "if you're not using a 77W TDP CPU then you're doing it wrong" is utter ridiculousness.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-9.html
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-7.html
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-13.html

    I've enjoyed my 6300 very much over the last month. I can play my games (StarCraft 2, Diablo 3, Dishonored, and Skyrim with 2K HD texture packs for example) at 1920x1080 with max settings and get 60+ FPS with a Radeon HD 7870 GPU. I'm not one of those people that absolutely need 60 FPS either so I can wait until my average performance drops to around 30 - 40 FPS before I really start looking at upgrading as well. I also do programming and this machine runs Visual Studio, Enterprise Manager, etc beautifully and compile times are quick as well.

    It all depends on what you're willing to concede and what you want to do with it. If you've got $3k to spend then by all means throw an i7 in there but you can build a very good machine for under $1k if you go non-Intel and non-nVidia. I did and "ba da ba ba ba I'm lovin' it."
  40. majestic1805 said:
    If you've got $3k to spend then by all means throw an i7 in there but you can build a very good machine for under $1k if you go non-Intel and non-nVidia. I did and "ba da ba ba ba I'm lovin' it."


    Eh, you can still build a killer Intel/Nvidia rig for $1500. $3K is just an exaggeration. Sure, if you put SLI GTX 680's in it, you're closing in on $3K, but a 3770K with a single GTX 670 is more than enough for most people (no matter what your main use is).

    Can an all AMD rig do the things that the 3770K/670 rig can? Sure, just not quite as well.

    So, if you're on a budget: AMD. Not the best at anything (the 8350 is just barely equal in a few things compared to a 3770K and still a good bit behind in a lot, as well), but it'll get the job done if you don't have a choice. If you have the $: No reason not to go with Intel/Nvidia.
  41. I get a 60+ FPS with an i5 2500k and a 6850... in SC2.
  42. Who decided that nvidia is the better graphics card option? With the latest 12.11 drivers, AMD is not only has the fastest cards, but they are cheaper and come with amazing game bundles. You probably read the reviews for the 7900 series when they first came out and decided that nvidia was faster. But since then, amd released drivers that can handle the hardware and the benchmarks are over 25% better now than on first relese.

    Amd's processors are the best value for the mony for $200 and under. Anything more expensive than that and you are getting huge diminishing returns. It's better to get the $200 prcessor now and wait and build a new machine in a few years with your savings.

    Summary:
    -Amd processors are not the best available if you have an unlimited budget, but they are the best PRACTICAL option if you are concerned with value.
    -Amd graphics cards are the best across the board in performance and value.

    If you disagree with my statements, then you haven't done your research. Spend your time researching instead of posting nonsense disagreements.
  43. flexxar said:
    Who decided that nvidia is the better graphics card option? With the latest 12.11 drivers, AMD is not only has the fastest cards, but they are cheaper and come with amazing game bundles. You probably read the reviews for the 7900 series when they first came out and decided that nvidia was faster. But since then, amd released drivers that can handle the hardware and the benchmarks are over 25% better now than on first relese.


    A 7970 is still the only one that can consistently keep up with (and beat, on occasion) a 670. And they're basically the same price (the 7970's are slightly more expensive, actually).
  44. I just saw some benchmarks comparing the 680 and the 7970 and they were pretty close to each other with each taking the lead here and there depending on the bench.
  45. An overclocked 7970 beats the 680. That's the irony.
  46. majestic1805 said:
    I just saw some benchmarks comparing the 680 and the 7970 and they were pretty close to each other with each taking the lead here and there depending on the bench.


    Really, the more compelling argument is a 670 vs. a 7950. That is actually an interesting comparison (especially if you OC the 7950). That's the one time I agree that an AMD card would handily have the price/performance edge.

    I just think that the 680 and 7970 are too close to the 670 and 7950 to make them a viable choice at their respective prices.
  47. DJDeCiBeL said:
    A 7970 is still the only one that can consistently keep up with (and beat, on occasion) a 670. And they're basically the same price (the 7970's are slightly more expensive, actually).


    I clearly said no nonsense responses without research..

    http://nl.hardware.info/nieuws/30834/performance-drivers-van-amd-en-nvidia-van-dichterbij-bekeken
    This shows a benchmark uses the latest drivers from nvidia and amd. The 7970 stomps the 680 out in almost every benchmark.

    7970 cheaper than 680
    7970 comes with awesome games
  48. flexxar said:
    I clearly said no nonsense responses without research..

    http://nl.hardware.info/nieuws/30834/performance-drivers-van-amd-en-nvidia-van-dichterbij-bekeken
    This shows a benchmark uses the latest drivers from nvidia and amd. The 7970 stomps it out in every benchmark.

    7970 cheaper than 680
    7970 comes with awesome games


    Ok, so I didn't look at any foreign language sites. Please forgive me, oh great one. I have sinned...

    Read my reply above. Both the 680 and 7970 are ridiculous choices to make anyway.

    Edit: You really like to argue, don't you? You just came in here out of nowhere and took a very confrontational tone. That needs to be toned down some.
  49. DJDeCiBeL said:
    Ok, so I didn't look at any foreign language sites. Please forgive me, oh great one. I have sinned...

    Read my reply above. Both the 680 and 7970 are ridiculous choices to make anyway.

    Edit: You really like to argue, don't you? You just came in here out of nowhere and took a very confrontational tone. That needs to be toned down some.


    You come in here making claims without doing a single ounce of research. We don't need people making things up and posting on sites like they know what they're talking about. I smashed your claim by using real research. You mad that I did that?

    And btw, I was in here before you. You should have looked that one up too.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Graphics Cards AMD Build Product