Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gaming: AMD or Intel?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 27, 2013 2:58:24 PM

hi guys

I wanna buy a gaming pc and I wonder witch cpu is better in this days.
AMD FX 8xxx series vs. intel i5 Ivy bridge 3470 or 3570 series?

thanx in advance

More about : gaming amd intel

January 27, 2013 3:01:02 PM

In my estimation, I've found that AMD has extremely fast, but often unreliable processors. I can't say this with experience but many of my colleagues have ended up buying Intel processors due to the idea that Intel makes quality processors, although a little expensive, it is worth every buck. The i5-3570k today seems to be the flavor of the month and is typically used in gaming machines.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
January 27, 2013 3:45:14 PM

If you are making a machine solely for gaming, Intel is usually going to be the way to go. If you have a preference towards AMD or already have a decent AM3+ motherboard, then there's nothing wrong with the Vishera line really. Anything heavily threaded will likely skew results towards AMD too.
Related resources
a c 133 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 27, 2013 3:47:01 PM

it depends on ur budget.

January 27, 2013 3:50:47 PM

iceclock said:
it depends on ur budget.

Why do you use improper grammar everywhere you go.....

If its a gaming build, Intel, hands down, all of you.
i5 3570k kicks just about any AMD up and down the street, However, AMD is better than intel is some things, (Some programs, photo editors, etc.)
Otherwise, Intel is the way to go.
a c 133 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 27, 2013 3:52:22 PM

not really, ur obviously an intel fanboy, the new amd cpus are quite efficient in gaming and apps, overclocked 6300s 6cores and 8core amds will equalize and can beat at times intel depending on the apps.

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
January 27, 2013 3:54:47 PM

iceclock said:
it depends on ur budget.

Not hugely, the AMD 83xx series are pretty competitively priced against the i5 3xxx. Really depends on where you are buying, and ofc what you want it to do, but I'm not sure that the budget makes a huge significance. The 3570K is a bit above, but the i5 range and FX8xxx overlap significantly.
a c 133 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 27, 2013 3:55:46 PM

meh for budget builds i recommand amd over intel, depending on usage,

the 8cores are still cheaper and can compete with the 3570k.

so i think its a bang for bucks cpu series tbh.

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
January 27, 2013 4:02:03 PM

iceclock said:
meh for budget builds i recommand amd over intel, depending on usage,

the 8cores are still cheaper and can compete with the 3570k.

so i think its a bang for bucks cpu series tbh.


I think it's too dependant on usage. You can make a definite argument for value if you can actually use the extra threads and are confident in fiddling with overclocks, but I think that even on a techy forum like this plenty of people are happy to get something out of the box that just...works. I think the i3 can be a hard sell sometimes, because it's priced against the FX6300 in places and however good it is, it's still a glorified dual-core. In the mid-high bracket the FX8xxx and i5s compete, I don't think value really comes into it, usage will always dictate the right choice for the job. If you are comparing the FX8xxx to i7s for encoding or whatever, then it becomes great value.
a c 133 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 27, 2013 4:03:17 PM

i meant 120$ 4300 or 125$ on sale 6300 is a better deal than an i3 dualcore. imo.

January 27, 2013 4:03:55 PM

Definitely i5 3570/3470 over fx8350 for gaming.
a c 133 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 27, 2013 4:04:57 PM

those are quite more expensive, and when overclocked the 6300 can bring the punch to these i5s.

please dont just say better without backing it up. doesnt add anything just saying its better.

January 27, 2013 4:10:00 PM

iceclock said:
those are quite more expensive, and when overclocked the 6300 can bring the punch to these i5s.

please dont just say better without backing it up. doesnt add anything just saying its better.


Sure.Actually there is nothing much to see here.Bring out some CPU intensive games like civ5,Just cause 2 ,skyrim
and some others,fx8350 would just fall behind even at 1920*1080.
If gaming is the most important thing that one would do then definitely i5 3570 over fx8350.
If it was encrypting,running multiple VMs or video encoding with gaming then fx8350 over i5 3570 would do.
January 27, 2013 4:10:48 PM

iceclock said:
meh for budget builds i recommand amd over intel, depending on usage,

the 8cores are still cheaper and can compete with the 3570k.

so i think its a bang for bucks cpu series tbh.


Alright, I was just curious on why you use improper grammar everywhere you go, no reason to get hostile.
Again, not an Intel fan boy, he just said gaming build, not if it was going to be used in a build or not, so asking for budget is pointless.
Again, 8350 does beat intel in a few things, (Including games) but the number of things is minimal, and the 3570k is top in most of them.
a c 133 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 27, 2013 4:12:38 PM

im saying price wise. 6300. 4300 chumps on i3 2cores and 4core locked cpus. when we compare the 2570k to the 8350 theres a smaller gap in price, so in that case id recommand a 3570k over the amd. but only than i would.

also im not hostile. just saying my opinion and have language disability.

a c 146 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
January 27, 2013 4:36:09 PM

If your main purpose is gaming than without a doubt go with the I5. As for those saying the AMD is better especially if you are on a budget is a load of crap. In the end it all comes out pretty close. As I have said many times on here I recently did two gaming builds for two customers. Other than the motherboard and processor everything else was exactly the same. The same optical drive, RAM, HDD, PSU fans case literally everything was the same. In the end the I5 build came out to a little less than 100 dollars more than the AMD build. For around 80 dollars I'll take the faster and better performing I5.
January 27, 2013 4:51:30 PM

iceclock said:
im saying price wise. 6300. 4300 chumps on i3 2cores and 4core locked cpus. when we compare the 2570k to the 8350 theres a smaller gap in price, so in that case id recommand a 3570k over the amd. but only than i would.

also im not hostile. just saying my opinion and have language disability.


fx6300 is a better processor than i3 3220.Fx4300 and i3 3220 are good,but for heavily threaded scenarios fx4300 is ahead of i3 3220,else i3 3220 does well in other thing.Also i3 3220 is crippled for instrcution sets than other higher intel processors.
As far as gaming is concerned i3 3220 would do better than fx4300 in some situtations and they would perform similarly in other,same goes for fx6300.Yeah,one can say fx4300 is overclockable.
Now as far as locked i5 3xxx processors are concerned they are better than fx6300 or fx4300 as far as gaming is concerned.Overclocking these CPUs won't reach give that good results in games.FX processors are less responsive to frequency.I definitely don't buy that fx6300,fx4300 with help of over-clocking would perform better than i5 3570 or similar in games.There is a recent article in tomshardware which compare fx8350+7970x2 and i7 3770k+7970x2.Fx8350 at 4GHz to 4.4GHz doesn't give anything that substantial.
a c 133 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 27, 2013 4:52:43 PM

where talking budget chips, 4300 and 6300 tromp and equalize the i5s up to the unlocked 3570k, when u get the 8core amd vs i5, id recommand the i5 as its got higher performance when overclocked than the 8core and a smaller premium to add.

January 27, 2013 5:08:41 PM

I am not talking here about performance/dollar.As far as gaming performance is concerned i5 3xxx chips are a good step ahead of fx6300,fx4300 even if we take overclocking into consideration.
a b à CPUs
January 27, 2013 6:01:31 PM

HHH says "Just play the Game" either processor at the price ranges will give you comparative performance, while Intel will be stronger in the x86 based titles, the margins are pretty even in GPU bound equations. Ultimately it comes down to game choices yet both AMD and Intel will game just fine, the bigger issue is down to what GPU choice to make.

Tut tut tut same people again, its becoming laughable.
January 27, 2013 7:20:27 PM

sarinaide said:
HHH says "Just play the Game" either processor at the price ranges will give you comparative performance, while Intel will be stronger in the x86 based titles, the margins are pretty even in GPU bound equations. Ultimately it comes down to game choices yet both AMD and Intel will game just fine, the bigger issue is down to what GPU choice to make.

Tut tut tut same people again, its becoming laughable.


Yeah, a 20 FPS Difference, Processor choice IS important.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-20-...
January 27, 2013 8:08:03 PM

rds1220 said:
If your main purpose is gaming than without a doubt go with the I5. As for those saying the AMD is better especially if you are on a budget is a load of crap. In the end it all comes out pretty close. As I have said many times on here I recently did two gaming builds for two customers. Other than the motherboard and processor everything else was exactly the same. The same optical drive, RAM, HDD, PSU fans case literally everything was the same. In the end the I5 build came out to a little less than 100 dollars more than the AMD build. For around 80 dollars I'll take the faster and better performing I5.

Yeah for some reason the price difference isn't incredibly huge and I'm not sure why.
a c 146 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
January 27, 2013 8:17:27 PM

Because the CPU is only one part of the overall build. Once again by the time you get done adding everything else into the build it doesn't come out to be much more, which is why I said that the whole "Go AMD if you are on a budget is a load of crap."
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
January 27, 2013 8:26:36 PM

Kiowa789 said:
Yeah, a 20 FPS Difference, Processor choice IS important.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-20-...


That's a pretty irrelevant benchmark though, you realise that right? I get why you run a game at low settings and a low resolution so that it stops being GPU bound, but all you really learn is that at those settings basically any CPU from the last 5 years can run Crysis 2 at playable framerates (even the Athlon X2 240 at the bottom is pretty passable).

I don't necessarily disagree with your general viewpoint, but to the main part there's not a lot in it anymore.

That's probably a much more relevant kind of comparison. Pretty much any 2nd/3rd gen i3/i5/i7 is going to be quicker in stuff that's using 2 cores until you factor in overclocking, but the margins are fairly insignificant overall.

I'm not sure there is a genuinely bad CPU on sale from Intel or AMD.
January 27, 2013 8:26:39 PM

rds1220 said:
Because the CPU is only one part of the overall build. Once again by the time you get done adding everything else into the build it doesn't come out to be much more, which is why I said that the whole "Go AMD if you are on a budget is a load of crap."

The biggest problem is always the GPUs that take the biggest take of the budget. And AMD's pricing structure isnt' that great. It's just a $50 range or so of an Nvidia card and the NV card is usually better.

To me, a Radeon 7870 @ $199 or less would really put the heat on Nvidia. It's the same with their processors. To me, they need to be lost cost, high performance for the price. $99 FX 8350 would be great.
a c 146 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
January 27, 2013 8:33:22 PM

linkgx1 said:
The biggest problem is always the GPUs that take the biggest take of the budget. And AMD's pricing structure isnt' that great. It's just a $50 range or so of an Nvidia card and the NV card is usually better.

To me, a Radeon 7870 @ $199 or less would really put the heat on Nvidia. It's the same with their processors. To me, they need to be lost cost, high performance for the price. $99 FX 8350 would be great.


And there is your answer as to why it comes out pretty even. In the end by the time you get done with the CPU, motherboard, RAM and video card the difference is made up pretty fast. The thing to remeber is like with anything you get what you pay for and that goes for both the video card and the CPU.
a c 133 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 27, 2013 8:50:34 PM

nah i dont beleive amd is lesser for the money, bar none for budget builds amd scores a win if u got more money intels worth it. its always been like that.

a b à CPUs
January 27, 2013 9:41:11 PM

If your on a tight budget. nothing wrong with a fx 6300/4300. not everyone has money to throw. However if you have the money a i5 3570k is the obvious choice
a c 78 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 27, 2013 10:13:32 PM

Kiowa789 said:
Yeah, a 20 FPS Difference, Processor choice IS important.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-20-...


lol, 116 FPS is now bad?

Is this the kind of standard we have to use?

If I'm gaming at 116FPS, I don't care if you have a gold plated CPU that's gaming at a gazillion-billion FPS and making you sammiches.





a c 133 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 27, 2013 11:27:50 PM

lol.

a b à CPUs
January 28, 2013 4:25:13 AM

Kiowa789 said:
Yeah, a 20 FPS Difference, Processor choice IS important.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-20-...


Okay I don't really know what the purpose of that was but at no point did it show 20fps difference like 4fps between a 3970X ($1100) and a 8350 ($200) thats not very useful now is it? if anything that just shows bad price/performance ratio (ie: 6x the cost for similarish performance).

As before in every game a AMD processor does the job at the price point offering, Intel is generally better but this isn't new. That said if you have a target budget a AMD setup can very well be suited to an individual.


January 28, 2013 5:16:07 AM

Gamer PC Intel I5 3570 K @ 4x4.500 Mhz Geforce GT 630 4 GB 8GB Ram USB3.0 Gaming

579,00 €
519,00 €

Preise inkl. MwSt., zzgl. Versand
Versandgewicht: 8 kg

Intel Ivy 3. Gen I5-3570 K @ 4x4500 Mhz

8 GB Ram DDR3 1600 Mhz Ram

500 GB Sata 3.0 6 Gb/s Festplatte

22 x Sata DVD Dual Brenner LG

Nvidia Geforce GT 630 4096 MB Brandneu! ddr3

Mainbaord MSI B75A-G43 PCI-Express 3.0

USB 3.0, SATA 3.0, OC-Genie II

Military Class III, Click-Bios

Gehäuse im Mesh-Design mit Front USB 3.0

600 Watt Power Netzteil 80+ Silent

vs.


Gamer PC Computer AMD FX 8320 8 x 4.400 Mhz Geforce GT 630 4GB 8GB Ram

529,00 €
479,00 €

Preise inkl. MwSt., zzgl. Versand
Versandgewicht: 10 mg

AMD FX-8320 @ 8 x 4.400 Mhz Black Edition

8 GB Ram DDR3 1600 Mhz Ram

500 GB Sata 3.0 6 Gb/s Festplatte

22 x Sata DVD Dual Brenner

Nvidia Geforce GT 630 4096 MB Brandneu!

Mainboard MSI 970A-G43 SLI + Crossfire

USB 3.0, SATA 3.0, OC-Genie II

Military Class III, Click-Bios

Gehäuse im Mesh-Design mit Front USB 3.0

600 Watt Power Netzteil 80+ Silent
January 28, 2013 5:16:54 AM

With same graphic cards(obviously powerful enough) i5 takes the lead in CPU intensive games even at 1920*1080.
But for majority of things graphic card is quite important.Fx6300 with hd7950 would obvioulsy out perform i5 3570 with hd7850 for majority of things.If one has the money,should go for powerful CPU-GPU combo,if on a constraint definitely a powerful GPU with a capable processor.

@rhadoo

Change the graphics card to something more powerful.Get something like hd7850 or gtx650ti.
GT630 is not that good for gaming.
January 28, 2013 5:21:08 AM

the first price was before, the second is actual.
maybe this port will give a better view :D 
anyway, I intend to buy the i5. my budget isn`t big to buy the both of them and also I`m not an expert so my opinion doesn`t count too much.
p.s.: is it in german :) 

enjoy
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
January 28, 2013 5:23:02 AM

I wouldn't buy either. There are issues with both, specifically that neither is fitted out for gaming. The graphics card is way too weak. Also, the Intel build has the wrong chipset for a 3570K really.
January 28, 2013 5:26:47 AM

drinvis said:
With same graphic cards(obviously powerful enough) i5 takes the lead in CPU intensive games even at 1920*1080.
But for majority of things graphic card is quite important.Fx6300 with hd7950 would obvioulsy out perform i5 3570 with hd7850 for majority of things.If one has the money,should go for powerful CPU-GPU combo,if on a constraint definitely a powerful GPU with a capable processor.

@rhadoo

Change the graphics card to something more powerful.Get something like hd7850 or gtx650ti.
GT630 is not that good for gaming.



thanx, but I was intending to do that. I`m not sure that I can afford gtx650ti, but I want gtx650 2 GB DDR5
I understand that radeon are better performance but there`re not stabil when comes about drivers (or something like this)
like I sayd, too bad I cannot afford booth systems and both grafic card, gtx650ti and hd7850 :pt1cable: 

thanx everyone for replies
January 28, 2013 5:27:23 AM

If gaming is what you want to do then get a locked i5 with a B75 board and buy a better card.Without a better card the gaming experience won't be that good.
If you want to overclock and have some CPU tasking workloads then i5 3570k is fine but do change the graphic card to something better for gaming.

As far as windows environment is concerned the AMD drivers are fine.Linux support is improving,though still not at the level of Nvidia drivers for linux,but as far as windows is concerned radeon drivers are fine.
January 28, 2013 5:28:17 AM

Rammy said:
I wouldn't buy either. There are issues with both, specifically that neither is fitted out for gaming. The graphics card is way too weak. Also, the Intel build has the wrong chipset for a 3570K really.


so I should choose the i5 3470k instead of 3570k?
January 28, 2013 5:31:18 AM

For overclocking you need a Z77/Z68 board for unlocked i5 3xxxk processors.
There is no i5 3470k.There is only one unlocked 3rd gen i5 i.e i5 3570k.
a c 146 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
January 28, 2013 5:33:16 AM

The 3470 is not an unlocked K version. The only K I5 is the 3570. What to get depends on if you want to overclock or not.
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2013 5:36:02 AM

Rhadoo, provide a link to where you buying can tweak that around a lot, it seems to be throwing needless resources where it doesn't matter.

Neither of those motherboards are the best for the chipset and B75 and 970 are entry level, that said I would rather have a 970 than a B75 which is just plain awful. Then their is the GTX630 which is a bit of a mare, then there is the PSU its a OCZ branded unit which is very scary, rated 600w but I am sure continuous power is closer to 400w which is very scary indeed.

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
January 28, 2013 5:38:17 AM

If the best graphics card you can afford is a GTX650 or so, the choice of CPU is in many ways irrelevant. In a gaming machine you always want to spend as much of your budget as possible on graphics. If you find that you are running out of money, you need to start thinking about going for a cheaper CPU. Overall you'll get a much better experience.
If you aren't self-building, it's a bit hard to suggest what to change but you are probably looking at say the i3 3220 or FX6300 rather than i5/FX83xx price bracket.
January 28, 2013 5:39:42 AM

drinvis said:
If gaming is what you want to do then get a locked i5 with a B75 board and buy a better card.Without a better card the gaming experience won't be that good.
If you want to overclock and have some CPU tasking workloads then i5 3570k is fine but do change the graphic card to something better for gaming.

As far as windows environment is concerned the AMD drivers are fine.Linux support is improving,though still not at the level of Nvidia drivers for linux,but as far as windows is concerned radeon drivers are fine.



I have a choice between this motherboards:( MSI B75A-G43 is default)
MSI Z77A-G41

MSI Z77A-G43

Gigabyte Z77-DS3H

Asus P8Z77-M

Asus P8Z77-V LX

Asrock Z77 Pro3

Asrock Z77 Pro4 ???

I know that comes like this: asus, gygabite, msi, asrock, but gygabite have some issues about life durability (I hope this is the word ). I`m have no interests for overclocking, I prefer longer life for my pc.
what do you think? (the post was about CPU, I apologize for this :p  )
January 28, 2013 5:41:29 AM

drinvis said:
For overclocking you need a Z77/Z68 board for unlocked i5 3xxxk processors.
There is no i5 3470k.There is only one unlocked 3rd gen i5 i.e i5 3570k.

Gamer PC Intel I5 3470 K @ 4x4.200 Mhz
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2013 5:47:18 AM

rhadoo said:
I have a choice between this motherboards:( MSI B75A-G43 is default)
MSI Z77A-G41

MSI Z77A-G43

Gigabyte Z77-DS3H

Asus P8Z77-M

Asus P8Z77-V LX

Asrock Z77 Pro3

Asrock Z77 Pro4 ???

I know that comes like this: asus, gygabite, msi, asrock, but gygabite have some issues about life durability (I hope this is the word ). I`m have no interests for overclocking, I prefer longer life for my pc.
what do you think? (the post was about CPU, I apologize for this :p  )



ASRock Pro 3 is good enough that said throwing a Z77 down a i5 3450 is about as pointless as a scrotum flavored lollipop so you can very well stick to the B75 just throw on a i3 or low end i5 put the money to something like a HD7870GE or GTX660ti.

For a AMD build the FX6300 or 4300 with a Gigabyte 970XA UD3 or MSI 990FX GD65/80
January 28, 2013 5:55:25 AM

Overclocking won't harm much.You have the option to chose to overclock whenever you want with an overclock-able set up.
If you are not interested in over-clocking at all then get i5 3470 or alike with a b75/h77 motherboard and get a good enough graphic card to play games.Asrock pro3/pro4 would be a good entry level option for a z77 board for an unlocked i5.There is no i5 "3470k" to my best knowledge.
If gaming is the priority then get a good card at least hd7850 with a capable processor,maybe a locked i5 or fx6300 or similar.
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2013 7:29:52 AM

If both CPUs get above 60+ FPS in games then it's regardless which is better, since those frames are going to waste.

So please stop the bitching.

I would go with the cheaper option and put the extra money into a better GPU

WINNINGGGG

a b à CPUs
January 28, 2013 8:25:07 AM

BuddiLuva said:
If both CPUs get above 60+ FPS in games then it's regardless which is better, since those frames are going to waste.

So please stop the bitching.

I would go with the cheaper option and put the extra money into a better GPU

WINNINGGGG


A8/A10's with HD7870's achive exceptional frame rates without "L3" and cost nothing.... Just a thought. I can understand the endeavor to get a big system but honestly when enough is more than good enough why throw more money at it knowing that technology never stands still? Something better will come along and whether you spend $500, $800 or $1500 in a year it will be not as good anymore.
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2013 9:29:48 AM

BuddiLuva said:
If both CPUs get above 60+ FPS in games then it's regardless which is better, since those frames are going to waste.

So please stop the bitching.

I would go with the cheaper option and put the extra money into a better GPU

WINNINGGGG


This^ get which is cheaper
!