Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

I5 3570k vs FX 8350 (Overall)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 14, 2013 4:12:59 AM

Hey guys , I know you might be tired answering the same question again and again , but....

What should I get (very very confused) I5 3570k or FX 8350

I5 -
Pros -
- Better single - core performance
- Better gaming performance
- Runs cooler , less power consumption
- PCI E 3.0

CONS-
- No future upgrades (lga 1155 is EOL)
- not very good sata support on mobos
- Multicore perf is just ok
- overall more expensive

FX 8350
PROS
- Superb multicore perf
- upgrade path (steamroller)
- good mobos
- overclocks well
- GOOD gaming perf
- Futureproof ( Multi Threaded support is increasing)
- cheaper

CONS -
- OK single core perf
- High power consumption
- PCI E 2.0
- Might bottleneck CFX Combos

Dont really know what to do .....

Does PCI E 3.0 make a difference ? Will it make in the future ?
Would an 8350 bottleneck two 7950's in CFX ?

Thanks in advance !

More about : 3570k 8350

a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 8:50:46 AM

If you overclock the 8350, you probably have better chance of not bottlenecking than if you used the 3570k

Best solution

a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 9:17:57 AM
Share

^ agree with Buddi that 8350 is a good choice. But I do not think there is a chance of 3570K bottlenecking anything out there right now. at least Oc'ed it'll be fine.

by the time PCI E 3.0 starts to show a considerable performance boost over 2.0, chances are you'd have already upgraded (as you've been looking into future proofing). So it's not required right now.

overall: 8350. cheaper, faster in other workloads, supports 2.0 and that's all that's needed right now.

good luck
-satyam
Related resources
February 14, 2013 9:24:47 AM

I believe you answered yourself there, 8350 > 3570k
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 9:33:08 AM

Look here to know whether the 8350 will bottleneck high end cards or not.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...

Personally, I'd get the 3570K. Why do you have overclocks well and good mobos listed as PROS for the 8350? That's like saying the 3570K doesn't overclocks well and doesn't have good motherboard to support it.
February 14, 2013 11:14:54 AM

EzioAs said:
Look here to know whether the 8350 will bottleneck high end cards or not.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...

Personally, I'd get the 3570K. Why do you have overclocks well and good mobos listed as PROS for the 8350? That's like saying the 3570K doesn't overclocks well and doesn't have good motherboard to support it.

Thanks a lot guys!! :sol: 
No, I meant 990fx boards have better sata and usb 3
And ivy doesn't oc like sandy, that's why

What would be normal temps for an 8350 on idle or full load?
I'll be building a custom loop for my rig
February 14, 2013 11:15:44 AM

intel = better .. amd = price
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 3:19:44 PM

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-processor-frame-ra...

AS you can see, even the i5-3550 DESTROYS the FX 8350 at the same price point. Intel is simply better when gaming is your main conern. There is no doubt that Intel creates the best CPUs in the world. AMD however has some decent alternatives when it comes to value. Again we could argue power consumption where AMD again would lack behind due to the old 32 nm design.

Futureproofing doesn't exist, right now the FX 8350 just isn't worth your money. Don't believe me? Listen to this reviewer from Overclock3d http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7wFKewAbgs.
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 3:26:14 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-processor-frame-ra...

AS you can see, even the i5-3550 DESTROYS the FX 8350 at the same price point. Intel is simply better when gaming is your main conern. There is no doubt that Intel creates the best CPUs in the world. AMD however has some decent alternatives when it comes to value. Again we could argue power consumption where AMD again would lack behind due to the old 32 nm design.

Futureproofing doesn't exist, right now the FX 8350 just isn't worth your money. Don't believe me? Listen to this reviewer from Overclock3d http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7wFKewAbgs.


I applaud the level of bias in this post.

I applaud it.
a c 88 à CPUs
February 14, 2013 3:32:19 PM

compgenie said:
I5 -
Pros -
- PCI E 3.0

FX 8350
CONS -
- PCI E 2.0

Dont really know what to do .....

Does PCI E 3.0 make a difference ? Will it make in the future ?
Would an 8350 bottleneck two 7950's in CFX ?

Thanks in advance !

That part is actually misleading. What you get with Intel Z77 is a PCIe 3.0 x16 connection that can be split into two PCIe 3.0 x8 connections.
What you get with AMD 990FX is four PCIe 2.0 x8 connections that can be combined into two PCIe 2.0 x16 connections.
PCIe 3.0 x8 provides exactly the same bandwidth as PCIe 2.0 x16, so you actually get the same thing from both chipsets.
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 3:34:33 PM

BuddiLuva said:
I applaud the level of bias in this post.

I applaud it.


Bias? My statement is clearly based upon facts.
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 4:31:29 PM

It's based on facts, and i actually agree that for the most part the Core i5 is better for badly optimised games.
The thing is however i can't ignore the fact that when it came out it was a LOT slowet then the i5 and now it's now it's really cathing up.
If the trend continues, the FX will likely be the better gaming CPU in two years.
For example look at Far Cry 3.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-processor-frame-ra...
The FX does give lower FPS, but it also delivers smoother gameplay.
a c 88 à CPUs
February 14, 2013 4:45:26 PM

Kamen_BG said:
The FX does give lower FPS, but it also delivers smoother gameplay.

Not really. The frame times with the Core i5-3550 are generally lower, but spike up to around the same level as they do with the FX-8350.
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 4:46:42 PM

If somebody was to give me a cpu & mobo for free - i5/z77 would be my choice. It was stated Ivy does not OC as well as Sandy - It doesn't have to - it is more efficient. Intel is way more efficient power wise than AMD. If gaming is what you want - i5 would be my choice.
-Bruce
a c 462 à CPUs
February 14, 2013 6:02:44 PM

Not sure what the not good sata support on motherboards is either. My board has 2x Sata 6.0 and 4 Sata 3.0 from intel and an additional 2x 6.0 from a marvell controller. That is more ports than the average person needs. I could run my OS and DVD drive on the Marvell and use the Intel ports for Raid 5 with 6x 3tb drives. A clocked i5 3570k will trounce an clocked 8350 in most situations.
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 8:13:39 PM

The FX does give lower FPS, but it also delivers smoother gameplay.[/quotemsg]

It clearly doesn't. Minimum FPS is higher on the i5-3550, so is average.
February 15, 2013 6:56:10 AM

Ok , but I just dont care about super high fps , anything above 40 - 45 fps the difference is hardly noticable .( Shouldnt be a problem with a 7950). And , I prefer to play rather than staring at the fps meter .
the 1155 has no upgrade path , I cant upgrade my pc every 2 years , I'm kinda limited
The FX looks promising for the future....
Gaming is not the only thing I do , some times photoshop or winrar and some very taxing programs ......
The FX seems to be the best of both worlds , and ( I READ THIS ON SOME FORUM , I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE) The FX @5 ghz comes close to 3770k gaming perf

a b à CPUs
February 15, 2013 9:10:48 AM

compgenie said:
Ok , but I just dont care about super high fps , anything above 40 - 45 fps the difference is hardly noticable .( Shouldnt be a problem with a 7950). And , I prefer to play rather than staring at the fps meter .
the 1155 has no upgrade path , I cant upgrade my pc every 2 years , I'm kinda limited
The FX looks promising for the future....
Gaming is not the only thing I do , some times photoshop or winrar and some very taxing programs ......
The FX seems to be the best of both worlds , and ( I READ THIS ON SOME FORUM , I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE) The FX @5 ghz comes close to 3770k gaming perf


Best of both worlds? It's kinda "meh" of both worlds. Intel CPUs are way better performing in gaming. Even at overclockted to 4.8 GHz, it doesn't even surpass an i5-2500k at stock. Just watch these benchmarks.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350... - Benchmarks overclocked and at stock in gaming

Video editing is the same story, AMD FX 8350 doesn't simply cut the cake

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350... - Benchmarks overclocked and at stock in editing

Many cores and high clock speeds is what AMD live upon in the CPU market, people believe that the AMD CPU is faster due to the numbers. But it simply isn't. You can go buy the FX 8350 CPU and get worse performance, no big deal it will probably still do the job, still it's not the best choice you have for your money.
a c 88 à CPUs
February 15, 2013 10:28:16 AM

compgenie said:
Ok , but I just dont care about super high fps , anything above 40 - 45 fps the difference is hardly noticable .( Shouldnt be a problem with a 7950). And , I prefer to play rather than staring at the fps meter .
the 1155 has no upgrade path , I cant upgrade my pc every 2 years , I'm kinda limited
The FX looks promising for the future....
Gaming is not the only thing I do , some times photoshop or winrar and some very taxing programs ......
The FX seems to be the best of both worlds , and ( I READ THIS ON SOME FORUM , I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE) The FX @5 ghz comes close to 3770k gaming perf

If you want to save some money and upgrade later, an FX-6300 does make some sense. You can upgrade to an 8-core Steamroller CPU later on then, and that might outperform a Core i5-3570k (or 2500k etc.).

But it's not like a Core i5 will become obsolete overnight.
a c 462 à CPUs
February 15, 2013 12:55:37 PM

Sakkura said:
If you want to save some money and upgrade later, an FX-6300 does make some sense. You can upgrade to an 8-core Steamroller CPU later on then, and that might outperform a Core i5-3570k (or 2500k etc.).

But it's not like a Core i5 will become obsolete overnight.


I agree. I know people that have had overclocked i7 920's since launch like 4yrs ago and still feel no need to upgrade. A 3570k should have no issues lasting at least that long as it is an even faster chip. I am unsure of AM3+'s lifespan as I haven't kept up AMD's plans for quite some time.
a c 105 à CPUs
February 15, 2013 1:32:15 PM

it depends if you want to multi-task like a mad-scientist than 8350. if you want pure gaming performance and raw single threaded usage. i5 for the win

February 16, 2013 5:39:39 AM

hmm... this is really hard
February 19, 2013 2:50:05 AM

Best answer selected by compgenie.
March 1, 2013 1:28:41 AM

I am trolling the net to find a processor for my liking .. first it was AMD as i had very good experience with Phenom .. then after looking at Benchmarks it became i5. ... then it became i5 2500 k vs 3570 k. seriously man finding a processor this time around is so hard. no straight answer I guess you should go with the intel i 5 2500k .. I am also going for that basis many benchmarks I have seen + it has good overclocking capabilities which can help you at least survive for next three years. I am going for this configuration now

Processor I5 2500 k
MoBOARD BOARD ASRock Z77 Pro 3 
Display Card ATI 7850 2GB DDR5 SAPPHIRE
SMPS CORRSAIR TX 650 SMPS
RAM 8GB DDR3 CORRSAIR VENG/160
Heatsink Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO
May 5, 2013 8:51:01 PM

One thing everybody can agree upon is that the fx will still be upgradable and the i5 will not be...factor that into your equations.. truthfully the 6100 can do the job of gaming and multitasking at a lower price with a path of future upgrades.
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2013 6:23:05 AM

Anybody that compares an AMD OCed to 5GHz does not realize the power needed or the heat generated. AMD will reach 6GHz - at what cost?
-Bruce
July 4, 2013 3:41:55 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
compgenie said:
Ok , but I just dont care about super high fps , anything above 40 - 45 fps the difference is hardly noticable .( Shouldnt be a problem with a 7950). And , I prefer to play rather than staring at the fps meter .
the 1155 has no upgrade path , I cant upgrade my pc every 2 years , I'm kinda limited
The FX looks promising for the future....
Gaming is not the only thing I do , some times photoshop or winrar and some very taxing programs ......
The FX seems to be the best of both worlds , and ( I READ THIS ON SOME FORUM , I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE) The FX @5 ghz comes close to 3770k gaming perf


Best of both worlds? It's kinda "meh" of both worlds. Intel CPUs are way better performing in gaming. Even at overclockted to 4.8 GHz, it doesn't even surpass an i5-2500k at stock. Just watch these benchmarks.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350... - Benchmarks overclocked and at stock in gaming

Video editing is the same story, AMD FX 8350 doesn't simply cut the cake

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350... - Benchmarks overclocked and at stock in editing

Many cores and high clock speeds is what AMD live upon in the CPU market, people believe that the AMD CPU is faster due to the numbers. But it simply isn't. You can go buy the FX 8350 CPU and get worse performance, no big deal it will probably still do the job, still it's not the best choice you have for your money.


^^ every post you reply to you are constantly bashing amd. amd is a difference of a few fps. 8 cores are the future. amd socket am3+ will be used for the next few gens, intels wont....means whole new mobo. amd is a great chip matched with a good graphics card.

stop being such a fanboi
a c 210 à CPUs
July 4, 2013 3:57:39 PM

Sabertooth 990FX Gen3 R2.0 is 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0 and 16 lanes of PCIe 2.0 that can be split to x8/x8 PCIe 3.0 and x8/x8 PCIe 2.0.

Where was the bandwidth problem again?

Additionally, no modern GPU (even the HD 7990) fully saturates a PCIe 2.0 bus yet anyway. You'd have to CrossFire 2 HD 7990s to saturate it, and personally, I don't see too many people needing 2 dual Tahiti cards for everyday use...
a c 210 à CPUs
July 4, 2013 4:11:00 PM

lostgamer_03 said:


Best of both worlds? It's kinda "meh" of both worlds. Intel CPUs are way better performing in gaming. Even at overclockted to 4.8 GHz, it doesn't even surpass an i5-2500k at stock. Just watch these benchmarks.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350... - Benchmarks overclocked and at stock in gaming

Video editing is the same story, AMD FX 8350 doesn't simply cut the cake

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350... - Benchmarks overclocked and at stock in editing

Many cores and high clock speeds is what AMD live upon in the CPU market, people believe that the AMD CPU is faster due to the numbers. But it simply isn't. You can go buy the FX 8350 CPU and get worse performance, no big deal it will probably still do the job, still it's not the best choice you have for your money.


Ok, let's set the record straight here:

Video encoding (2 pass method):





Hmm...a little slower first pass...MUCH faster second pass...I think that will end up working itself out just fine.

Cinebench:



Hmm...8350 > 3570k @ Cinebench

OpenCL Rendering (CPU only):



Hmm...8350 > 3570k @ rendering

POV-Ray (CPU only):



Hmm...8350 > 3570k @ Imaging

QTBench (Multitasking):



Hmm...8350 > 3570k @ multitasking

Encryption (CPU only):



Hmm...8350 > 3570k @ encryption

7zip Compression (CPU only):



Hmm...8350 > 3570k @ file compression

7zip Decompression (CPU only):



Hmm...8350 > 3770k & 3570k @ file decompression

So, overall, it looks like the 3570k isn't bad at any of these...it's just not as good as the 8350.
a c 88 à CPUs
July 4, 2013 4:47:06 PM

Yay, now the OP surely has his answer... to the question he asked in FEBRUARY.
July 4, 2013 5:03:03 PM

Sakkura said:
Yay, now the OP surely has his answer... to the question he asked in FEBRUARY.


you made me lol
a c 88 à CPUs
July 4, 2013 5:07:01 PM

4 necros in one thread does get a bit annoying.
a c 88 à CPUs
July 4, 2013 5:51:25 PM

vrgadin said:
this will blow ur minds, especially you intel fanbois, sticky this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

Unreliable source, plus who the heck benchmarks on a mod? And one where you get around 200 FPS? Derp. No CPU-intensive games in a CPU benchmark.
a c 210 à CPUs
July 4, 2013 9:09:25 PM

Sakkura said:
4 necros in one thread does get a bit annoying.


Wow...totally missed it was a necro...I must be slipping.
July 4, 2013 10:53:01 PM

Sakkura said:
vrgadin said:
this will blow ur minds, especially you intel fanbois, sticky this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

Unreliable source, plus who the heck benchmarks on a mod? And one where you get around 200 FPS? Derp. No CPU-intensive games in a CPU benchmark.


derp? yeh whatever. i see it the other way, so many bias benchmark sites that spew propaganda in favor of intel. and i care about the latest greates games, dont care if its cpu intensive or not, 8350 still beat up the intel
a c 88 à CPUs
July 5, 2013 4:04:06 AM

vrgadin said:
derp? yeh whatever. i see it the other way, so many bias benchmark sites that spew propaganda in favor of intel. and i care about the latest greates games, dont care if its cpu intensive or not, 8350 still beat up the intel

So Crysis Warhead and Crysis 2 are the latest greatest games? What about, say, Crysis 3?
a c 210 à CPUs
July 5, 2013 8:03:52 AM

Since you asked...

Crysis 3:

a c 88 à CPUs
July 5, 2013 8:30:23 AM

The 8350 is slower than the 3570K in Crysis 3; at stock it's slower than the 3550 too:

July 5, 2013 8:34:49 AM

only the 39k is slightly faster......this was a discussion about the 3570k which 8350 beats easily. just sayin
a c 88 à CPUs
July 5, 2013 8:36:35 AM

vrgadin said:
only the 39k is slightly faster......this was a discussion about the 3570k which 8350 beats easily. just sayin

The Core i5-3550 has a 31 FPS minimum while the FX-8350 has a 21 FPS minimum. Their averages are within half an FPS of each other, so the 3550 is clearly faster than an 8350 at stock. Therefore, the 3570K should also be faster than the 8350, overclocked or not.
a c 210 à CPUs
July 5, 2013 10:05:47 AM

Sakkura said:
vrgadin said:
only the 39k is slightly faster......this was a discussion about the 3570k which 8350 beats easily. just sayin

The Core i5-3550 has a 31 FPS minimum while the FX-8350 has a 21 FPS minimum. Their averages are within half an FPS of each other, so the 3550 is clearly faster than an 8350 at stock. Therefore, the 3570K should also be faster than the 8350, overclocked or not.


That's not what the benchmark I posted showed...

8350: 49 min 58.6 avg
3770k: 47 min 56.7 avg
3570k: 44 min 50.5 avg

That's from a very reliable European site...the same one that discovered that HTT in Crysis 3 actually causes the 3770k to lose a few FPS in certain areas.
a c 88 à CPUs
July 5, 2013 11:22:52 AM

8350rocks said:
That's not what the benchmark I posted showed...

No, but it's what the benchmark I posted showed. And that was from Tom's Hardware. Yours was from some site that apparently tested Crysis 3 before it was even announced.
a c 79 à CPUs
July 5, 2013 1:31:29 PM

8350rocks said:
Sakkura said:
vrgadin said:
only the 39k is slightly faster......this was a discussion about the 3570k which 8350 beats easily. just sayin

The Core i5-3550 has a 31 FPS minimum while the FX-8350 has a 21 FPS minimum. Their averages are within half an FPS of each other, so the 3550 is clearly faster than an 8350 at stock. Therefore, the 3570K should also be faster than the 8350, overclocked or not.


That's not what the benchmark I posted showed...

8350: 49 min 58.6 avg
3770k: 47 min 56.7 avg
3570k: 44 min 50.5 avg

That's from a very reliable European site...the same one that discovered that HTT in Crysis 3 actually causes the 3770k to lose a few FPS in certain areas.


Lets throw in a few more benchmarks shall we, to get the whole picture rather than just cherry picking.





Its a bit of a trend that the "welcome to the jungle" on highest settings works better with the 8350 a little bit. Is this one benchmark enough for me to say 8350 is better for gaming? Hell no. Look at the WHOLE picture from a bunch of review sites testing a lot of games, and the 3570k or better intel cpu's are faster across the board for gaming compared to FX 8350, ranging from a small difference to a significant difference, depending on reviewer/settings/test setup/game (with the exception of teksyndicate which is the odd one out showing completely different information than any other site, clearly he is a duchebag)
July 6, 2013 12:08:55 PM

the reason crysis 3 hqas the 8350 winning out is because it utilizes all cores 8 of em. this is also the future of gaming. imo you will see he 8350 surpassing the i5 3570k steadily as we go further as more and more games will utilize more than 4 cores. wanna buy for the future? go 8350
a c 88 à CPUs
July 6, 2013 12:17:52 PM

vrgadin said:
the reason crysis 3 hqas the 8350 winning out is because it utilizes all cores 8 of em.

The 8350 doesn't win out though. It just more or less catches up (as the benchmarks show, it's still a bit behind the Core i5s). That is probably the situation we'll see more often moving forward; the typical Intel advantage in gaming is set to erode, unless they begin to offer up more cores for the same price.
a c 79 à CPUs
July 6, 2013 10:38:11 PM

vrgadin said:
the reason crysis 3 hqas the 8350 winning out is because it utilizes all cores 8 of em. this is also the future of gaming. imo you will see he 8350 surpassing the i5 3570k steadily as we go further as more and more games will utilize more than 4 cores. wanna buy for the future? go 8350


Clearly another person who only looked at 1 C3 benchmark that showed the 8350 having more fps than 3570k. There are a lot of other benches that show things the other way around, as I posted right before you wrote this comment........... I would say if you want to buy for the future, don't buy now at all, save up and buy in the future.
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 4:11:05 PM

Ya AMD fanboy - eat crow!!You can swing becnches just about anyway you want. Bottom line is Intel for most current games works better == faster and more efficient. BTW I don't beat up on AMD - I used to run them - when they were better!!!.
-Bruce
July 14, 2013 4:40:51 PM

actually after more homework im building an i5 3570k rig :ouch: 

though i love amd and will be watching them closely for the next few years. i think they are headed in the right direction. i will however support them by throwing my gpu money at them :) 
a c 210 à CPUs
July 15, 2013 6:00:55 AM

I think this entire argument is hilariously based from the start...

1. Will anyone ever actually miss the 3-5 FPS? No.

2. Can an AMD CPU play any game out there right now? Yes.

3. Will you pay more for the comparable Intel CPU? Yes.

4. Is it worth the cost difference? Ahh...there's the rub. In my mind...no, it isn't. You're not gaining enough performance in the areas where it's better to offset the cost difference. You're also giving up performance in other areas that you could have had for less money.

5. Is the GPU far more important than the CPU 90% of the time? Yes.

6. Will any decent quad core or better in this last generation of processors from either company game effectively? Yes.

7. Will a SSD make more impact than the 3-5 FPS difference between 2 CPUs? Yes.

Not everyone spends the money for a 30" 120Hz monitor...so the lead that Intel has over AMD is frequently nonexistent and only in the minds of people who read all the synthetic benchmarks and think that must mean everything. The issue with synthetic benchmarks, is that they're synthetic. They attempt to simulate real world performance. The reality of this situation is the following:

Sysmark does not actually make a program outside of synthetic benchmarks, so the performance they test measures against synthetic criteria and means nothing outside of a number generated.

Passmark does not actually make a program outside of synthetic benchmarks, so the performance they test measures against synthetic criteria and means nothing outside of a number generated.

Cinebench is made by Maxon, who does make Cinema 4D, however, none of the big animation houses use that because they're all on Linux and use Linux native software. So that program (which is compiled using ICC) is an essentially worthless barometer unless you're a hobbyist running windows.

SiSoft makes benchmarks that test random throughput for different things, which can make a minor impact in some instances, and makes virtually zero difference in others.

The only ones that honestly give meaningful data are SPEC, Phoronix, and there's another one I can't recall off the top of my head. The issue is, SPEC is expensive, and you must be technical enough to be able to read the data...while Phoronix is a good suite, and free, it is also natively on Linux, so windows users tend to write it off as unimportant. This in spite of the fact that the numbers are unbiased and useful.

So, take everything you hear about this argument with a grain of salt...in fact...might want to keep that salt shaker handy for any of the threads asking about Intel this versus AMD that.
!