Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd or Intel Cpu for gaming?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 26, 2013 5:05:17 AM

Currently I am planning to build a Middle End Gaming Computer. I am into MMORPG's more then anything. I would like to be able to play stuff like Guildwars 2, Tera Online, Raiderz and Phantasy Star Online 2 at 1080p at 60 fps with max effects and max textures settings. I usually turn stuff like Shadows and anti aliasing off. I do buy stuff off steam. But I don't play anything to demanding like Battlefield 3 or Crysis 2. I honestly don't like fps games.

I was wondering how something like AMD FD4100WMGUSBX FX-4100 Processor - Quad Core, 8MB L3 Cache, 2MB L2 Cache, 3.60GHz (3.80GHz Max Turbo) would stack up against something like Intel Core i5-3570 BX806237i53570 Processor - Quad Core, 6MB L3 Cache, 3.40GHz (3.80GHz Max Turbo) Is it really worth the extra money when it comes to gaming? Atleast for what I am aiming to achieve?

More about : amd intel cpu gaming

February 26, 2013 5:34:19 AM

The AMD will probably be fine, for now. But if you want to future-proof it a bit, I would spend the extra money on a i5 3350P. I always go with a ~$200 i5, just because I tend to keep my computers for 3-4 years and want to enjoy good performance through the whole life of the machine.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 26, 2013 5:42:36 AM

MMOs actually tend to be fairly CPU heavy, as opposed to graphics. Definitely a good quad core is a good place to start.

The FX4100 and i5-3570 are in totally different leagues despite seeming superficially similar (similar clock speed and both quad core).
The AMD FX line uses dual core modules that they stack up to build processors. The 4*** have 2 of them to make a "quad", 6*** has 3, 8*** has 4. These modules share certain resources which means they aren't quite on the level of a "true" quad. Also, AMD processors tend to have a lower IPC (Instructions per cycle) than Intel, so for every "Hz", they calculate less.
For gaming, Intel is generally king, regardless of the price level you are looking at. There are exceptions to this, especially if you are keen to overclock a CPU, most AMD processors can be overclocked when only the k-series Intels can be.

Also, the FX4100 is from the older line of AMD processors. The newer "Vishera" line (look for a 3 in the 2nd digit ie. 8320, 6300) is priced very similarly and offers a nice step forward in performance.

If you can afford a 3570, then it's a great CPU. Personally, I reckon the 3470/3450 are better for the money as they are nearly identical and usually a bit cheaper. What you probably should be considering as an alternative is not the FX-4*** but AMD processors in the same kind of price bracket. A FX-6300 or FX-8320/8350 is a much more worthy i5 competitor.

In summary :D 

i5 3570K - Pretty much the best solely gaming CPU you can buy, not cheap
i5 3***(non-k) - Great out of the box performance, can save on motherboard too
FX-6300 - Great value, warrents overclocking to get the most out of that value
FX-83** - Great if you want to multitask/video render etc, otherwise similar to FX6300.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 26, 2013 5:58:52 AM

Gundy said:
The AMD will probably be fine, for now. But if you want to future-proof it a bit, I would spend the extra money on a i5 3350P. I always go with a ~$200 i5, just because I tend to keep my computers for 3-4 years and want to enjoy good performance through the whole life of the machine.


Considering that 1175 socket is dying with the ivy bridge, how exactly are you future proofing by going with the i5 over the FX? For the same price point, going with the 8320 or 8350 would provide much greater flexibility in the long run.

Rammy said:


In summary :D 

i5 3570K - Pretty much the best solely gaming CPU you can buy, not cheap
i5 3***(non-k) - Great out of the box performance, can save on motherboard too
FX-6300 - Great value, warrents overclocking to get the most out of that value
FX-83** - Great if you want to multitask/video render etc, otherwise similar to FX6300.


Newer games seem to do equality well on a FX-8350 so the claim of 3570K being the best gaming CPU is somewhat dated and misleading. The FX series provides better performance per dollar spent but the costs balance out in the long run due to higher power consumption.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2013 6:01:35 AM

Ivy Bridge will be good for the next 2-3 years.. idk what your talking about slomo...the I5 is better for gaming.. core performance.. the i5 is BETTER
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 26, 2013 6:08:45 AM

slomo4sho said:

Newer games seem to do equality well on a FX-8350 so the claim of 3570K being the best gaming CPU is somewhat dated and misleading. The FX series provides better performance per dollar spent but the costs balance out in the long run due to higher power consumption.


As with everything it really depends on the game. You are right that a lot of games perform equally well on both, but as a generalisation the i5 will be the overall winner. I don't disagree with your sentiment though, the FX line offers a lot depending on what you want, but in my opinion the FX6300 is the best processor they have because it's incredibly well priced against i3s.
Also the notion of power consumption saving money is a bit of a misnomer. Under max load an AMD processor will be a monster power draw, especially if overclocked, but the difference at idle won't be dramatic. To translate that into any kind of meaningful saving over say a year involves an awful lot of speculation, and it's not something I would suggest people use to influence their decisions.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 26, 2013 6:23:11 AM

Rammy said:

Also the notion of power consumption saving money is a bit of a misnomer. Under max load an AMD processor will be a monster power draw, especially if overclocked, but the difference at idle won't be dramatic. To translate that into any kind of meaningful saving over say a year involves an awful lot of speculation, and it's not something I would suggest people use to influence their decisions.


Power consumption over a year isn't worth debating. However, if you plan on using the machine for 3-5 years than it can be suggested, depending on where you live, that total costs of both AMD and Intel chips are relatively equal (considering that the price difference between the FX-8350 and i5 3570K is ~$30). i7s are a completely different story :) 


Rockdpm said:
Ivy Bridge will be good for the next 2-3 years.. idk what your talking about slomo...the I5 is better for gaming.. core performance.. the i5 is BETTER


I am not sure what you are talking about. The i5 excels at certain applications and game, the FX-8350 excels at other applications and games. I was pointing out that the Gundy's argument for longevity with the i5 over the FX is moot since there are minimal upgrade options(3570K and 3770K in this case being the primary) for future uses of the 1175 socket. If you are unaware, Haswell is going to be using a different socket type.
m
0
l
February 26, 2013 7:54:51 AM

slomo4sho said:
Considering that 1175 socket is dying with the ivy bridge, how exactly are you future proofing by going with the i5 over the FX? For the same price point, going with the 8320 or 8350 would provide much greater flexibility in the long run.



Newer games seem to do equality well on a FX-8350 so the claim of 3570K being the best gaming CPU is somewhat dated and misleading. The FX series provides better performance per dollar spent but the costs balance out in the long run due to higher power consumption.


In your opinion what do you think would be better? The FX-8350 or the 3570K? Would I be safe with either one of these for the next 3-5 years or so? Should I save up more and get something more expensive like the i7 3770k? or a even better Amd. And do I have to worry about the amount of cores or would quad be good enough?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 26, 2013 8:15:48 AM

Both the AMD and the Intel will still be capable gaming CPU's in the next three years.
The Intel has the edge now (in most games), but it seems like games are starting to become more and more optimised for multiple threads and those are exactly the tasks the AMD excels at.
Then power consumption and future proofing come into play.
The Intel will consume less power, but is based on a pretty much dead platform, so the AMD has the win in terms of future proofing. The thing is that the next generation consoles, or at least the PS4 are going to use AMD 8 core processors, which means that games are going to become optimised for 8 threads.

The Core i7 3770K is better than the AMD in pretty much every aspect, but it isn't really worth the extra cash.

Or... if you want to save money and still get great performance, take a look at this AMD.
http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=HDZ975GM&c=CJ
It is leagues ahead of the FX 4100, and pretty close to the FX 6300
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 26, 2013 4:04:36 PM

musicflow69 said:
In your opinion what do you think would be better? The FX-8350 or the 3570K? Would I be safe with either one of these for the next 3-5 years or so? Should I save up more and get something more expensive like the i7 3770k? or a even better Amd. And do I have to worry about the amount of cores or would quad be good enough?


In my opinion it is probably better to go with an AM3+ motherboard with a FX-6300 or preferably a AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Processor for $85 and invest the savings in a better GPU. You have the option of upgrading the CPU later on if you find need for it.

m
0
l
February 26, 2013 4:36:40 PM

Isn't AM3+ dying off with, or possibly before, Steamroller?
m
0
l
February 26, 2013 4:49:50 PM

It depends on budget in my opinion. AMD should run those games but i5 would do it better. All depends on budget.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 26, 2013 5:11:19 PM

The i5 will generally beat the AMD in games except for a few very specific situations. Also, Slomo mentions that the i5's socket will be gone, but how long is AM3+ going to last at this point (for his FX-6300 rec).

Also, notice in this benchmark how the AMD loses to the intel in every single game? http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701&i=505... . . . Both will probably overclock well. In some games where the CPU doesn't quite matter as much the AMD does OK, but in very CPU sensitive games like Starcraft 2 the Intel beats the AMD by over 40%.

For a gaming machine you want an i5-3570k. Unless you have some other purpose for the machine and the machine will also play games.
m
0
l
a c 117 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 26, 2013 5:23:59 PM


It's all good ...

And for the price of an 15, you can purchase an FX-8320/50, or, for $50 less, an FX-6300.

And a Piledriver doesn't lose to an i5 ... that's just trolling.


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2013 5:35:36 PM

I'd personally go for the i5 too...

I mean AMD is good and all, but (and that is a big but) it's performance isn't as stable. Intel is good across the board whether you play games, rip BD, compose music, encode videos or play around in maya or cad...
AMD's are a roller-coaster - according phoronix the overclocked 8350 can get on par with a stock i7 in heavy threaded apps, but in single thread and various other scenarios it gets crushed by an old i5 2400.
and as far as I remember - there are very few good written multi-threaded games so far and windows isn't as APU friendly compared linux :o )
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 26, 2013 5:55:41 PM

Hello.
Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: February 2013
Don Woligroski's article is very nice and it might help you choose.
According to the article, go for AMD CPU if your budget is lower than $130 or go for Intel CPU if your budget is bigger than $130.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 26, 2013 6:55:50 PM

Memnarchon said:
Hello.
Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: February 2013
Don Woligroski's article is very nice and it might help you choose.
According to the article, go for AMD CPU if your budget is lower than $130 or go for Intel CPU if your budget is bigger than $130.


Considering that the FX-8350 has been regularly on sale between $180-190 recently(was $180 for almost the entire month at TigerDirect), I am not sure how the $180 price point belongs to the i5 3350P. Even now the FX-8350 is $190 at newegg after a $10 gift card.

Even the FX-6300 is $130 after the $10 gift card. The $110-$200 bracket in that article seems to be somewhat biased towards Intel even though there are better options readily available at stated price points.

anthonyorr said:
Isn't AM3+ dying off with, or possibly before, Steamroller?

Steamdriver will remain on AM3+ so you have at least 1 more generation to utilize this socket type whereas ivy bridge is the last supported generation for 1175.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2208525/amd-st...
m
0
l
February 26, 2013 7:08:52 PM

The FX-8350 will get you better performance in most games and it's cheaper than the 3570K. It will also be more future proof.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2013 7:15:31 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2EcXrgJLY0&list=PLlJ6Us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_tbR-eKlrQ&list=PLlJ6Us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qitKdsFD59Y&list=PLlJ6Us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDqjlAK839g&list=PLlJ6Us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPb4-3dNee0&list=PLlJ6Us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpy6R3CFUHg&list=PLlJ6Us...

and We can't forgot about Toms because TomsHardware supports this theory..

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...

These guys arent PAID...So the truth exits their mouth..NOT PAID LIES BY REVIEWERS..FROM AMD

Watch the video's You will see "technically" the i5 is better at gaming... So "technically" its the better processor..
m
0
l
February 26, 2013 7:19:06 PM

Rockdpm said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2EcXrgJLY0&list=PLlJ6Us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_tbR-eKlrQ&list=PLlJ6Us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qitKdsFD59Y&list=PLlJ6Us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDqjlAK839g&list=PLlJ6Us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPb4-3dNee0&list=PLlJ6Us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpy6R3CFUHg&list=PLlJ6Us...

and We can't forgot about Toms because TomsHardware supports this theory..

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...

These guys arent PAID...So the truth exits their mouth..NOT PAID LIES BY REVIEWERS..FROM AMD

Watch the video's You will see "technically" the i5 is better at gaming... So "technically" its the better processor..


:lol: 

Those guys are amateurs.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2013 7:24:11 PM

smokeybravo said:
:lol: 

Those guys are amateurs.

Explain to me how taking a video camera and recording YOURSELF actually playing the game with the SAME exact hardware a reviewer would use in comparison.. isn't showing the best result.. oh whats that? Your not liking I'm telling the truth? because the consumer is seeing behind the curtain how it actually performs..? This is a AMD fanboy thread sure enough.. good luck with thinking AMD performance is "future proof" you buy a board that has the same socket.. but your stuck with the features that board has and spending 200$ anyway every 2 years to get a processor thats only a little better
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 26, 2013 7:28:54 PM

Rockdpm said:


and We can't forgot about Toms because TomsHardware supports this theory..

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...


Lets compare performance to with a chip that costs ~$120-130 more and realize marginal gains. Clearly a practical comparison.
m
0
l
February 26, 2013 7:33:22 PM

well actually AMD is doing pretty good at gaming but their cpus are for few years before a change will be required so i would go for an i5 which rocks at gaming at the top of them the 3570K!
m
0
l
February 26, 2013 7:46:01 PM

smokeybravo said:
:lol: 

Those guys are amateurs.

smokeybravo said:
:lol: 

Those guys are amateurs.

No these guys actually give unbiased reviews and are very informative unlike TekSyndicate who not only is mentally retarded but looks like he just did a mountain of cocaine. So explain how they're "amate
m
0
l
February 26, 2013 7:46:07 PM

smokeybravo said:
:lol: 

Those guys are amateurs.

smokeybravo said:
:lol: 

Those guys are amateurs.

No these guys actually give unbiased reviews and are very informative unlike TekSyndicate who not only is mentally retarded but looks like he just did a mountain of cocaine. So explain how they're "amate
m
0
l
!