Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Opinion & Fact: Intel vs. AMD (primarily gaming use)

Last response: in CPUs
Share

For a gaming computer: Intel i7 or AMD 8 core CPU?

Total: 26 votes

  • Intel i7
  • 58 %
  • AMD 8 core
  • 24 %
  • Makes no difference (please only vote if you honestly feel this way)
  • 20 %
January 12, 2014 12:10:09 PM

Hello there everyone,
If you have seen me around lately, I am currently in the process of getting a PC put together with all of my favorite parts. I have gone to my peers and family members as well as the Toms HW community for support and feedback in regards to the build.

I will have you know, I intend on purchasing a computer with an R9 280x (3GB) card and a AMD FX-8320 3.50 GHz Eight Core processor. Upon sharing this with some of my friends, I was told by them to choose Intel over AMD - to which I immediately replied that it is a matter of opinion... but is it?

I have heard a spectrum of remarks about each brand being infinitely better and worse than the other brand, so I am not sure what to trust. Most information is biased and is merely an opinion formulated by a poor personal experience, which in reality - could happen with either brand.

I am asking you all, if you were building a gaming computer with a budget like mine (About $1.2k), would you choose an AMD CPU or an Intel, and why so? Facts/opinions are both fine, I am just really stuck and dont want to make a mistake with all of my money and regret it for years.

I just assumed AMD because I found this 8 core for a steal, as opposed to an alternative i7 quad core. I intend on running very intensive games, and strive for Battlefield 4 on Ultra which apparently I can achieve.

More or less, one simple question with alot behind it: Intel or AMD?
Opinions are fine but I could use some facts too. Thanks in advance guys.
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a c 275 à CPUs
a c 179 À AMD
January 12, 2014 12:15:37 PM

Since I dont want to list out all the differences this is what it simmers down to:
AMD: Better performance per dollar. You get great performance, for cheap.
Intel: Greater raw performance. You get better single core performance, but your wallet feels it.
a c 247 4 Gaming
a c 103 å Intel
a c 439 à CPUs
a c 130 À AMD
January 12, 2014 12:33:39 PM

Fact. Intel has a vastly superior single thread performance(IPC)
Fact. There are instances when a FX 8320 will outperform an i5.
Fact. A 3rd gen and especially 4th gen i5 will outperform a 8 core FX MOST of the time.
Fact. A 3rd gen and especially 4th gen i7 will outperform a 8 core FX almost all the time.


Opinions in which I disagree with-

AMDs are garbage and will not perform. This is false.
i3s will not get the job done. False. i3s are perfectly acceptable for casual-mid range gaming.
i5s are just as good as i7s in gaming. This is not true. Officially i7s ARE better(when comparing same gen). The truth is the i7 isn't better enough to justify the $100 premium over the i5.

Related resources
a c 247 4 Gaming
a c 103 å Intel
a c 439 à CPUs
a c 130 À AMD
January 12, 2014 12:42:50 PM

The FX 6300 and FX 8320 are GREAT values. Better than any Intel in the same price range. So If I was going to build a gaming PC for under $800, I would get one of those, but If I'm going to spend $1000-1200, I'm going to get an i5 4670k. I would not bother with an i7 unless there was a really good deal on one at the time. If I didn't want to overclock at all, I would get a Xeon e3-1230v3.
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2014 2:58:56 PM

The higher i7's get grief as being mostly a waste of money because six cores/twelve threads aren't as yet needed for gaming. AMD's eight core/eight thread CPUs would fall in the same boat. And as others have said, Intel's single core performance is much better than AMD's.

AMD's are much cheaper and often the better value, but like any industry, when you start moving into the more premium segment, you start losing dollar for dollar value for greater performance. It's true with cars, clothes, TV's, and is no different with processors.
January 12, 2014 4:42:49 PM

Thank you guys, I appreciate the clarification.
Anyone else with insight is more than welcomed to share, Id love to hear it.
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2014 10:55:08 PM

Intel is a safe choice, while AMD is more of a bumpy ride, but cheaper.

I got I7-4770 myself and I think it's overkill right now, I am sure that your AMD choice is just fine, except for maybe some single threaded games like Skyrim and Starcraft 2 - those have issues with AMD (or at least are not as smooth as Intel due to AMD's crappy single core performance).

I5-4670 is a very solid choice that come closer to FX price range (still more expensive, but it's worth it, IMO). It's basically I7 without hyperthreading and hyperthreading is not very useful in gaming just yet, although it starts to see some use in latest titles.
a c 95 à CPUs
January 12, 2014 11:11:43 PM

Coal Felpz said:
I am asking you all, if you were building a gaming computer with a budget like mine (About $1.2k), would you choose an AMD CPU or an Intel, and why so? Facts/opinions are both fine, I am just really stuck and dont want to make a mistake with all of my money and regret it for years.


At this point and time with my experience, in writing AMD overclock guides, and using multiple AMD CPUs in the process, that question to me is classed as a No Brainer, definitely go Intel, and preferably an unlocked K series!

Doesn't have a thing to do with past failures or what you can possibly get by with, it has everything to do with the raw power Intel delivers not just stock but overclocked as well when further down the road you may consider overclocking for more useable power.

Very few applications need or can even take advantage of an 8 core processor, so why would you even be adding the extra heat to deal with, the extra cores can be a serious limiting factor to a high overclock, and you may have zero overclocking intentions now but what about later.

If I was building a machine from scratch today investing my hard earned money into it, it would definitely not be an AMD machine!



a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 12, 2014 11:26:08 PM

You'd be perfectly fine getting the 8320 and overclocking it past the more expensive 8350.

I think we all really overestimate the power needed for years to come, the new consoles ps4 and xbox one are only using weak AMD 8 core cpus clocked at ~1.6ghz, with ~hd7790 gpu in xbox, and ps4 ~hd7870

in short,you'll be set for years to come with the 8 core AMD cpu. Games are going to take advantage of more cores in the future, the 8320/8350 will age very well due to this, and to a lesser extent even the 6 core 6300/6350 will as well
January 13, 2014 3:37:15 AM

4Ryan6 said:
Coal Felpz said:
I am asking you all, if you were building a gaming computer with a budget like mine (About $1.2k), would you choose an AMD CPU or an Intel, and why so? Facts/opinions are both fine, I am just really stuck and dont want to make a mistake with all of my money and regret it for years.


At this point and time with my experience, in writing AMD overclock guides, and using multiple AMD CPUs in the process, that question to me is classed as a No Brainer, definitely go Intel, and preferably an unlocked K series!

Doesn't have a thing to do with past failures or what you can possibly get by with, it has everything to do with the raw power Intel delivers not just stock but overclocked as well when further down the road you may consider overclocking for more useable power.

Very few applications need or can even take advantage of an 8 core processor, so why would you even be adding the extra heat to deal with, the extra cores can be a serious limiting factor to a high overclock, and you may have zero overclocking intentions now but what about later.

If I was building a machine from scratch today investing my hard earned money into it, it would definitely not be an AMD machine!


As you said, I currently have 0 overclock intentions and it is safe to say that atleast for the near future, I do not intend on doing so - atleast not until I have to. Luckily, the AMD I mentioned is indeed an unlocked processor, simply allowing me to overclock on my own time. Do you think an 8 core would actually limit and noticeably slow my overclock? And in regards to unnecessary cores, in theory - couldn't I use msconfig and get the CPU to boot with only 4 active cores? I believe that can be changed if desired, but please correct me if I am wrong.

WhiteSnake91 said:
You'd be perfectly fine getting the 8320 and overclocking it past the more expensive 8350.

I think we all really overestimate the power needed for years to come, the new consoles ps4 and xbox one are only using weak AMD 8 core cpus clocked at ~1.6ghz, with ~hd7790 gpu in xbox, and ps4 ~hd7870

in short,you'll be set for years to come with the 8 core AMD cpu. Games are going to take advantage of more cores in the future, the 8320/8350 will age very well due to this, and to a lesser extent even the 6 core 6300/6350 will as well


This is good to know, and more or less what I wanted to hear. Knowing that the next-gen consoles are running these chips (and given their results) makes me feel much better about AMD. I figure I have 8 cores for when games become demanding, of which I can turn some off when I dont need them.

Jameson Clark said:
Well since most differences seem to have been said already I will just leave this here. Don't just trust the Forum, trust the experts. A whole lot of intel in the top tier and no AMD

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...


Well, I found my processor in the second tier AMD... more than good enough for me.

I am going to put the price up a little later so those with Intel processors can make suggestions for me to consider.
As long as AMD's aren't reputable for blowing up and failing (of which I have heard nothing of) then I am unworried.
None the less, anything you have to say - go right ahead.

a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 3:55:09 AM

Here's my two pence.

Talking in gaming terms, performance per core will yield better results than the number of cores, and this is where Intel outclasses AMD. Another consideration is that only a handful of games properly utilise four cores and hyper-threading doesn't factor in at all. You'll only see the benefit of extra cores and HT in productivity tasks, such as video rendering. The icing on the cake is that Intel CPUs are built on a more efficient manufacturing process, meaning they consume less power and produce less heat.

If gaming is your primary concern, an i7 is overkill. Go for an i5 and save your cash, or use it to upgrade something else.
January 13, 2014 4:02:23 AM

^ +1
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 4:03:37 AM

I feel like AMD's cpu are only good for budget quad cores and octacores for things like video editing. For gaming Intel is king, the i5 is just a beast of a cpu with very fast cores. Intel has better microarchitectures and is just a lot more energy efficient,

AMD: Budget gaming pc, they have cheap quad cores and great apu's. Also an option for budget workstations. fx-6300 is a steal for a budget gaming pc.

I would personally always prefer Intel, unless my budget forces me to choose an AMD cpu. I don't care for underdogs/monopoly and stuff like that, i just want the best cpu.
January 13, 2014 4:56:36 AM

The statement that says amd's performance/price ratio is better is not true. Both companies are always leap-frogging each other. For example, the fx 8350 or the 8320 are really great for the price vs the i7 4770k, because even though the last one is better, you pay 150 $ more for just a small increase. However, when it comes to the fx 9590 for example,its really more profitable to buy a i7 4770k, because, for the same price, you get more performance.
a b 4 Gaming
a c 115 å Intel
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
January 13, 2014 12:11:02 PM

I would go with an i5 for games since games generally do not benefit from Hyper Threading.

In the link below you can look at the benchmarks I posted regarding the performance difference between the Core i7-4770k and the FX-9590. The i5-4670k is not part of the benchmarks, but in games there should not be much of a difference.

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1852053/amd-9590...
January 13, 2014 3:55:43 PM

I think you guys have to be right.
If everyone says Intel is better for gaming then it must be, thank you all for the great insight!
I will pick a best answer in a little while, again - thanks guys
January 13, 2014 6:02:52 PM

the FX-8350 will more than suit your needs in years to come for gaming at 1080 . why spend more than you have to? personally i would buy a ssd with the spare money for greater loading times , if you have one already a raid 0 setup would be cool or more ram for extended ssd life. intel is only good for photoshop and cad cam apps and gaming higher than 1080/1440
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 6:05:56 PM

cheapo gamer said:
the FX-8350 will more than suit your needs in years to come for gaming at 1080 . why spend more than you have to? personally i would buy a ssd with the spare money for greater loading times , if you have one already a raid 0 setup would be cool or more ram for extended ssd life. intel is only good for photoshop and cad cam apps and gaming higher than 1080/1440


''why search for leftovers when you can get a steak'' Intel is best for gaming and photo editing. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...
a b 4 Gaming
a c 115 å Intel
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
January 13, 2014 6:11:29 PM

cheapo gamer said:
the FX-8350 will more than suit your needs in years to come for gaming at 1080 . why spend more than you have to?


Because buying Intel means you can postpone plans to upgrade. The higher performance it provides means it can actually save you money since you will likely not feel the need to upgrade the CPU compared to the FX-8350 in CPU dependent games.
January 13, 2014 6:18:57 PM

EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
the FX-8350 will more than suit your needs in years to come for gaming at 1080 . why spend more than you have to? personally i would buy a ssd with the spare money for greater loading times , if you have one already a raid 0 setup would be cool or more ram for extended ssd life. intel is only good for photoshop and cad cam apps and gaming higher than 1080/1440


''why search for leftovers when you can get a steak'' Intel is best for gaming and photo editing. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...


because amd have there 8 core processors in both latest gen consoles along with bf4 and more games and system apps will be optimized for these cores, look around http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html there are bench tests which contradict both arguments and i dont see a single i5 above that 8350,
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 6:21:26 PM

cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
the FX-8350 will more than suit your needs in years to come for gaming at 1080 . why spend more than you have to? personally i would buy a ssd with the spare money for greater loading times , if you have one already a raid 0 setup would be cool or more ram for extended ssd life. intel is only good for photoshop and cad cam apps and gaming higher than 1080/1440


''why search for leftovers when you can get a steak'' Intel is best for gaming and photo editing. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...


because amd have there 8 core processors in both latest gen consoles along with bf4 and more games and system apps will be optimized for these cores, look around http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html there are bench tests which contradict both arguments and i dont see a single i5 above that 8350,


Intel use totally different core-technology and a quadcore intel can beat a 8 core amd easely.
January 13, 2014 6:22:31 PM

jaguarskx said:
cheapo gamer said:
the FX-8350 will more than suit your needs in years to come for gaming at 1080 . why spend more than you have to?


Because buying Intel means you can postpone plans to upgrade. The higher performance it provides means it can actually save you money since you will likely not feel the need to upgrade the CPU compared to the FX-8350 in CPU dependent games.


spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 6:24:14 PM

cheapo gamer said:
jaguarskx said:
cheapo gamer said:
the FX-8350 will more than suit your needs in years to come for gaming at 1080 . why spend more than you have to?


Because buying Intel means you can postpone plans to upgrade. The higher performance it provides means it can actually save you money since you will likely not feel the need to upgrade the CPU compared to the FX-8350 in CPU dependent games.


spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life


The ssd provides faster boot times, not faster games. You might load up your game faster but you it wont improve the game
a b 4 Gaming
a c 115 å Intel
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
January 13, 2014 6:37:24 PM

cheapo gamer said:


spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life



Depends on the situation and the graphics card. A low budget graphics card, sure I guess you can use the price difference between a FX-8350 and i5-4670k (about $40 right now) to buy a better graphics card, but that better be a low budget card. An extra $40 on top of a $200 budget (or more) for a graphics card will not double FPS performance.

In one situation that took place in November, someone was looking to upgrade his i7-920 which be bought back in 2008. He was interested in either the FX-8350 APU or the A10-6800k APU because he did not want to pay "Intel prices".

I provided him as series of CPU benchmarks of around 12 - 16 different games from www.techspot.com. The benchmarks showed that on average the i7-920 and FX-8350 were pretty equal in perform. The i7-920 might have had 2% or 3% lower performance, but the results basically showed the 2008 CPU could still go toe with the FX-8350 which was released in 2012. Thus, long story short, he decided not to upgrade which meant he saved his money.
January 13, 2014 6:38:21 PM

EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
the FX-8350 will more than suit your needs in years to come for gaming at 1080 . why spend more than you have to? personally i would buy a ssd with the spare money for greater loading times , if you have one already a raid 0 setup would be cool or more ram for extended ssd life. intel is only good for photoshop and cad cam apps and gaming higher than 1080/1440


''why search for leftovers when you can get a steak'' Intel is best for gaming and photo editing. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...


because amd have there 8 core processors in both latest gen consoles along with bf4 and more games and system apps will be optimized for these cores, look around http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html there are bench tests which contradict both arguments and i dont see a single i5 above that 8350,


Intel use totally different core-technology and a quadcore intel can beat a 8 core amd easely.


for a few fps difference where an overclock or/and the money spent on a graphics card can get better results or an ssd can reduce loading times and the length of times intel have changed there socket im surprised a new one isnt under way already. once again price to performance the fx-8350 beats it, the power drawn is not substantially more either http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=..., I really can't see a reason in spending so much more money on a processor that has a half fps increasehttp://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/380999-33-8350-3570...
January 13, 2014 6:43:33 PM

jaguarskx said:
cheapo gamer said:


spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life



Depends on the situation and the graphics card. A low budget graphics card, sure I guess you can use the price difference between a FX-8350 and i5-4670k (about $40 right now) to buy a better graphics card, but that better be a low budget card. An extra $40 on top of a $200 budget (or more) for a graphics card will not double FPS performance.

In one situation that took place in November, someone was looking to upgrade his i7-920 which be bought back in 2008. He was interested in either the FX-8350 APU or the A10-6800k APU because he did not want to pay "Intel prices".

I provided him as series of CPU benchmarks of around 12 - 16 different games from www.techspot.com. The benchmarks showed that on average the i7-920 and FX-8350 were pretty equal in perform. The i7-920 might have had 2% or 3% lower performance, but the results basically showed the 2008 CPU could still go toe with the FX-8350 which was released in 2012. Thus, long story short, he decided not to upgrade which meant he saved his money.


like I said it's all in the optimization of the games but tell me with the most popular games coming from consoles running amd wont amd's core technology be getting optimized to get better performance still ?, i said the increase on the graphics card will double if not more the difference you would get in fps with an amd processor opposed to an intel processor , not to mention the sake of a frame or 2 less for all that multitasking power which is proven brilliant for amd's 8 core range
a b 4 Gaming
a c 115 å Intel
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
January 13, 2014 6:53:31 PM

cheapo gamer said:

spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life



That is your full reply. I did not edit a thing. You clearly stated spending money on a better graphics card yields twice the FPS improvement.
January 13, 2014 6:55:55 PM

jaguarskx said:
cheapo gamer said:

spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life



That is your full reply. I did not edit a thing. You clearly stated spending money on a better graphics card yields twice the FPS improvement.


i posted this: like I said it's all in the optimization of the games but tell me with the most popular games coming from consoles running amd wont amd's core technology be getting optimized to get better performance still ?, i said the increase on the graphics card will double if not more the difference you would get in fps with an amd processor opposed to an intel processor , not to mention the sake of a frame or 2 less for all that multitasking power which is proven brilliant for amd's 8 core range
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 6:58:46 PM

cheapo gamer said:
jaguarskx said:
cheapo gamer said:

spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life



That is your full reply. I did not edit a thing. You clearly stated spending money on a better graphics card yields twice the FPS improvement.


i posted this: like I said it's all in the optimization of the games but tell me with the most popular games coming from consoles running amd wont amd's core technology be getting optimized to get better performance still ?, i said the increase on the graphics card will double if not more the difference you would get in fps with an amd processor opposed to an intel processor , not to mention the sake of a frame or 2 less for all that multitasking power which is proven brilliant for amd's 8 core range


http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...
January 13, 2014 7:02:07 PM

EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
jaguarskx said:
cheapo gamer said:

spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life



That is your full reply. I did not edit a thing. You clearly stated spending money on a better graphics card yields twice the FPS improvement.


i posted this: like I said it's all in the optimization of the games but tell me with the most popular games coming from consoles running amd wont amd's core technology be getting optimized to get better performance still ?, i said the increase on the graphics card will double if not more the difference you would get in fps with an amd processor opposed to an intel processor , not to mention the sake of a frame or 2 less for all that multitasking power which is proven brilliant for amd's 8 core range


http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...


apart from skyrim who else plays them games ? intel optimized , there was a benchmark i came across on here and it had shown that these games you are showing me are just about the only games intel are beating amd in fps
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 7:03:57 PM

cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
jaguarskx said:
cheapo gamer said:

spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life



That is your full reply. I did not edit a thing. You clearly stated spending money on a better graphics card yields twice the FPS improvement.


i posted this: like I said it's all in the optimization of the games but tell me with the most popular games coming from consoles running amd wont amd's core technology be getting optimized to get better performance still ?, i said the increase on the graphics card will double if not more the difference you would get in fps with an amd processor opposed to an intel processor , not to mention the sake of a frame or 2 less for all that multitasking power which is proven brilliant for amd's 8 core range


http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...


apart from skyrim who else plays them games ? intel optimized , there was a benchmark i came across on here and it had shown that these games you are showing me are just about the only games intel are beating amd in fps


well i do want to see it then.
a b 4 Gaming
a c 115 å Intel
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
January 13, 2014 7:05:01 PM

It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 7:07:22 PM

The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.
January 13, 2014 7:16:09 PM

EvgaLover said:
The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.


copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 13, 2014 7:20:37 PM

with both new consoles PS4 and Xbox One using weaker 1.6ghz 8-core cpus you're not going to suffer certainly for years to come with an 8 core 8320/8350.

CPU intensive games are becoming less and less as time goes on. Starcraft 2 and Skyrim off the top of my head are the big two that play better on an Intel, but I believe it's because neither of them use more than 2 cores from my reading on it. Regardless, I think it's wrong that people make it out to be that AMD cpu's won't even play minesweeper with how bad people talk down on them. I'd have no qualms going to an 8 core AMD cpu 8320/8350.

As time goes on games are going to use more cores/threads. BF4 and Crysis 3 already do and those are big name big budget titles (yes BF4 is a buggy mess but that's a different story...lol)

Even on Skyrim and Starcraft 2 people act like the games are utterly unplayable on AMD, which isn't true at all.
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 7:21:04 PM

cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.


copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770


The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel
January 13, 2014 7:43:37 PM

jaguarskx said:
It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.


EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.


copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770


The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel


Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 7:45:37 PM

cheapo gamer said:
jaguarskx said:
It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.


EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.


copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770


The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel


Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!


Can a moderator please ban this troll? jesus christ you amd fanboys kids really can't control yourself once you feel the heat
January 13, 2014 7:52:20 PM

EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
jaguarskx said:
It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.


EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.


copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770


The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel


Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!


Can a moderator please ban this troll?


A troll? no, you a facepalming self harming over dramatic prat ? yes!. How can you justify the price to performance ratio for an intel when amd have great optimised games coming out, the most popular games with the looks of it and it isnt just for there gpu
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 7:55:41 PM

cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
jaguarskx said:
It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.


EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.


copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770


The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel


Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!


Can a moderator please ban this troll?


A troll? no, you a facepalming self harming over dramatic prat ? yes!. How can you justify the price to performance ratio for an intel when amd have great optimised games coming out, the most popular games with the looks of it and it isnt just for there gpu


This is a respective forum and your beavior is immature and makes no sence. If you wanna blab out about how much you like to ''shove you back into your mother'' then i my best advice for you is to go to reddit, 9gag or any other immature forum. You are nothing but a little immature amd fanboy kid.
January 13, 2014 8:11:19 PM

EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
jaguarskx said:
It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.


EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.


copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770


The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel


Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!


Can a moderator please ban this troll?


A troll? no, you a facepalming self harming over dramatic prat ? yes!. How can you justify the price to performance ratio for an intel when amd have great optimised games coming out, the most popular games with the looks of it and it isnt just for there gpu


This is a respective forum and your beavior is immature and makes no sence. If you wanna blab out about how much you like to ''shove you back into your mother'' then i my best advice for you is to go to reddit, 9gag or any other immature forum. You are nothing but a little immature amd fanboy kid.


says the tool trying to push bs overpriced I-5 processors on people when I clearly have stated that the amount of cash would be better invested on an I-7 did I not ? but since the man is asking about weather the extra performance is worth it for gaming and it is not especially since you will be changing a 4 core i-5 out before an fx8320-50 and both next gen consoles include that same technology and those games are made for multicore optimization, your clearly useless and trying to waste the mans money!

edit: i said i'd love to shove you back into your mother ,you behave as a sad acting emo that failed drama class facepalming your way through life , I bet you have a separate screen just for pornhub now stop over reacting if your spots burst you will have to clean your screen pal
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 8:18:45 PM

cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
jaguarskx said:
It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.


EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.


copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770


The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel


Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!


Can a moderator please ban this troll?


A troll? no, you a facepalming self harming over dramatic prat ? yes!. How can you justify the price to performance ratio for an intel when amd have great optimised games coming out, the most popular games with the looks of it and it isnt just for there gpu


This is a respective forum and your beavior is immature and makes no sence. If you wanna blab out about how much you like to ''shove you back into your mother'' then i my best advice for you is to go to reddit, 9gag or any other immature forum. You are nothing but a little immature amd fanboy kid.


says the tool trying to push bs overpriced I-5 processors on people when I clearly have stated that the amount of cash would be better invested on an I-7 did I not ? but since the man is asking about weather the extra performance is worth it for gaming and it is not especially since you will be changing a 4 core i-5 out before an fx8320-50 and both next gen consoles include that same technology and those games are made for multicore optimization, your clearly useless and trying to waste the mans money!


you are a waste of time. I dont even know why i waste time on you. I based my discussions on facts and i have linked benchmark and showed you why intel is better but you havent linked anything. you have given your personal opinons and told people to show themself up in their moms. Im unfollowing this thread.
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 8:21:48 PM

On one hand, the AMD FX-8350 is only $30-40 cheaper than i5-4670K. I don't know if this would sway me in favor of AMD, (1) considering i5 normally has faster per-core performance, (2) i5 runs cooler (edit: more power efficient), and (3) FX-8350 is not truly 8 core. It has 8 integer cores, but only 4 FPUs. On the other hand, the FX-8320 is right now $80 cheaper than i5-4670K, so I guess it does save you slightly more change.

However, i5-4670K still remains a fundamentally "cheap" CPU, being priced $230-240 in today's dollars. And, i5-4670K remains effectively as fast as the more expensive i7 CPUs for single threaded stuff, and it's not given that your applications will use enough threads to benefit from hyperthreading in the i7. Relatively speaking, CPUs are so cheap now that arguing about whether you save $30-40 bucks by going with Intel or AMD is almost inconsequential. I remember when Pentium II 400MHz, Intel's top CPU, at the time of release cost $800, and that's in 90s dollars. Back in those days, it might have been totally worth it to buy a CPU that cost 3x times less and then overclock it.


January 13, 2014 8:22:45 PM

EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
jaguarskx said:
It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.


EvgaLover said:
cheapo gamer said:
EvgaLover said:
The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.


copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770


The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel


Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!


Can a moderator please ban this troll?


A troll? no, you a facepalming self harming over dramatic prat ? yes!. How can you justify the price to performance ratio for an intel when amd have great optimised games coming out, the most popular games with the looks of it and it isnt just for there gpu


This is a respective forum and your beavior is immature and makes no sence. If you wanna blab out about how much you like to ''shove you back into your mother'' then i my best advice for you is to go to reddit, 9gag or any other immature forum. You are nothing but a little immature amd fanboy kid.


says the tool trying to push bs overpriced I-5 processors on people when I clearly have stated that the amount of cash would be better invested on an I-7 did I not ? but since the man is asking about weather the extra performance is worth it for gaming and it is not especially since you will be changing a 4 core i-5 out before an fx8320-50 and both next gen consoles include that same technology and those games are made for multicore optimization, your clearly useless and trying to waste the mans money!


you are a waste of time. I dont even know why i waste time on you. I based my discussions on facts and i have linked benchmark and showed you why intel is better but you havent linked anything. you have given your personal opinons and told people to show themself up in their moms. Im unfollowing this thread.


If you want to know what I am bothered about is you post the 3 most optimised games for an intel processor! games hardly anyone plays and games what arent going to get much more optimised either not many games are going to be designed around an intel processor since the flagshit consoles of mainstream gaming are amd based
January 13, 2014 11:00:51 PM

jacobian said:
On one hand, the AMD FX-8350 is only $30-40 cheaper than i5-4670K. I don't know if this would sway me in favor of AMD, (1) considering i5 normally has faster per-core performance, (2) i5 runs cooler (edit: more power efficient), and (3) FX-8350 is not truly 8 core. It has 8 integer cores, but only 4 FPUs. On the other hand, the FX-8320 is right now $80 cheaper than i5-4670K, so I guess it does save you slightly more change.

However, i5-4670K still remains a fundamentally "cheap" CPU, being priced $230-240 in today's dollars. And, i5-4670K remains effectively as fast as the more expensive i7 CPUs for single threaded stuff, and it's not given that your applications will use enough threads to benefit from hyperthreading in the i7. Relatively speaking, CPUs are so cheap now that arguing about whether you save $30-40 bucks by going with Intel or AMD is almost inconsequential. I remember when Pentium II 400MHz, Intel's top CPU, at the time of release cost $800, and that's in 90s dollars. Back in those days, it might have been totally worth it to buy a CPU that cost 3x times less and then overclock it.




you see the difference for me is the 8320 costs £109 in the uk and the processor you mentioned cost 170, my motherboard cost £60 along with my 7870 xt what cost £165 , so what I pay for an intel processor and mobo i was able to add money and buy this over the standard 7870 what was £125 at the point of buying with money saved towards my cm212evo+ for my processor at 4 ghz i max out at 40-45c only because of the crappy cooler my graphics card has but I dont have to turn on the heating at least
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a c 435 à CPUs
a c 110 À AMD
January 14, 2014 4:10:31 AM

a b 4 Gaming
a c 92 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 5:06:50 AM

for gaming use, go with AMD unless you do have $900-1000+ budget.
Because in the end(gaming wise) you will only be looking at a few FPS going from AMD to intel.
Focus on the GPU instead.
!