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

[Coal Felpz]

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.

 

[Gam3r01]

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.

 

[CTurbo]

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.

 

[CTurbo]

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.

 

[Specops125]

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.

 

[Coal Felpz]

Thank you guys, I appreciate the clarification.
Anyone else with insight is more than welcomed to share, Id love to hear it.

 

[EvgaLover]

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/61451-intel-haswell-i7-4770k-i5-4670k-review-18.html intel ...nuff said

 

[Gaidax]

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.

 

[4Ryan6]

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!

 

[Master-flaw]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs25ZkAS-gY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHnsfIJtZ2o
I find this video gives the best insight on how well they preform compared to each other...
The difference is about 10%...

 

[WhiteSnake91]

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

 

[Jameson Clark]

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-overclock,3106-5.html

 

[Coal Felpz]

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.

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.

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-overclock,3106-5.html

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.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

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.

 

[NaniBot]

^ +1

 

[Praise_Gaben]

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.

 

[Nuno Miguel Costa]

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.

 

[jaguarskx]

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-intel-4770k.html

 

[Coal Felpz]

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

 

[cheapo gamer]

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

 

[EvgaLover]

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-reviews/61451-intel-haswell-i7-4770k-i5-4670k-review-18.html

 

[jaguarskx]

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.

 

[cheapo gamer]

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-reviews/61451-intel-haswell-i7-4770k-i5-4670k-review-18.html

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,

 

[EvgaLover]

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-reviews/61451-intel-haswell-i7-4770k-i5-4670k-review-18.html

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.

 

[cheapo gamer]

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