Almost done with my PC, just need to decide if im going with AMD or Intel

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by jennycakes215 (45 posts) -

I know intel has more potential but AMD has so much value. Also, I checked on PassMark and the AMD FX-8350 actually has a higher CPU mark than Intel's i5 and a ton of i7. Of course I am a PC noob so most of this stuff might not matter. Please feel free to explain everything like I am a child :P

#2 Posted by soolkiki (1776 posts) -

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

EDIT: Also, if you go intel, go for the i5. Hyperthreading is not needed for gaming and it's cheaper. If you want the rig now, get the 3570k, if you can wait, get the haswell (if I remember this name right) chip coming out this summer.  I can't make that many recommendations for AMD as I haven't done tons of research on them.

#3 Posted by jennycakes215 (45 posts) -

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

soolkiki
If I do choose AMD, should I go for the 4 core or the 8 core? My friend told me that 8 core aren't really used much but as i learned from my time building this thing, the internet knows more :D
#4 Posted by soolkiki (1776 posts) -

[QUOTE="soolkiki"]

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

jennycakes215

If I do choose AMD, should I go for the 4 core or the 8 core? My friend told me that 8 core aren't really used much but as i learned from my time building this thing, the internet knows more :D

4 cores is what is generally used. Games like Crysis 3 are starting to use more cores, but that is rare. the i5 is quad and it runs thinks like a champ. :) Most of your performance will rely on your GPU. What are your specs now anyway?

#5 Posted by jennycakes215 (45 posts) -

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"][QUOTE="soolkiki"]

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

soolkiki

If I do choose AMD, should I go for the 4 core or the 8 core? My friend told me that 8 core aren't really used much but as i learned from my time building this thing, the internet knows more :D

4 cores is what is generally used. Games like Crysis 3 are starting to use more cores, but that is rare. the i5 is quad and it runs thinks like a champ. :) Most of your performance will rely on your GPU. What are your specs now anyway?

I bought a HD Radeon 7970, 8GB GDDR3 of Ram, a 1TB HDD, and I'm choosing the Motherboard and processor right now. should I go for 8 core to be more future proof since I'm saving money not buying intel?
#6 Posted by soolkiki (1776 posts) -

[QUOTE="soolkiki"]

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"]If I do choose AMD, should I go for the 4 core or the 8 core? My friend told me that 8 core aren't really used much but as i learned from my time building this thing, the internet knows more :Djennycakes215

4 cores is what is generally used. Games like Crysis 3 are starting to use more cores, but that is rare. the i5 is quad and it runs thinks like a champ. :) Most of your performance will rely on your GPU. What are your specs now anyway?

I bought a HD Radeon 7970, 8GB GDDR3 of Ram, a 1TB HDD, and I'm choosing the Motherboard and processor right now. should I go for 8 core to be more future proof since I'm saving money not buying intel?

Nice!! That's a solid build! What about your Power supply? You don't want to skimp on that.   And if you've got the cash, go for the 8 cores. While not necessary, it won't hurt anything and will help it last a few more years. :)

#7 Posted by jennycakes215 (45 posts) -

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"][QUOTE="soolkiki"]4 cores is what is generally used. Games like Crysis 3 are starting to use more cores, but that is rare. the i5 is quad and it runs thinks like a champ. :) Most of your performance will rely on your GPU. What are your specs now anyway?

soolkiki

I bought a HD Radeon 7970, 8GB GDDR3 of Ram, a 1TB HDD, and I'm choosing the Motherboard and processor right now. should I go for 8 core to be more future proof since I'm saving money not buying intel?

Nice!! That's a solid build! What about your Power supply? You don't want to skimp on that.   And if you've got the cash, go for the 8 cores. While not necessary, it won't hurt anything and will help it last a few more years. :)

My friend is giving me a 700 Watt power supply. I don't know the brand. Does it matter?
#8 Posted by 04dcarraher (20388 posts) -
[QUOTE="soolkiki"]

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"]I bought a HD Radeon 7970, 8GB GDDR3 of Ram, a 1TB HDD, and I'm choosing the Motherboard and processor right now. should I go for 8 core to be more future proof since I'm saving money not buying intel?jennycakes215

Nice!! That's a solid build! What about your Power supply? You don't want to skimp on that.   And if you've got the cash, go for the 8 cores. While not necessary, it won't hurt anything and will help it last a few more years. :)

My friend is giving me a 700 Watt power supply. I don't know the brand. Does it matter?

You should find out the brand and or specs of it also the age too.
#9 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13647 posts) -

I have the FX-8350 and it does fantastic at games, but it smokes my friends 3570k in everything non-gaming.

#10 Posted by 04dcarraher (20388 posts) -

I have the FX-8350 and it does fantastic at games, but it smokes my friends 3570k in everything non-gaming.

GummiRaccoon
I think when the next set of consoles that come out sporting those 8 core cpu's these current 8 core cpu's will shine with multiplat games.
#11 Posted by soolkiki (1776 posts) -

[QUOTE="soolkiki"]

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"]I bought a HD Radeon 7970, 8GB GDDR3 of Ram, a 1TB HDD, and I'm choosing the Motherboard and processor right now. should I go for 8 core to be more future proof since I'm saving money not buying intel?jennycakes215

Nice!! That's a solid build! What about your Power supply? You don't want to skimp on that.   And if you've got the cash, go for the 8 cores. While not necessary, it won't hurt anything and will help it last a few more years. :)

My friend is giving me a 700 Watt power supply. I don't know the brand. Does it matter?

Yeah, find out how old, and what brand it is. That is the one thing you don't want to fail, because it can take the whole computer with it if it does. 

#12 Posted by General_X (9081 posts) -
I would say go for the eight core, since we're on the cusp of a new round of consoles which appear to have processors with 4 or more cores it is very likely we will start to see games and engines taking advantage of them (finally).
#13 Posted by clyde46 (47418 posts) -
Another vote for an 8 core.
#14 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2621 posts) -

I have an 8 core and id rather have a 2600k

#15 Posted by Alx1231 (527 posts) -

I'm actually about to upgrade my FX 4100 to a FX 8350. With the next gen console's specs being revealed, 8 core is definitely the future.

#16 Posted by osirisx3 (2018 posts) -

amd is great and you can save some money.

#17 Posted by Blistrax (1071 posts) -

Look at Tom's CPU Performance Charts: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/benchmarks,140.html

#18 Posted by osirisx3 (2018 posts) -

Look at Tom's CPU Performance Charts: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/benchmarks,140.html

Blistrax

404

#19 Posted by acepro71 (11 posts) -
maybe u should look at these videos 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVGwj1_Qno
#20 Posted by acepro71 (11 posts) -
[QUOTE="soolkiki"]

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"]I bought a HD Radeon 7970, 8GB GDDR3 of Ram, a 1TB HDD, and I'm choosing the Motherboard and processor right now. should I go for 8 core to be more future proof since I'm saving money not buying intel?jennycakes215

Nice!! That's a solid build! What about your Power supply? You don't want to skimp on that.   And if you've got the cash, go for the 8 cores. While not necessary, it won't hurt anything and will help it last a few more years. :)

My friend is giving me a 700 Watt power supply. I don't know the brand. Does it matter?

go for the 8 core and if ur only gonna game go for amd i bought an i5 (sandy bridge) and fx 8350 both runs great i do a-lot of rendering and gaming on both of them and yes 700 W is fine no matter what gpu hook up im running 7870 ghz edition with 500 W
#21 Posted by GioVela2010 (4298 posts) -
I think you are definitely going to want a CPU with more than 4 threads, more and more game engines are going to start using 8 or more threads now because of next gen consoles.
#22 Posted by Blistrax (1071 posts) -

[QUOTE="Blistrax"]

Look at Tom's CPU Performance Charts: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/benchmarks,140.html

osirisx3

404

Right. This editor breaks the link. Cut and paste the whole thing into the address bar.

#23 Posted by godzillavskong (7899 posts) -
Get both. :)
#24 Posted by jennycakes215 (45 posts) -

Thank you everyone for your help. I already ordered the 8 core :D 

#25 Posted by soolkiki (1776 posts) -

Thank you everyone for your help. I already ordered the 8 core :D 

jennycakes215

:D Enjoy it!

#26 Posted by GioVela2010 (4298 posts) -

Thank you everyone for your help. I already ordered the 8 core :D 

jennycakes215
Another good reason for AMD is because you will be able to upgrade the CPU in 2-3 years without having to upgrade the mobo. Intels "tick tock" strategy is annoying
#28 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -

 [edit]

gratz! i think you made the right choice.

:)

 

 

 

 

#29 Posted by C_Rule (9812 posts) -
[QUOTE="jennycakes215"]

Thank you everyone for your help. I already ordered the 8 core :D 

GioVela2010
Another good reason for AMD is because you will be able to upgrade the CPU in 2-3 years without having to upgrade the mobo. Intels "tick tock" strategy is annoying

Motherboards supporting future chips isn't as enticing as it sounds when there's nothing worth upgrading to. AMD's per core performance hasn't changed much since '09, with their only improvement being more cores (which may be beneficial now that next gen console/s are using 8 core chips).
#30 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13647 posts) -

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="jennycakes215"]

Thank you everyone for your help. I already ordered the 8 core :D 

C_Rule

Another good reason for AMD is because you will be able to upgrade the CPU in 2-3 years without having to upgrade the mobo. Intels "tick tock" strategy is annoying

Motherboards supporting future chips isn't as enticing as it sounds when there's nothing worth upgrading to. AMD's per core performance hasn't changed much since '09, with their only improvement being more cores (which may be beneficial now that next gen console/s are using 8 core chips).

More hyperbole from an australian, what a shocker.

#31 Posted by C_Rule (9812 posts) -

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Another good reason for AMD is because you will be able to upgrade the CPU in 2-3 years without having to upgrade the mobo. Intels "tick tock" strategy is annoying GummiRaccoon

Motherboards supporting future chips isn't as enticing as it sounds when there's nothing worth upgrading to. AMD's per core performance hasn't changed much since '09, with their only improvement being more cores (which may be beneficial now that next gen console/s are using 8 core chips).

More hyperbole from an australian, what a shocker.

Another pointless post from one of our resident trolls, what a shocker.
#32 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13647 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Motherboards supporting future chips isn't as enticing as it sounds when there's nothing worth upgrading to. AMD's per core performance hasn't changed much since '09, with their only improvement being more cores (which may be beneficial now that next gen console/s are using 8 core chips).C_Rule

More hyperbole from an australian, what a shocker.

Another pointless post from one of our resident trolls, what a shocker.

I'm not trolling, extreme exageration seems to be a common trait among australians.

 

Is every movie you watch "The best movie ever" or "The worst movie ever"?

#33 Posted by Maverick6575 (230 posts) -
[QUOTE="soolkiki"]

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

jennycakes215
If I do choose AMD, should I go for the 4 core or the 8 core? My friend told me that 8 core aren't really used much but as i learned from my time building this thing, the internet knows more :D

I helped a friend of mine build a gaming desktop with an 8 core. That thing is freaking ridiculous. And for such a great price, go for the 8 core. Even as 8 cores will become more common, you can overclock it to 8.12GHz. If you get an 8 core, you won't need to upgrade it for years.
#34 Posted by kraken2109 (13201 posts) -
[QUOTE="jennycakes215"][QUOTE="soolkiki"]

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

Maverick6575
If I do choose AMD, should I go for the 4 core or the 8 core? My friend told me that 8 core aren't really used much but as i learned from my time building this thing, the internet knows more :D

I helped a friend of mine build a gaming desktop with an 8 core. That thing is freaking ridiculous. And for such a great price, go for the 8 core. Even as 8 cores will become more common, you can overclock it to 8.12GHz. If you get an 8 core, you won't need to upgrade it for years.

wat...
#35 Posted by soolkiki (1776 posts) -

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"][QUOTE="soolkiki"]

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

Maverick6575

If I do choose AMD, should I go for the 4 core or the 8 core? My friend told me that 8 core aren't really used much but as i learned from my time building this thing, the internet knows more :D

I helped a friend of mine build a gaming desktop with an 8 core. That thing is freaking ridiculous. And for such a great price, go for the 8 core. Even as 8 cores will become more common, you can overclock it to 8.12GHz. If you get an 8 core, you won't need to upgrade it for years.

If you clocked your cpu that high, it would burn through the case and into the floor. That's wrong on so many levels.

#36 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6090 posts) -

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

More hyperbole from an australian, what a shocker.

GummiRaccoon

Another pointless post from one of our resident trolls, what a shocker.

I'm not trolling, extreme exageration seems to be a common trait among australians.

 

Is every movie you watch "The best movie ever" or "The worst movie ever"?

 

LOL, aside from the fact that the AMD cpus generally suck, im surprised people are recommending it when they were recommending intel for the past who knows how long.  But when the new consoles come out, AMD should definitely perform better in games.  Right now its not like their cpus are unusable or anything,for the most part they're fine but when using a cpu intensive game like starcraft 2 is when you will see the difference between intel and AMD.

#37 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13647 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Another pointless post from one of our resident trolls, what a shocker.blaznwiipspman1

I'm not trolling, extreme exageration seems to be a common trait among australians.

 

Is every movie you watch "The best movie ever" or "The worst movie ever"?

 

LOL, aside from the fact that the AMD cpus generally suck, im surprised people are recommending it when they were recommending intel for the past who knows how long.  But when the new consoles come out, AMD should definitely perform better in games.  Right now its not like their cpus are unusable or anything,for the most part they're fine but when using a cpu intensive game like starcraft 2 is when you will see the difference between intel and AMD.

Starcraft 2 isn't "CPU intensive" there is a bug they discovered during WoL beta with quad core support and they didn't fix the bug but just got rid of the support.

#38 Posted by General_X (9081 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Another pointless post from one of our resident trolls, what a shocker.blaznwiipspman1

I'm not trolling, extreme exageration seems to be a common trait among australians.

 

Is every movie you watch "The best movie ever" or "The worst movie ever"?

 

LOL, aside from the fact that the AMD cpus generally suck, im surprised people are recommending it when they were recommending intel for the past who knows how long.  But when the new consoles come out, AMD should definitely perform better in games.  Right now its not like their cpus are unusable or anything,for the most part they're fine but when using a cpu intensive game like starcraft 2 is when you will see the difference between intel and AMD.

WoL is a poorly coded game that only takes advantage of 2 cores (vs. Supreme Commander that was able to fully utilize quadcores and came out earlier).

This reminds me of the whole E8400 vs. Q6600 debate back in 08, EVERYONE said oh games only use 2 cores the E8400 is a much better value (since it was a bit cheaper, had better per core performance, and clocked higher. Fastforward to 2011-2012 and games like Battlefield 3 kicking the crap out of dual cores but the quad core Q6600 still hanging in there for atleast Haswell, one whole generation later.
#39 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6090 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I'm not trolling, extreme exageration seems to be a common trait among australians.

 

Is every movie you watch "The best movie ever" or "The worst movie ever"?

GummiRaccoon

 

LOL, aside from the fact that the AMD cpus generally suck, im surprised people are recommending it when they were recommending intel for the past who knows how long.  But when the new consoles come out, AMD should definitely perform better in games.  Right now its not like their cpus are unusable or anything,for the most part they're fine but when using a cpu intensive game like starcraft 2 is when you will see the difference between intel and AMD.

Starcraft 2 isn't "CPU intensive" there is a bug they discovered during WoL beta with quad core support and they didn't fix the bug but just got rid of the support.

 

whatever the reason, the fact remains that starcraft 2 and other RTS games perform better, much better (the difference between playable and unplayable) on intel cpus than AMD cpus

#40 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13647 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

 

LOL, aside from the fact that the AMD cpus generally suck, im surprised people are recommending it when they were recommending intel for the past who knows how long.  But when the new consoles come out, AMD should definitely perform better in games.  Right now its not like their cpus are unusable or anything,for the most part they're fine but when using a cpu intensive game like starcraft 2 is when you will see the difference between intel and AMD.

blaznwiipspman1

Starcraft 2 isn't "CPU intensive" there is a bug they discovered during WoL beta with quad core support and they didn't fix the bug but just got rid of the support.

 

whatever the reason, the fact remains that starcraft 2 and other RTS games perform better, much better (the difference between playable and unplayable) on intel cpus than AMD cpus

Except there is never any point on my 8350 that SC2 is unplayable.  So I don't see how you can make that claim.

#41 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6090 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Starcraft 2 isn't "CPU intensive" there is a bug they discovered during WoL beta with quad core support and they didn't fix the bug but just got rid of the support.

GummiRaccoon

 

whatever the reason, the fact remains that starcraft 2 and other RTS games perform better, much better (the difference between playable and unplayable) on intel cpus than AMD cpus

Except there is never any point on my 8350 that SC2 is unplayable.  So I don't see how you can make that claim.

 

well I owned a phenom II 955 BE at one point and starcraft 2 to me was unplayable in 3v3 and 4v4 maps.  Constant 40fps, and dips ranging from 15-25 fps when the action got too heavy.  A phenom II 955 is pretty much the same as an fx- 8350 clock for clock.  A core i5 750, 2500k and 3770k are much better.  I have yet to see my 3770k dip below 30fps in sc2.  I don't think its dipped below 35 either, I will have to check.

#42 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13647 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"] 

whatever the reason, the fact remains that starcraft 2 and other RTS games perform better, much better (the difference between playable and unplayable) on intel cpus than AMD cpus

blaznwiipspman1

Except there is never any point on my 8350 that SC2 is unplayable.  So I don't see how you can make that claim.

 

well I owned a phenom II 955 BE at one point and starcraft 2 to me was unplayable in 3v3 and 4v4 maps.  Constant 40fps, and dips ranging from 15-25 fps when the action got too heavy.  A phenom II 955 is pretty much the same as an fx- 8350 clock for clock.  A core i5 750, 2500k and 3770k are much better.  I have yet to see my 3770k dip below 30fps in sc2.  I don't think its dipped below 35 either, I will have to check.

Having gone from a 4 Ghz 955 to a 4Ghz 8350 I can tell you this is incorrect.

#43 Posted by taiwwa (301 posts) -

I built a PC last fall.

Did a survey and intel was better all around.

AMD wasn't able to keep up with the efficiency per core, so instead they just did the brute-force method of packing more cores on a chip.

Only problem with that is it results in lots of power draw and heat. 

You don't need 8 cores anyways unless you're doing complex scientific calculations. I'd bet that you'd run into hard disk issues before you jammed up a 2 or 4 core CPU.

So even a low-end core i3 was out-performing like the mid-range highish ended AMD FX 8-core CPU's. It also consumed like half the power and produced much less heat.

Pretty much a no-brainer. Intel is better than AMD by a significant margin. 

#44 Posted by soolkiki (1776 posts) -

I built a PC last fall.

Did a survey and intel was better all around.

AMD wasn't able to keep up with the efficiency per core, so instead they just did the brute-force method of packing more cores on a chip.

Only problem with that is it results in lots of power draw and heat. 

You don't need 8 cores anyways unless you're doing complex scientific calculations. I'd bet that you'd run into hard disk issues before you jammed up a 2 or 4 core CPU.

So even a low-end core i3 was out-performing like the mid-range highish ended AMD FX 8-core CPU's. It also consumed like half the power and produced much less heat.

Pretty much a no-brainer. Intel is better than AMD by a significant margin. 

taiwwa

That's relative. 

#45 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13647 posts) -

I built a PC last fall.

Did a survey and intel was better all around.

AMD wasn't able to keep up with the efficiency per core, so instead they just did the brute-force method of packing more cores on a chip.

Only problem with that is it results in lots of power draw and heat. 

You don't need 8 cores anyways unless you're doing complex scientific calculations. I'd bet that you'd run into hard disk issues before you jammed up a 2 or 4 core CPU.

So even a low-end core i3 was out-performing like the mid-range highish ended AMD FX 8-core CPU's. It also consumed like half the power and produced much less heat.

Pretty much a no-brainer. Intel is better than AMD by a significant margin. 

taiwwa

You literally peppered your post with evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about and then made a claim like you are some expert or something.

#46 Posted by monstermaham (6 posts) -
Just go AMD processor it will brings u 256 MB graphic card with it so you can can have a perfect graphics in win7 os
#47 Posted by taiwwa (301 posts) -

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

I built a PC last fall.

Did a survey and intel was better all around.

AMD wasn't able to keep up with the efficiency per core, so instead they just did the brute-force method of packing more cores on a chip.

Only problem with that is it results in lots of power draw and heat. 

You don't need 8 cores anyways unless you're doing complex scientific calculations. I'd bet that you'd run into hard disk issues before you jammed up a 2 or 4 core CPU.

So even a low-end core i3 was out-performing like the mid-range highish ended AMD FX 8-core CPU's. It also consumed like half the power and produced much less heat.

Pretty much a no-brainer. Intel is better than AMD by a significant margin. 

GummiRaccoon

You literally peppered your post with evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about and then made a claim like you are some expert or something.

Woah, are you angry about their low share price or something?

It's been a while. I don't keep up with this stuff all the time if I don't need to. But...this article was one I relied on

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-9.html

 

showed the core i3 outperforming the fx4100 by around 15% in Starcraft 2. Also, the fx4100's power draw is 95w while the sandy i3 is 65w. And...AMD motherboards were on a whole more expensive when I last shopped. 

The only game that benefits from more than 2 cores was GTA4, and that was because it was optimized on an xbox 360 which has 3 cores. 

#48 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13647 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

I built a PC last fall.

Did a survey and intel was better all around.

AMD wasn't able to keep up with the efficiency per core, so instead they just did the brute-force method of packing more cores on a chip.

Only problem with that is it results in lots of power draw and heat. 

You don't need 8 cores anyways unless you're doing complex scientific calculations. I'd bet that you'd run into hard disk issues before you jammed up a 2 or 4 core CPU.

So even a low-end core i3 was out-performing like the mid-range highish ended AMD FX 8-core CPU's. It also consumed like half the power and produced much less heat.

Pretty much a no-brainer. Intel is better than AMD by a significant margin. 

taiwwa

You literally peppered your post with evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about and then made a claim like you are some expert or something.

Woah, are you angry about their low share price or something?

It's been a while. I don't keep up with this stuff all the time if I don't need to. But...this article was one I relied on

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-9.html

 

showed the core i3 outperforming the fx4100 by around 15% in Starcraft 2. Also, the fx4100's power draw is 95w while the sandy i3 is 65w. And...AMD motherboards were on a whole more expensive when I last shopped. 

The only game that benefits from more than 2 cores was GTA4, and that was because it was optimized on an xbox 360 which has 3 cores. 

Can we all just agree that you have no clue what you are talking about?  Reading one article from one of the worst review sites on the net does not make you an expert.

#49 Posted by soolkiki (1776 posts) -

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

You literally peppered your post with evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about and then made a claim like you are some expert or something.

GummiRaccoon

Woah, are you angry about their low share price or something?

It's been a while. I don't keep up with this stuff all the time if I don't need to. But...this article was one I relied on

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-9.html

 

showed the core i3 outperforming the fx4100 by around 15% in Starcraft 2. Also, the fx4100's power draw is 95w while the sandy i3 is 65w. And...AMD motherboards were on a whole more expensive when I last shopped. 

The only game that benefits from more than 2 cores was GTA4, and that was because it was optimized on an xbox 360 which has 3 cores. 

Can we all just agree that you have no clue what you are talking about?  Reading one article from one of the worst review sites on the net does not make you an expert.

Yes.

#50 Posted by taiwwa (301 posts) -

The only time I'd recommend AMD CPU's would be if you wanted to do like some water-cooled ITX build with an overclocked AMD Trinity Fusion chip, and the case didn't have room for a video card. 

Even then, the AMD APU's don't make much sense because you can get similar performance just by getting like a dual core Intel celeron G-series and a discrete card for less heat and power.