Amd or Intel what's your choice ?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by EVGAmaniac (27 posts) -

I'm building a new computer and i was wandering what is better for gaming and Intel processor or AMD ?

SPECS:

AMD Fusion A10 5800K "CPU" or Intel i3 2120 "CPU"

ASUS F2A85-M LE "MotherBoard"

HIS Radeon 7850 IceQ X Turbo "GPU"

Crosair Vengance PC3 12800 "RAM"

Westerm Digital Caviar Green 500gb "HardDrive"

Cooler Master Gamer Xtreme 650W "PSU"

Cooler Master 430 "Case"

THX Again!

#2 Posted by fearhome21 (276 posts) -

look i was in the same position i did go with amd phenom x4 965. its was fine for a budget computer but if u want a high end gaming computer i suggest an intel core 2500k its more expensive than amd but it gives you better performance in overall and in gaming u will see a huge difference (cpu intensive games) and u need a good card i suggest an 7870 ATI RADEON if u have the money to spend, for me i changed my cpu to i7 3770k and i see a huge difference so the money was worth it (intel is expensive than amd because uses better architecture/plates) its your choice at all.

#3 Posted by superclocked (5823 posts) -
If you're on a tight budget, AMD will get the job done nicely. If you're willing to spend a little more though, Intel CPU's are indeed superior for gaming...
#4 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13598 posts) -

The higher end i5s and i7s perform better in benchmarks, but if going that route forces you to get a cheaper video card, your performance will be worse.

#5 Posted by kraken2109 (13007 posts) -

If it's primarily a gaming PC, prioritise GPU. However if you have a decent amount to spend go intel.

For example, A PhenomII 955 with a 7950 will be better in gaming than an i5 3570k with a 7850.

#6 Posted by V4LENT1NE (12895 posts) -
Intel = Gaming builds, mid to high end builds. AMD = Budget gaming builds, anything else not in the categories listed.
#7 Posted by godlikemouse (91 posts) -

Intel currently has the upper hand with regard to speed and memory speed access. Check out the I7 architecture for more information. AMD is more for budget gaming and in my opinion has fallen behind the curve a bit.

#8 Posted by superclocked (5823 posts) -

Intel currently has the upper hand with regard to speed and memory speed access. Check out the I7 architecture for more information. AMD is more for budget gaming and in my opinion has fallen behind the curve a bit.

godlikemouse
I love that sig :)
#9 Posted by GamerwillzPS (8530 posts) -

Intel performs better.

#10 Posted by jakes456 (1437 posts) -

Intel is better than AMD everytime. Buying an AMD cpu is like throwing money in the toliet.

#11 Posted by ferret-gamer (17310 posts) -
An A10 Cpu is not worth it if you are buying a discrete GPU. If you are looking into gaming exclusively then get the i3, if not go for a bulldozer or phenom quad or hex core since they still perform fine in gaming and are better at multthreaded tasks.
#12 Posted by way2funny (4569 posts) -

Intel has a huge upper hand in preformance

#13 Posted by SolidPandaG (218 posts) -

Intel for everything. Like someone said, buying AMD is like throwing money away.

#14 Posted by howlrunner13 (4391 posts) -

I've always bought AMD simply because they are cheaper. Performance is perfectly fine for my needs, gaming included.

#15 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

I'm building a new computer and i was wandering what is better for gaming and Intel processor or AMD ?

SPECS:

AMD Fusion A10 5800K "CPU" or Intel i3 2120 "CPU"

ASUS F2A85-M LE "MotherBoard"

HIS Radeon 7850 IceQ X Turbo "GPU"

Crosair Vengance PC3 12800 "RAM"

Westerm Digital Caviar Green 500gb "HardDrive"

Cooler Master Gamer Xtreme 650W "PSU"

Cooler Master 430 "Case"

THX Again!

EVGAmaniac

It depends on your budget.

#16 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -
#17 Posted by kraken2109 (13007 posts) -
#18 Posted by fearhome21 (276 posts) -

Just get an intel core i7 3770k with 690 GTX u are affording a 1000$ card a cpu of 310-20 dollars wont hurt you that much :) no need to start Flame war aigaisnt amd vs intel intel is the upper hand now and if the haswell outperforms i7 i5 i3/amd fx/piledriver that means no only intel is the uperhand but we need to buy only intel cpus because PILEDRIVER was a huge dissapointment for me nothin improved at all in gaming only in programms Goodjob AMD use more cheap plates/architecture thats why your prices are cheap they used some better plates/archi for piledriver thats why the price is 250$ u say amd is cheap no? they using bad items to make their cpus as intel uses expensive things thats why the cpu's perform better and expensive than amd so? want a gaming pc go intel as far im going intel for everythin not only gaming u will afford 310$ for 5-6 years u can earn not only twice but..GG

#19 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13598 posts) -

Intel has a huge upper hand in preformance

way2funny

performance

and < 10% is not a huge upperhand.

#20 Posted by JohnF111 (14051 posts) -
Price/performance = AMD. Performance = Intel. So depends on budget, most modern AMDs are more than capable of practically any task you can throw at them, however I got an Intel because I won't be getting a new PC for a while and I needed future proofing but the chip you have already is pretty good and will cope with all games you throw at it, I don't see any reason to get the Intel so yeah you'll be fine with the AMD.
#21 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

Just get an intel core i7 3770k with 690 GTX u are affording a 1000$ card a cpu of 310-20 dollars wont hurt you that much :) no need to start Flame war aigaisnt amd vs intel intel is the upper hand now and if the haswell outperforms i7 i5 i3/amd fx/piledriver that means no only intel is the uperhand but we need to buy only intel cpus because PILEDRIVER was a huge dissapointment for me nothin improved at all in gaming only in programms Goodjob AMD use more cheap plates/architecture thats why your prices are cheap they used some better plates/archi for piledriver thats why the price is 250$ u say amd is cheap no? they using bad items to make their cpus as intel uses expensive things thats why the cpu's perform better and expensive than amd so? want a gaming pc go intel as far im going intel for everythin not only gaming u will afford 310$ for 5-6 years u can earn not only twice but..GG

fearhome21
Money doesn't grow on trees.
#22 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (23461 posts) -

Intels, they oc nice. My 2600k is chugging nicely at 4.6ghz... at 1.470 volts. Yeah, I have a bad chip. (It's 1.420 with vdroop levels set to extreme which somehow raises the voltage, but if it's not set to extreme it's unstable)

#23 Posted by MerckmanX (98 posts) -

If money isn't an issue then go for the Intel build since it has the best performance atm, I personally don't have any favorites when it comes between AMD and Intel. Amd is definitely the better choice for someone looking for a gaming build on a budget since their cpu's provides decent performance at a lower price than Intel.

#24 Posted by jakes456 (1437 posts) -

Intel i3 destroys AMD.

AMD is so far behind they need to throw in the towel now.

#25 Posted by superclocked (5823 posts) -

Intel i3 destroys AMD.

AMD is so far behind they need to throw in the towel now.

jakes456
O rly?

[QUOTE="Hardware Secrets"] The FX processors have their clock multiplier unlocked, allowing you to overclock them by changing this parameter. With the FX-8350, which runs internally at 4 GHz multiplying a base clock of 200 MHz by 20, we could increase the clock multiplier to 22 and the base clock to 212 MHz, resulting in an internal clock rate of 4,664 MHz, a 16.6% increase over the CPU default clock rate. Then we replaced the stock cooler with AMDs liquid cooling solution, and we were able to increase the CPU multiplier to 22.5 and the base clock to 213 MHz, resulting in an internal clock rate of 4,792 MHz, a 19.8% increase over the CPU default clock rate. kraken2109

They got 4.8 ghz.

Now for their game benchmarks, (They won't let me post their images here). Colours are to make reading easier, they mean nothing.

Starcraft 2: 3470: 185, FX8350: 178

Far Cry 2: 3470: 133, FX8350: 131

Dirt 3: 3470: 100, FX8350: 96

BF3 (assuming single player): 3470: 86, FX8350: 87

Borderlands 2: 3470: 85, FX8350: 85

So we can safely say there is no noticeable difference in gaming, since these benchmarks were on low settings to ensure a CPU bottleneck.

Looking at cinebench which fully uses all cores, FX8350 beats 3470 by 22%

#26 Posted by SolidPandaG (218 posts) -

[QUOTE="jakes456"]

Intel i3 destroys AMD.

AMD is so far behind they need to throw in the towel now.

superclocked

O rly?

[QUOTE="Hardware Secrets"] The FX processors have their clock multiplier unlocked, allowing you to overclock them by changing this parameter. With the FX-8350, which runs internally at 4 GHz multiplying a base clock of 200 MHz by 20, we could increase the clock multiplier to 22 and the base clock to 212 MHz, resulting in an internal clock rate of 4,664 MHz, a 16.6% increase over the CPU default clock rate. Then we replaced the stock cooler with AMDs liquid cooling solution, and we were able to increase the CPU multiplier to 22.5 and the base clock to 213 MHz, resulting in an internal clock rate of 4,792 MHz, a 19.8% increase over the CPU default clock rate. kraken2109

They got 4.8 ghz.

Now for their game benchmarks, (They won't let me post their images here). Colours are to make reading easier, they mean nothing.

Starcraft 2: 3470: 185, FX8350: 178

Far Cry 2: 3470: 133, FX8350: 131

Dirt 3: 3470: 100, FX8350: 96

BF3 (assuming single player): 3470: 86, FX8350: 87

Borderlands 2: 3470: 85, FX8350: 85

So we can safely say there is no noticeable difference in gaming, since these benchmarks were on low settings to ensure a CPU bottleneck.

Looking at cinebench which fully uses all cores, FX8350 beats 3470 by 22%

Yes, really. I like how the benchmarks compare a 3.2 GHz stock processor vs a 4.0 GHz one. Let's compare the similarly priced 3570K, which can overclock to 4.6 quite often:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/8

People aren't kidding when they say Intel smashes AMD in the face. AMD simply can't match the IPC of Intel, that's why they need an 800 MHz discrepancy just to be able to pull even in some games. Since we all love benchmarks so much, let's take a look at other applications/productivity:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/FX-8350-vs-Core-i5-3470-CPU-Review/1657/3

Photoshop:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/FX-8350-vs-Core-i5-3470-CPU-Review/1657/5

Winzip:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/FX-8350-vs-Core-i5-3470-CPU-Review/1657/8

This is the sad state of AMD CPU engineering at the moment. That's why they're in trouble. Their processors suck. End of story. Anyone claiming otherwise is a homer or misinformed.

AMD FX-8350 @ $220:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284

Intel 3570K @ 220:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504&Tpk=3570K

Yes, your eyes aren't playing tricks on you. They're actually the same price. Whoever's reading these posts and wondering which processor to purchase, trust me, don't even think twice about this. If you're considering the FX-8350, don't. AMD are run by some of the most inept people around if they think they can charge the same prices as a processor that walks all over it. They only have themselves to blame for the mess they're in.

#27 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -
If you're on a tight budget, AMD will get the job done nicely. If you're willing to spend a little more though, Intel CPU's are indeed superior for gaming...superclocked
This exactly. I built my first PC earlier this year and I was on a budget so I chose AMD , but I may go with intel with my next one. AMD offers great bang for your buck but it seems like Intel beats them in every category,which also reflects in their price.
#28 Posted by fearhome21 (276 posts) -

Amd fans pff.. stop fightning u cant take it that intel beats amd even with the 8350 PRocessor same priced as a 3570k GG everyone was telling that amd was a budget company i cant see that anymore on the 8350 they used better architecture in this one and the price went to 220$ as the 3570k AMD JUST FOR LAUGHS only their gpu's are worth it and some people telling hey why intel is so overpriced ofc it will be overpriced of the better architecture? u see 8350 has better than 8150 but the price also is more? why? AMD IS USING !@#$ TO THEIR BUDGET PROCESSORS. end of story

#29 Posted by SolidPandaG (218 posts) -

My God man... English!

#30 Posted by MathewCAR (4 posts) -
Intel have always be the superior brand.
#31 Posted by roxdevicode (3 posts) -
Although costlier, I've always preferred Intel. It stands for quality. Online Games
#32 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -

Amd fans pff.. stop fightning u cant take it that intel beats amd even with the 8350 PRocessor same priced as a 3570k GG everyone was telling that amd was a budget company i cant see that anymore on the 8350 they used better architecture in this one and the price went to 220$ as the 3570k AMD JUST FOR LAUGHS only their gpu's are worth it and some people telling hey why intel is so overpriced ofc it will be overpriced of the better architecture? u see 8350 has better than 8150 but the price also is more? why? AMD IS USING !@#$ TO THEIR BUDGET PROCESSORS. end of story

fearhome21
I really don't see a lot of people arguing the fact that intel is superior in these posts.
#33 Posted by superclocked (5823 posts) -
Intel have always been the superior brand.MathewCAR
Nah, the Athlon was superior to the P3, and the Athlon 64 was superior to the P4, but companies like Dell wouldn't use AMD until right before Intel released their Core architecture CPU's, so people just assumed that Intel was better. Intel developed the Core architecture in secret alongside their netburst CPU's, which led to the AMD vs Intel antitrust lawsuits...
#34 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -
[QUOTE="MathewCAR"]Intel have always been the superior brand.superclocked
Nah, the Athlon was superior to the P3, and the Athlon 64 was superior to the P4, but companies like Dell wouldn't use AMD until right before Intel released their Core architecture CPU's, so people just assumed that Intel was better. Intel developed the Core architecture in secret alongside their netburst CPU's, which led to the AMD vs Intel antitrust lawsuits...

Thats the thing, I think a lot of people who had those Athlon 64's like myself, really liked them, and is a big reason why a lot of folks still go with AMD. U tend to stick with a product brand that has been reliable, and performed well for u. I know they're falling behind but I still think they can be successful.
#35 Posted by superclocked (5823 posts) -
[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="MathewCAR"]Intel have always been the superior brand.godzillavskong
Nah, the Athlon was superior to the P3, and the Athlon 64 was superior to the P4, but companies like Dell wouldn't use AMD until right before Intel released their Core architecture CPU's, so people just assumed that Intel was better. Intel developed the Core architecture in secret alongside their netburst CPU's, which led to the AMD vs Intel antitrust lawsuits...

Thats the thing, I think a lot of people who had those Athlon 64's like myself, really liked them, and is a big reason why a lot of folks still go with AMD. U tend to stick with a product brand that has been reliable, and performed well for u. I know they're falling behind but I still think they can be successful.

Yeah, I loved my Athlon's and Athlon 64's, but I did switch back to Intel when they released the Core 2 architecture.. And I agree, they can still be successful. Hell, everyone, especially Intel fans, need AMD to be successful. My first PC that I could actually call mine cost $2K to build, and the Intel CPU was literally half of that. You see, Intel didn't have any competition back then. And as I said before, I do not want to be paying $1k again for Intel's top of the line CPU's...
#36 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13598 posts) -

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="superclocked"]Nah, the Athlon was superior to the P3, and the Athlon 64 was superior to the P4, but companies like Dell wouldn't use AMD until right before Intel released their Core architecture CPU's, so people just assumed that Intel was better. Intel developed the Core architecture in secret alongside their netburst CPU's, which led to the AMD vs Intel antitrust lawsuits...superclocked
Thats the thing, I think a lot of people who had those Athlon 64's like myself, really liked them, and is a big reason why a lot of folks still go with AMD. U tend to stick with a product brand that has been reliable, and performed well for u. I know they're falling behind but I still think they can be successful.

Yeah, I loved my Athlon's and Athlon 64's, but I did switch back to Intel when they released the Core 2 architecture.. And I agree, they can still be successful. Hell, everyone, especially Intel fans, need AMD to be successful. My first PC that I could actually call mine cost $2K to build, and the Intel CPU was literally half of that. You see, Intel didn't have any competition back then. And as I said before, I do not want to be paying $1k again for Intel's top of the line CPU's...

I have a similar experience.

#37 Posted by YoshiYogurt (5973 posts) -
Intel runs faster and can take more heat
#38 Posted by kraken2109 (13007 posts) -

Amd fans pff.. stop fightning u cant take it that intel beats amd even with the 8350 PRocessor same priced as a 3570k GG everyone was telling that amd was a budget company i cant see that anymore on the 8350 they used better architecture in this one and the price went to 220$ as the 3570k AMD JUST FOR LAUGHS only their gpu's are worth it and some people telling hey why intel is so overpriced ofc it will be overpriced of the better architecture? u see 8350 has better than 8150 but the price also is more? why? AMD IS USING !@#$ TO THEIR BUDGET PROCESSORS. end of story

fearhome21
How can you expect anyone to listen to you when your posts are written so poorly? And you're new here and judging by your threads you know very little anyway. Nobody here is arguing that AMD perform better than intel. The argument is that on a budget AMD can still be a good choice.
#39 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -
[QUOTE="fearhome21"]

Amd fans pff.. stop fightning u cant take it that intel beats amd even with the 8350 PRocessor same priced as a 3570k GG everyone was telling that amd was a budget company i cant see that anymore on the 8350 they used better architecture in this one and the price went to 220$ as the 3570k AMD JUST FOR LAUGHS only their gpu's are worth it and some people telling hey why intel is so overpriced ofc it will be overpriced of the better architecture? u see 8350 has better than 8150 but the price also is more? why? AMD IS USING !@#$ TO THEIR BUDGET PROCESSORS. end of story

kraken2109
How can you expect anyone to listen to you when your posts are written so poorly? And you're new here and judging by your threads you know very little anyway. Nobody here is arguing that AMD perform better than intel. The argument is that on a budget AMD can still be a good choice.

Yep.
#40 Posted by fearhome21 (276 posts) -

[QUOTE="fearhome21"]

Amd fans pff.. stop fightning u cant take it that intel beats amd even with the 8350 PRocessor same priced as a 3570k GG everyone was telling that amd was a budget company i cant see that anymore on the 8350 they used better architecture in this one and the price went to 220$ as the 3570k AMD JUST FOR LAUGHS only their gpu's are worth it and some people telling hey why intel is so overpriced ofc it will be overpriced of the better architecture? u see 8350 has better than 8150 but the price also is more? why? AMD IS USING !@#$ TO THEIR BUDGET PROCESSORS. end of story

kraken2109

How can you expect anyone to listen to you when your posts are written so poorly? And you're new here and judging by your threads you know very little anyway. Nobody here is arguing that AMD perform better than intel. The argument is that on a budget AMD can still be a good choice.

My write may be poorly as im not from england and im not so pro at english, but im just talking as a gamer that when i decide to build a gaming computer i will not go cheap cause more demanding games will release and more stress on my system will be.amd athlon was good i had the single core 2.21ghz but amd is standing back even with the 8350 its more than hard to tell they will sucess.

#41 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13598 posts) -

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="fearhome21"]

Amd fans pff.. stop fightning u cant take it that intel beats amd even with the 8350 PRocessor same priced as a 3570k GG everyone was telling that amd was a budget company i cant see that anymore on the 8350 they used better architecture in this one and the price went to 220$ as the 3570k AMD JUST FOR LAUGHS only their gpu's are worth it and some people telling hey why intel is so overpriced ofc it will be overpriced of the better architecture? u see 8350 has better than 8150 but the price also is more? why? AMD IS USING !@#$ TO THEIR BUDGET PROCESSORS. end of story

fearhome21

How can you expect anyone to listen to you when your posts are written so poorly? And you're new here and judging by your threads you know very little anyway. Nobody here is arguing that AMD perform better than intel. The argument is that on a budget AMD can still be a good choice.

My write may be poorly as im not from england and im not so pro at english, but im just talking as a gamer that when i decide to build a gaming computer i will not go cheap cause more demanding games will release and more stress on my system will be.amd athlon was good i had the single core 2.21ghz but amd is standing back even with the 8350 its more than hard to tell they will sucess.

lolwat

#42 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -
They will success even though AMD is struggle to keep market share. Intel is better but bang for buck is AMD if money is tight then ok get AMD for now when for time. Sound familiar?
#43 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

Go Intel or go home is my motto.

#44 Posted by red12355 (1251 posts) -
I wouldn'teven consider a A-series chip from AMD if you're getting a discrete GPU. Either get the i3 or get a Piledriver 6-core, whichever is cheaper.
#45 Posted by EVGAmaniac (27 posts) -

Thx I love that motto and for everyone I probably will chose this system because now i have 600 bux so i can do alot better here are the specs:

Intel Core i3 3240 "CPU" 3.4 GHz

ASUS GeForce GTX 65Ti "GPU" 2GB GDDR5

ASUS P8B75-V "Motherboard" GPU Boost

G.Skill RipJawX "RAM" 8GB 1600Mhz

WD Caviar Blue "hARDdISC" 320GB 7200rpm

Cooler Master GX Lite "PSU" 500W

Cooler Master Elite 430 "Case" ATX

Now before i buy it wich will be in fourteen days I (yet again) have some questions for all of you:

Will this system be able to run games at high?

Do I need a stronger PSU and a CPU fan?

What does "GPU Boost" actually mean?

Will any AMD system beat this one for (UNDER) 600 bux?

Thx Again (AGAIN)

#46 Posted by red12355 (1251 posts) -
How much does the 650ti cost? You'd probably get a better deal getting a 7850 or something.
#47 Posted by kraken2109 (13007 posts) -

Thx I love that motto and for everyone I probably will chose this system because now i have 600 bux so i can do alot better here are the specs:

Intel Core i3 3240 "CPU" 3.4 GHz

ASUS GeForce GTX 65Ti "GPU" 2GB GDDR5

ASUS P8B75-V "Motherboard" GPU Boost

G.Skill RipJawX "RAM" 8GB 1600Mhz

WD Caviar Blue "hARDdISC" 320GB 7200rpm

Cooler Master GX Lite "PSU" 500W

Cooler Master Elite 430 "Case" ATX

Now before i buy it wich will be in fourteen days I (yet again) have some questions for all of you:

Will this system be able to run games at high?

Do I need a stronger PSU and a CPU fan?

What does "GPU Boost" actually mean?

Will any AMD system beat this one for (UNDER) 600 bux?

Thx Again (AGAIN)

EVGAmaniac
Pretty sure you can beat that for $600