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

  • 115 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for kraken2109
#51 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 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 monstermaham
Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#52 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13788 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.

taiwwa

We've already established that you are clueless, so it makes sense that you'd make an awful recommendation.

Avatar image for crippledmachine
#53 Posted by crippledmachine (256 posts) -
Intel is generally recommended.
Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#54 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13788 posts) -

Intel is generally recommended.crippledmachine

based on?

Avatar image for Addict187
#55 Posted by Addict187 (724 posts) -

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

_SKatEDiRt_
This^^^ pleas listen to this person he speaks the truth
Avatar image for Addict187
#56 Posted by Addict187 (724 posts) -

[QUOTE="crippledmachine"]Intel is generally recommended.GummiRaccoon

based on?

Facts
Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#57 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13788 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="crippledmachine"]Intel is generally recommended.Addict187

based on?

Facts

your statement literally means nothing

Avatar image for Addict187
#58 Posted by Addict187 (724 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.

Alx1231
Are you kidding me? 8 core of course is the future and when inlet brings out it's 8 core it will spank the crap out of anything AMD has. My 4 core 2500k @4.5is faster then anything AMD has..... Fact. Waste your money if you will but when you have to change over to intel like I did you will wish you just went with them in the first place. I know I did
Avatar image for Addict187
#59 Posted by Addict187 (724 posts) -

[QUOTE="Addict187"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

based on?

GummiRaccoon

Facts

your statement literally means nothing

Well I will be AMD finally tide Intel with 4 more cores like I say when Intel lets there 8 core out of the gate it will take AMD to bring out a 16 core CPU to keep up. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html
Avatar image for godzillavskong
#60 Posted by godzillavskong (7902 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.

Jigga what???? How many jiggahertz did you say you could clock it to???
Avatar image for Alx1231
#61 Posted by Alx1231 (527 posts) -
[QUOTE="Alx1231"]

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.

Addict187
Are you kidding me? 8 core of course is the future and when inlet brings out it's 8 core it will spank the crap out of anything AMD has. My 4 core 2500k @4.5is faster then anything AMD has..... Fact. Waste your money if you will but when you have to change over to intel like I did you will wish you just went with them in the first place. I know I did

How am I wasting my money? that is the fastest 8 core processor out right now. If I went with intel not only would I have to wait till god knows when they will bring their 8 core, I would also have to buy a new motherboard. Let's not forget that I will probably have to pay double the price for an Intel CPU.... No, I think I'll stick with AMD.
Avatar image for buccomatic
#62 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -

[QUOTE="Addict187"][QUOTE="Alx1231"]

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.

Alx1231

Are you kidding me? 8 core of course is the future and when inlet brings out it's 8 core it will spank the crap out of anything AMD has. My 4 core 2500k @4.5is faster then anything AMD has..... Fact. Waste your money if you will but when you have to change over to intel like I did you will wish you just went with them in the first place. I know I did

How am I wasting my money? that is the fastest 8 core processor out right now. If I went with intel not only would I have to wait till god knows when they will bring their 8 core, I would also have to buy a new motherboard. Let's not forget that I will probably have to pay double the price for an Intel CPU.... No, I think I'll stick with AMD.

i bought the 3930k and am piecing together my rig as we speak. but if i could do it over i think i would go with the fx-8350 instead. BUT ONLY BECAUSE most of the games (on the new consoles) are going to be made with an 8 core cpu in mind and pc is going to get almost all console ports (like it already does) and because of this (even though the intels smokes the amds) it won't matter because everything will (probably) be optimized for amd right off the bat. IMO

Avatar image for buccomatic
#63 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -

[QUOTE="Alx1231"]

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.

Addict187

Are you kidding me? 8 core of course is the future and when inlet brings out it's 8 core it will spank the crap out of anything AMD has. My 4 core 2500k @4.5is faster then anything AMD has..... Fact. Waste your money if you will but when you have to change over to intel like I did you will wish you just went with them in the first place. I know I did

Ivy bridge - EX i7 3980x? if it's true it will probably cost $2,000 or more.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#64 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6355 posts) -

I love it when people who dont know anything about pc hardware start giving out advice thinking that they are the sht.  it makes me laugh every time.   but still gummis blind loyalism to amd cpus is almost as funny.

Avatar image for buccomatic
#65 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked

 

lol

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#66 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13788 posts) -

I love it when people who dont know anything about pc hardware start giving out advice thinking that they are the sht.  it makes me laugh every time.   but still gummis blind loyalism to amd cpus is almost as funny.

blaznwiipspman1

What an awesome example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Avatar image for Alx1231
#67 Posted by Alx1231 (527 posts) -

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked

 

lol

buccomatic
That's insane. Looking at this, why would anyone pay literally double the price for the 3770k?
Avatar image for ronvalencia
#68 Posted by ronvalencia (20670 posts) -
[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked

 

lol

Alx1231
That's insane. Looking at this, why would anyone pay literally double the price for the 3770k?

Crysis 3 is an AMD Gaming Evolved title.
Avatar image for clyde46
#69 Posted by clyde46 (48972 posts) -
[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked

 

lol

Alx1231
That's insane. Looking at this, why would anyone pay literally double the price for the 3770k?

The same reasons why people buy Mercedes over Fords.
Avatar image for buccomatic
#70 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -

[QUOTE="Alx1231"][QUOTE="buccomatic"]

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked

 

lol

ronvalencia

That's insane. Looking at this, why would anyone pay literally double the price for the 3770k?

Crysis 3 is an AMD Gaming Evolved title.

and it will be this way even more in a year or so when sony ps4 and xbox720 launch because they both have 8 core amd cpu's and the same amd gpu.

game makers can't make money on pc games because they get pirated and most all of the pc games will be console ports. it will be easier to port an amd optimized game from an 8 core and amd gpu (in a console) to and amd 8 core cpu and amd gpu pc. which means even though the intel is much better in terms of performance we probably won't notice it much in the future (in most games) because game makers will simply port the exact same amd optimized game from the xbox720 directly to pc and won't want to waste money trying to improve 60 fps performance for an intel or nvidia based rig.

4k resolution gaming is what intel is going to have to shoot for in the future and who the hell wants to spend $5,000 on another new tv @ 4k or a 4k monitor? not me... and even if people are interrested who is going to make games for it when they can't make any money on them and everyone is going the ps4/720 pc/console route??

i'm not saying amd is faster, it's not. i have intel on this laptop i'm using right now (it's crazy fast and would hate having to use an amd in a laptop), have a 3930k waiting for an x79 motherboard and am going with an nvidia video card (because i hate amd drivers and their quality control issues). but i'm just saying that the way things are going to unfold, amd is the better choice for the long run because the z77 socket is a dead end and the x79 might be as well.

also amd is cheaper and you won't notice a lot of difference in most games anyways - maybe 5-15 fps difference. but if you're gaming at 1080p and you can max out your settings with an amd and still get the same performance at 1080p with most games locked at 60fps, then it doesn't matter if intel is 5-15 fps faster for gaming because you'll never see it unless you have a crazy high end monitor or (or in the future) 4k tv where the amd would fall off in performance (due to higher resolutions) and the intel would not while flexing it's muscle.

Avatar image for buccomatic
#71 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -
[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

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

04dcarraher
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.

i agree 100% and this is the point i'm trying to make. you said it so nice and simple, if only i could do that! :)
Avatar image for taiwwa
#72 Posted by taiwwa (301 posts) -

Since this site is called Gamespot,

 

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

 

Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350.

Avatar image for taiwwa
#73 Posted by taiwwa (301 posts) -

[QUOTE="Alx1231"][QUOTE="buccomatic"]

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked

 

lol

ronvalencia

That's insane. Looking at this, why would anyone pay literally double the price for the 3770k?

Crysis 3 is an AMD Gaming Evolved title.

 

Do you understand how game benchmarks work? CPU limits the upper range of frame rates. GPU limits lower range.

AMD:

Far Cry 3 - CPU @ 4.6GHz

  • 1080p - Max - 36.44
  • 1080p - No Filters - 55.24
  • 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 53.12
  • 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 56.40

Intel:

 

Far Cry 3 - CPU @ 4.5GHz

  • 1080p - Max - 36.20
  • 1080p - No Filters - 59.72
  • 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 76.68
  • 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 81.56

 

Look at the last line. Intel CPU gets 81.56 FPS. AMD CPU gets 56.40. 

 

For gaming, the intel CPU is 80% faster than the AMD cpu

Avatar image for jennycakes215
#74 Posted by jennycakes215 (45 posts) -

Wow, this is still going on? Uh idk know much about CPUs or difference between AMD and Intel but I'm running Crysis 3 Perfect so I don't see the issue here. I guess that putting as much power into a system so that I can get 5 more frames is a PC gamer thing. You guys have been spoiled! I've been playing consoles exclusively for mostly all 22 years of my life and since my PS3 runs games sub 30 frames, I'm good. Beyond that though, it does seem pretty obvious that next-gen games will be more optimized for AMD since they will be using AMD processors. That's just an obvious from the outside prespective. Like I said, don't know much about CPUs so there might be more at play that is beyond me. 

Avatar image for buccomatic
#75 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -

Since this site is called Gamespot,

 

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

 

Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350.

taiwwa
that's why i got the 3930k and not the fx8350. but i would still get the fx8350 over everything except the 3930k. if anyone is thinking about buying a new CPU get it at MICROCENTER. http://www.microcenter.com/category/4294966995/Processors-CPUs you'll pay a ton less (up to $250 less) than you would from newegg or tigerdirect etc...
Avatar image for Alx1231
#76 Posted by Alx1231 (527 posts) -

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Alx1231"] That's insane. Looking at this, why would anyone pay literally double the price for the 3770k? taiwwa

Crysis 3 is an AMD Gaming Evolved title.

 

Do you understand how game benchmarks work? CPU limits the upper range of frame rates. GPU limits lower range.

AMD:

Far Cry 3 - CPU @ 4.6GHz

  • 1080p - Max - 36.44
  • 1080p - No Filters - 55.24
  • 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 53.12
  • 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 56.40

Intel:

 

Far Cry 3 - CPU @ 4.5GHz

  • 1080p - Max - 36.20
  • 1080p - No Filters - 59.72
  • 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 76.68
  • 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 81.56

 

Look at the last line. Intel CPU gets 81.56 FPS. AMD CPU gets 56.40. 

 

For gaming, the intel CPU is 80% faster than the AMD cpu

You just completely ignored the Crysis benchmarks... If you look at those, the results are MUCH closer only being 1-4 frames different with the AMD and intel going neck and neck. How can you come up with that 80% figure by looking at that one game.....
Avatar image for buccomatic
#77 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -

Wow, this is still going on? Uh idk know much about CPUs or difference between AMD and Intel but I'm running Crysis 3 Perfect so I don't see the issue here. I guess that putting as much power into a system so that I can get 5 more frames is a PC gamer thing. You guys have been spoiled! I've been playing consoles exclusively for mostly all 22 years of my life and since my PS3 runs games sub 30 frames, I'm good. Beyond that though, it does seem pretty obvious that next-gen games will be more optimized for AMD since they will be using AMD processors. That's just an obvious from the outside prespective. Like I said, don't know much about CPUs so there might be more at play that is beyond me. 

jennycakes215

gratz on running at max! you summed up pretty much everything that i've been trying to say in the last 5 posts. i think you made the right choice and if had went the same route i would be gaming on a new badass rig right now (like you) instead of waiting for another month (or more) before i have enough money to finish mine. but wheeew! i'm gonna be flying as fast as humanly possible for the first time in my life baby! lol! really i owe it to myself. i always went the mid range econo way in the past 3 builds (was much less performance than you will get - yours is basically high end) so i decided to treat myself to the fastest everything this time. but damn it hurts the wallet bigtime and i am not sure it's worth it.

Avatar image for taiwwa
#78 Posted by taiwwa (301 posts) -

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Crysis 3 is an AMD Gaming Evolved title.Alx1231

 

Do you understand how game benchmarks work? CPU limits the upper range of frame rates. GPU limits lower range.

AMD:

Far Cry 3 - CPU @ 4.6GHz

  • 1080p - Max - 36.44
  • 1080p - No Filters - 55.24
  • 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 53.12
  • 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 56.40

Intel:

 

Far Cry 3 - CPU @ 4.5GHz

  • 1080p - Max - 36.20
  • 1080p - No Filters - 59.72
  • 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 76.68
  • 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 81.56

 

Look at the last line. Intel CPU gets 81.56 FPS. AMD CPU gets 56.40. 

 

For gaming, the intel CPU is 80% faster than the AMD cpu

You just completely ignored the Crysis benchmarks... If you look at those, the results are MUCH closer only being 1-4 frames different with the AMD and intel going neck and neck. How can you come up with that 80% figure by looking at that one game.....

 

They were so alike that it was more likely they were GPU-limited.

Avatar image for buccomatic
#79 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -
[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Crysis 3 is an AMD Gaming Evolved title.Alx1231

 

Do you understand how game benchmarks work? CPU limits the upper range of frame rates. GPU limits lower range.

AMD:

Far Cry 3 - CPU @ 4.6GHz

  • 1080p - Max - 36.44
  • 1080p - No Filters - 55.24
  • 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 53.12
  • 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 56.40

Intel:

 

Far Cry 3 - CPU @ 4.5GHz

  • 1080p - Max - 36.20
  • 1080p - No Filters - 59.72
  • 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 76.68
  • 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 81.56

 

Look at the last line. Intel CPU gets 81.56 FPS. AMD CPU gets 56.40. 

 

For gaming, the intel CPU is 80% faster than the AMD cpu

You just completely ignored the Crysis benchmarks... If you look at those, the results are MUCH closer only being 1-4 frames different with the AMD and intel going neck and neck. How can you come up with that 80% figure by looking at that one game.....

the idea here is max settings at 1080p and they are nearly identical. also if you turn down the shadows one notch and turn off the bloom/post processing (which sucks anyways) you would jump way above 60 fps right away. also could turn down 16X AF to 8 (and probably never notice the difference) and add another 20 fps on top of that. as for crossfire with NO filters... why even bother? it's just top show the raw horsepower, if you have a crossfire system you're going to max everything out not turn everything off. that's the point of having it. so it's basically irrelevant.
Avatar image for taiwwa
#80 Posted by taiwwa (301 posts) -

Well, yes, the CPU isn't that important for gaming. A Core i3 is more than enough for pretty much all the modern games. It's smarter to invest money is a good GPU instead.

But you wanted an answer on which CPU was better for gaming. This is how you do it. Intel wins on just about every measure. 

Avatar image for jennycakes215
#81 Posted by jennycakes215 (45 posts) -

Well, yes, the CPU isn't that important for gaming. A Core i3 is more than enough for pretty much all the modern games. It's smarter to invest money is a good GPU instead.

But you wanted an answer on which CPU was better for gaming. This is how you do it. Intel wins on just about every measure. 

taiwwa

Honestly, the AMD people have shown me more videos and benchmarks than the intel people. I'm not picking sides or anything but through out this whole thread the people who support intel only tell me that it's better. Honestly the thing that made me choose AMD was the combination of that video with the guy with the beard and price being literally 100% less. I think I made the right choice because I'm running crysis 3 perfect and thats pretty much my benchmark lol. That's not to say that the i5 or the i7 wouldn't have run crysis perfect. I'm 100% sure they would have but I also would have paid alot more. Maybe as I become more of a PC gamer I will understand this war better.

 

Anyway, this is a question for everyone. I have been playing around with the graphics settings on Crysis 3 and there is something I don't understand. I had AA all the way up since I've been playing. I lowered it to it's lowest setting and did not notice a difference at all. I restarted the game and still no difference. I noticed I ran even better with it on low. I cannot see a difference at all unless its turned off completely. Why would I have it all the way up?

Avatar image for buccomatic
#82 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

Well, yes, the CPU isn't that important for gaming. A Core i3 is more than enough for pretty much all the modern games. It's smarter to invest money is a good GPU instead.

But you wanted an answer on which CPU was better for gaming. This is how you do it. Intel wins on just about every measure. 

jennycakes215

Honestly, the AMD people have shown me more videos and benchmarks than the intel people. I'm not picking sides or anything but through out this whole thread the people who support intel only tell me that it's better. Honestly the thing that made me choose AMD was the combination of that video with the guy with the beard and price being literally 100% less. I think I made the right choice because I'm running crysis 3 perfect and thats pretty much my benchmark lol. That's not to say that the i5 or the i7 wouldn't have run crysis perfect. I'm 100% sure they would have but I also would have paid alot more. Maybe as I become more of a PC gamer I will understand this war better.

 

Anyway, this is a question for everyone. I have been playing around with the graphics settings on Crysis 3 and there is something I don't understand. I had AA all the way up since I've been playing. I lowered it to it's lowest setting and did not notice a difference at all. I restarted the game and still no difference. I noticed I ran even better with it on low. I cannot see a difference at all unless its turned off completely. Why would I have it all the way up?

i'm guessing that it's probably because since your monitor is capped at 60hz then your fps is capped at 60 fps. so if you are getting 60fps with AA maxed out then you will end up getting more fps with it off, BUT your monitor won't show it because it can only show 60 fps because you are capped by a 60hz monitor. if you had a 144hz or 120hz or 240hz monitor your fps would go up because it wouldn't be capped at the refresh rate of your monitor at 60hz. turn on the vsync and tripple buffering if you're getting screen tearing but that will probably slow it down a bunch. this is a good problem for you to have because it usually is the other way around. it usually goes like this. "i can run crysis at 2x AA but if i go to 4xAA i lose 20 fps and it dips down to 28 fps and looks fugly." also try downloading fraps http://www.fraps.com/ run it in the background (before you start your game) and turn on the fps indicator you can see how many fps your getting in real time as you play and you might notice it dip below 60 when you are in high foliage areas, high ground clutter areas, or high shadowed areas etc... fraps will make yourcard see a performance hit as well usually you will lose a lot of fps using it. plus you can record 30 seconds of you game for free (as many times as you want) if you don't buy the full version. somethinmg fun to play around with. record awesome killcams etc..
Avatar image for kraken2109
#83 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -
[QUOTE="Alx1231"][QUOTE="taiwwa"]

 

Do you understand how game benchmarks work? CPU limits the upper range of frame rates. GPU limits lower range.

AMD:

Far Cry 3 - CPU @ 4.6GHz

  • 1080p - Max - 36.44
  • 1080p - No Filters - 55.24
  • 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 53.12
  • 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 56.40

Intel:

 

Far Cry 3 - CPU @ 4.5GHz

  • 1080p - Max - 36.20
  • 1080p - No Filters - 59.72
  • 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 76.68
  • 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 81.56

 

Look at the last line. Intel CPU gets 81.56 FPS. AMD CPU gets 56.40. 

 

For gaming, the intel CPU is 80% faster than the AMD cpu

buccomatic
You just completely ignored the Crysis benchmarks... If you look at those, the results are MUCH closer only being 1-4 frames different with the AMD and intel going neck and neck. How can you come up with that 80% figure by looking at that one game.....

the idea here is max settings at 1080p and they are nearly identical. also if you turn down the shadows one notch and turn off the bloom/post processing (which sucks anyways) you would jump way above 60 fps right away. also could turn down 16X AF to 8 (and probably never notice the difference) and add another 20 fps on top of that. as for crossfire with NO filters... why even bother? it's just top show the raw horsepower, if you have a crossfire system you're going to max everything out not turn everything off. that's the point of having it. so it's basically irrelevant.

Since when did going from 8X to 16X AF make 20fps difference..? AF has next to no performance cost these days.
Avatar image for buccomatic
#85 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -

[QUOTE="buccomatic"][QUOTE="Alx1231"]You just completely ignored the Crysis benchmarks... If you look at those, the results are MUCH closer only being 1-4 frames different with the AMD and intel going neck and neck. How can you come up with that 80% figure by looking at that one game.....kraken2109
the idea here is max settings at 1080p and they are nearly identical. also if you turn down the shadows one notch and turn off the bloom/post processing (which sucks anyways) you would jump way above 60 fps right away. also could turn down 16X AF to 8 (and probably never notice the difference) and add another 20 fps on top of that. as for crossfire with NO filters... why even bother? it's just top show the raw horsepower, if you have a crossfire system you're going to max everything out not turn everything off. that's the point of having it. so it's basically irrelevant.

Since when did going from 8X to 16X AF make 20fps difference..? AF has next to no performance cost these days.

lol it does on my laptop! boom instant drop! and i can only run it at 4x. but really i can barely see the difference between 4 and 8 so 16 is pointless. at least it is on this laptop with radeon 7670m 

Avatar image for kraken2109
#86 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="buccomatic"]the idea here is max settings at 1080p and they are nearly identical. also if you turn down the shadows one notch and turn off the bloom/post processing (which sucks anyways) you would jump way above 60 fps right away. also could turn down 16X AF to 8 (and probably never notice the difference) and add another 20 fps on top of that. as for crossfire with NO filters... why even bother? it's just top show the raw horsepower, if you have a crossfire system you're going to max everything out not turn everything off. that's the point of having it. so it's basically irrelevant.buccomatic

Since when did going from 8X to 16X AF make 20fps difference..? AF has next to no performance cost these days.

lol it does on my laptop! boom instant drop! and i can only run it at 4x. but really i can barely see the difference between 4 and 8 so 16 is pointless. at least it is on this laptop with radeon 7670m 

Sure you're not thinking of AA?
Avatar image for buccomatic
#87 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

[QUOTE="kraken2109"] Since when did going from 8X to 16X AF make 20fps difference..? AF has next to no performance cost these days.kraken2109

lol it does on my laptop! boom instant drop! and i can only run it at 4x. but really i can barely see the difference between 4 and 8 so 16 is pointless. at least it is on this laptop with radeon 7670m 

Sure you're not thinking of AA?

yeah, i'm positive. i'm sick and bedridden and i game for like 10 hours a day with it. it's all i do because i have a really bad and injured back. my laptop is an acer aspire 7750g and the video card is only half as powerful as the desktop version of the same card, it's a 1gb 7670m (it's a renamed 6650m). so although i can game with it, i have to really tweak the settings for every game just to play at 720p.

 

but yeah AA and shadows create the biggest performance hit.

Avatar image for taiwwa
#88 Posted by taiwwa (301 posts) -

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

Well, yes, the CPU isn't that important for gaming. A Core i3 is more than enough for pretty much all the modern games. It's smarter to invest money is a good GPU instead.

But you wanted an answer on which CPU was better for gaming. This is how you do it. Intel wins on just about every measure. 

jennycakes215

Honestly, the AMD people have shown me more videos and benchmarks than the intel people. I'm not picking sides or anything but through out this whole thread the people who support intel only tell me that it's better. Honestly the thing that made me choose AMD was the combination of that video with the guy with the beard and price being literally 100% less. I think I made the right choice because I'm running crysis 3 perfect and thats pretty much my benchmark lol. That's not to say that the i5 or the i7 wouldn't have run crysis perfect. I'm 100% sure they would have but I also would have paid alot more. Maybe as I become more of a PC gamer I will understand this war better.

 

Anyway, this is a question for everyone. I have been playing around with the graphics settings on Crysis 3 and there is something I don't understand. I had AA all the way up since I've been playing. I lowered it to it's lowest setting and did not notice a difference at all. I restarted the game and still no difference. I noticed I ran even better with it on low. I cannot see a difference at all unless its turned off completely. Why would I have it all the way up?

Well, uh, okay. This isn't that hard to do. Just look at which bar is higher.

http://www.anandtech.com/print/6396

51141.png 

and which one is lower

51142.png

As you can see, the previous generation Sandy Bridge intel i5 is about 50% faster in starcraft 2, while using about half of the power under load. It is also $10 cheaper than the AMD part on newegg.com 

The only area where the AMD part is superior to the intel part is like in running stuff like 7zip decompression programs. 

 

I mean, really.

Avatar image for clyde46
#89 Posted by clyde46 (48972 posts) -
ITT : People trying to justify their purchases.
Avatar image for kraken2109
#90 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"]

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

Well, yes, the CPU isn't that important for gaming. A Core i3 is more than enough for pretty much all the modern games. It's smarter to invest money is a good GPU instead.

But you wanted an answer on which CPU was better for gaming. This is how you do it. Intel wins on just about every measure. 

taiwwa

Honestly, the AMD people have shown me more videos and benchmarks than the intel people. I'm not picking sides or anything but through out this whole thread the people who support intel only tell me that it's better. Honestly the thing that made me choose AMD was the combination of that video with the guy with the beard and price being literally 100% less. I think I made the right choice because I'm running crysis 3 perfect and thats pretty much my benchmark lol. That's not to say that the i5 or the i7 wouldn't have run crysis perfect. I'm 100% sure they would have but I also would have paid alot more. Maybe as I become more of a PC gamer I will understand this war better.

 

Anyway, this is a question for everyone. I have been playing around with the graphics settings on Crysis 3 and there is something I don't understand. I had AA all the way up since I've been playing. I lowered it to it's lowest setting and did not notice a difference at all. I restarted the game and still no difference. I noticed I ran even better with it on low. I cannot see a difference at all unless its turned off completely. Why would I have it all the way up?

Well, uh, okay. This isn't that hard to do. Just look at which bar is higher.

http://www.anandtech.com/print/6396

51141.png 

and which one is lower

51142.png

As you can see, the previous generation Sandy Bridge intel i5 is about 50% faster in starcraft 2, while using about half of the power under load. It is also $10 cheaper than the AMD part on newegg.com 

The only area where the AMD part is superior to the intel part is like in running stuff like 7zip decompression programs. 

 

I mean, really.

Nobody games at 1024x768 medium settings.
Avatar image for Alx1231
#91 Posted by Alx1231 (527 posts) -

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"]

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

Well, yes, the CPU isn't that important for gaming. A Core i3 is more than enough for pretty much all the modern games. It's smarter to invest money is a good GPU instead.

But you wanted an answer on which CPU was better for gaming. This is how you do it. Intel wins on just about every measure. 

taiwwa

Honestly, the AMD people have shown me more videos and benchmarks than the intel people. I'm not picking sides or anything but through out this whole thread the people who support intel only tell me that it's better. Honestly the thing that made me choose AMD was the combination of that video with the guy with the beard and price being literally 100% less. I think I made the right choice because I'm running crysis 3 perfect and thats pretty much my benchmark lol. That's not to say that the i5 or the i7 wouldn't have run crysis perfect. I'm 100% sure they would have but I also would have paid alot more. Maybe as I become more of a PC gamer I will understand this war better.

 

Anyway, this is a question for everyone. I have been playing around with the graphics settings on Crysis 3 and there is something I don't understand. I had AA all the way up since I've been playing. I lowered it to it's lowest setting and did not notice a difference at all. I restarted the game and still no difference. I noticed I ran even better with it on low. I cannot see a difference at all unless its turned off completely. Why would I have it all the way up?

Well, uh, okay. This isn't that hard to do. Just look at which bar is higher.

http://www.anandtech.com/print/6396

51141.png 

and which one is lower

51142.png

As you can see, the previous generation Sandy Bridge intel i5 is about 50% faster in starcraft 2, while using about half of the power under load. It is also $10 cheaper than the AMD part on newegg.com 

The only area where the AMD part is superior to the intel part is like in running stuff like 7zip decompression programs. 

 

I mean, really.

Please stop. Why is it that the intel is so much better in Starcraft 2 and thats not the case in Crysis 3? Open your eyes for a second. You have to realize that every game is different. Consider the fact that starcraft 2 was made when multicore was not yet the standard. In fact, Starcraft 2 only uses two cores. I believe that Intel does have a better architecture. The problem is that they are way more expensive and PC gaming is moving towards more cores. In my opinion, I believe Intel's 8 core processors will probably beat AMD.'s. But, considering the price of the current 4 cores, they will be way overpriced. Also, I doubt intel's superior 8 cores will even matter unless you plan on running on something more than 1080p which franky, I'm not.
Avatar image for taiwwa
#92 Posted by taiwwa (301 posts) -

Crysis is equal because it is not CPU limited. It is GPU limited. That's what Crysis is all about, pushing your video card.

CPU limited is an upper cap on FPS. 

Other games show a healthy like 50% advantage for the intel part while at the same time consumer 50% less power. 

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#93 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13788 posts) -

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

Well, yes, the CPU isn't that important for gaming. A Core i3 is more than enough for pretty much all the modern games. It's smarter to invest money is a good GPU instead.

But you wanted an answer on which CPU was better for gaming. This is how you do it. Intel wins on just about every measure. 

jennycakes215

Honestly, the AMD people have shown me more videos and benchmarks than the intel people. I'm not picking sides or anything but through out this whole thread the people who support intel only tell me that it's better. Honestly the thing that made me choose AMD was the combination of that video with the guy with the beard and price being literally 100% less. I think I made the right choice because I'm running crysis 3 perfect and thats pretty much my benchmark lol. That's not to say that the i5 or the i7 wouldn't have run crysis perfect. I'm 100% sure they would have but I also would have paid alot more. Maybe as I become more of a PC gamer I will understand this war better.

 

Anyway, this is a question for everyone. I have been playing around with the graphics settings on Crysis 3 and there is something I don't understand. I had AA all the way up since I've been playing. I lowered it to it's lowest setting and did not notice a difference at all. I restarted the game and still no difference. I noticed I ran even better with it on low. I cannot see a difference at all unless its turned off completely. Why would I have it all the way up?

What you see with the AMD vs intel war is the intel fanboys love intels marketing and developed a very strong brand loyalty.  Most people that have AMD used to be huge intel fans or switch back and forth between intel and AMD depending what the price/performance ratio is.

 

Also I only ever have AA at 2x.  Just set it to the setting that removes jaggies.

 

Even the guy on teksyndicate thought the 8350 wasn't going to as do well in games compared to a 3570k until he tested it,(links to the 2 videos exactly where he states his expectations and then his findings.) that was 100% because of intels marketing power.

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#94 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13788 posts) -

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"]

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

Well, yes, the CPU isn't that important for gaming. A Core i3 is more than enough for pretty much all the modern games. It's smarter to invest money is a good GPU instead.

But you wanted an answer on which CPU was better for gaming. This is how you do it. Intel wins on just about every measure. 

buccomatic

Honestly, the AMD people have shown me more videos and benchmarks than the intel people. I'm not picking sides or anything but through out this whole thread the people who support intel only tell me that it's better. Honestly the thing that made me choose AMD was the combination of that video with the guy with the beard and price being literally 100% less. I think I made the right choice because I'm running crysis 3 perfect and thats pretty much my benchmark lol. That's not to say that the i5 or the i7 wouldn't have run crysis perfect. I'm 100% sure they would have but I also would have paid alot more. Maybe as I become more of a PC gamer I will understand this war better.

 

Anyway, this is a question for everyone. I have been playing around with the graphics settings on Crysis 3 and there is something I don't understand. I had AA all the way up since I've been playing. I lowered it to it's lowest setting and did not notice a difference at all. I restarted the game and still no difference. I noticed I ran even better with it on low. I cannot see a difference at all unless its turned off completely. Why would I have it all the way up?

i'm guessing that it's probably because since your monitor is capped at 60hz then your fps is capped at 60 fps. so if you are getting 60fps with AA maxed out then you will end up getting more fps with it off, BUT your monitor won't show it because it can only show 60 fps because you are capped by a 60hz monitor. if you had a 144hz or 120hz or 240hz monitor your fps would go up because it wouldn't be capped at the refresh rate of your monitor at 60hz. turn on the vsync and tripple buffering if you're getting screen tearing but that will probably slow it down a bunch. this is a good problem for you to have because it usually is the other way around. it usually goes like this. "i can run crysis at 2x AA but if i go to 4xAA i lose 20 fps and it dips down to 28 fps and looks fugly." also try downloading fraps http://www.fraps.com/ run it in the background (before you start your game) and turn on the fps indicator you can see how many fps your getting in real time as you play and you might notice it dip below 60 when you are in high foliage areas, high ground clutter areas, or high shadowed areas etc... fraps will make yourcard see a performance hit as well usually you will lose a lot of fps using it. plus you can record 30 seconds of you game for free (as many times as you want) if you don't buy the full version. somethinmg fun to play around with. record awesome killcams etc..

 

Doesn't work that way

 

Avatar image for taiwwa
#95 Posted by taiwwa (301 posts) -

Uh, so there's some conspiracy going on between all the major gaming sites? Unlikely. 

It's just one dude's results, while literally every single site out there has intel doing better on actual games.

Here's something more comprehensive. i3 vs 8350

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=677

 

The only argument for the 8350 is that it is good enough in games but is noticably better in video encoding if you use handbrake a lot.

 

Oh, and power matters. Like, PSU's are surprisingly expensive. Some are like $70. 

 

I got away with a 450 watt PSU in large part because the intel processor is so power efficient. The TDP was like 77 I think. The AMD CPU would have forced me to get a bigger and more expensive PSU.

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#96 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13788 posts) -

Uh, so there's some conspiracy going on between all the major gaming sites? Unlikely. 

It's just one dude's results, while literally every single site out there has intel doing better on actual games.

Here's something more comprehensive. i3 vs 8350

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=677

 

The only argument for the 8350 is that it is good enough in games but is noticably better in video encoding if you use handbrake a lot.

 

Oh, and power matters. Like, PSU's are surprisingly expensive. Some are like $70. 

 

I got away with a 450 watt PSU in large part because the intel processor is so power efficient. The TDP was like 77 I think. The AMD CPU would have forced me to get a bigger and more expensive PSU.

taiwwa

 

TDP is not power draw.

 

The more you know.

 

EDIT: Also anandtech does stuff like use CS4 in their tests, which is beyond ridiculous.

Avatar image for godzillavskong
#97 Posted by godzillavskong (7902 posts) -
I think if $$ isn't the issue then go with intel, but if you wanna save some $$ , and still get good performance , go with AMD. We all know intel performs better in a bunch of different benchmarks, but are you willing to pay for that extra performance? AMD has never let me down. I've thought of going with intel for my next PC build, but I've decided to wait it out and see what happens in the next year or so.
Avatar image for taiwwa
#98 Posted by taiwwa (301 posts) -

Hmm, well, the fx6300 looks like the sweet spot right now, about the same price as an i3. Looks to have about teh same performance in games, and will do better in media encoding.

I mean, I've liked AMD for a while. One of the first computers I built was like an athlon xp system.

I probably would go with like a fx6300 if I were building today. 

Also the OP should look at some of the cooling systems. They're fun. Like Corsair sells these cool water-cooling systems which place the exhaust radiator right on the side of the case and not just blowing from inside the case. pretty elegant. 

Avatar image for jennycakes215
#99 Posted by jennycakes215 (45 posts) -

Hmm, well, the fx6300 looks like the sweet spot right now, about the same price as an i3. Looks to have about teh same performance in games, and will do better in media encoding.

I mean, I've liked AMD for a while. One of the first computers I built was like an athlon xp system.

I probably would go with like a fx6300 if I were building today. 

Also the OP should look at some of the cooling systems. They're fun. Like Corsair sells these cool water-cooling systems which place the exhaust radiator right on the side of the case and not just blowing from inside the case. pretty elegant. 

taiwwa
I actually bought a really expensive cooling system that doesnt fit in my case. Now I'm stuck with a stock fan which seems to be working fine. Do I need an awesome cooling system if I'm not planning on overclocking anytime soon?
Avatar image for taiwwa
#100 Posted by taiwwa (301 posts) -

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

Hmm, well, the fx6300 looks like the sweet spot right now, about the same price as an i3. Looks to have about teh same performance in games, and will do better in media encoding.

I mean, I've liked AMD for a while. One of the first computers I built was like an athlon xp system.

I probably would go with like a fx6300 if I were building today. 

Also the OP should look at some of the cooling systems. They're fun. Like Corsair sells these cool water-cooling systems which place the exhaust radiator right on the side of the case and not just blowing from inside the case. pretty elegant. 

jennycakes215

I actually bought a really expensive cooling system that doesnt fit in my case. Now I'm stuck with a stock fan which seems to be working fine. Do I need an awesome cooling system if I'm not planning on overclocking anytime soon?

Aww, let me guess, the Evo 212?

You don't really need an awesome cooling system and you wouldn't be able to really notice an overclock in day-to-day use anyways. 

But it's fun.

I really like the Corsair H60. There are a few other competitors who have similar designs you might be able to find cheaper. 

How small is this case? I wanted to get like an ITX case with an AMD trinity chip and watercooling, but isntead just got micro-ATX.