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

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

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.

Intel is generally recommended.crippledmachine

based on?

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

_SKatEDiRt_

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

based on?

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

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

based on?

your statement literally means nothing

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

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

based on?

GummiRaccoon

your statement literally means nothing

[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

[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

[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

[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

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.

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

lol

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.

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

 

lol

buccomatic

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

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

 

lol

Alx1231

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

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

 

lol

Alx1231

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

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

 

lol

ronvalencia

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.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

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

04dcarraher

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.

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

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

 

lol

ronvalencia

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

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. 

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

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

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

[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

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

[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

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. 

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

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?

[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

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?

[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

[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

[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

[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

but yeah AA and shadows create the biggest performance hit.

[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

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

and which one is lower

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.

[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

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

and which one is lower

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.

[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

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

and which one is lower

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.

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. 

[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

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.

[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

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?

Doesn't work that way

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.

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.

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. 

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

[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

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.