[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]
[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]
It´s a very simple choice. If you go with Nividia GPU, then you are better off with an Intel processor. If you go with ATI GPU, then you are better off with an AMD. ;)
jhonMalcovich
Â
i go with whatever offers most performance per buck for my needs. That means intel processor and AMD graphics card....dunno where you pulled that Intel/nvidia bs out of.
Yeh. I forgot that ATI GPU works well with an Intel CPU, too. Anyway, what I am talking about is that there is an optimization that syncronizes CPU with GPU for a better communication between both and hence, a better performance.Â
Sorry sir, that is incorrect, there is no evidence that supports that logic. Maybe you're right in saying that AMD cpu and an AMD gpu will work better together, since they're the same company products, but there is no way in hell that an intel cpu will work better with an nvidia gpu than an AMD gpu. Intel despises nvidia much more than AMD (who they don't even consider competitors), and there is no way intel and nvidia have an agreement for better performance together.Â
If anything, Id say intel prefers AMD over nvidia and the intel/AMD combo would work better. Nvidia just pisses everyone off.
As AMD and ATI is the same company, so it´s logical to expect that AMD CPU worked woderful with an ATI GPU. Intel could have more power, but AMD-ATI combo could have a better optimization.
The worst combo I think would be AMD CPU and Nivida GPU.
This may be true, but I don't think there is any real evidence to support that claim.
I myself was confronted with the TC´s dilema, and in the end I choosed Intel, because I already had an Nvidia GPU, and because of the following reasons:
1.  AMD FX8350 is an 32 nm old tech vs 22nm of Intel. As a result AMD FX8350 consumes almost twice as much of power. So if one goes with AMD FX8350, he would probably need to invest into more powerful power supply and refrigeration.
2. Haswell has better, more advanced set of instructions, and it´s still the most powerful line-up of CPUs on the market.
3. Crysis 3 performs better on I5 4670k by a margin of some 10fps. AMD FX8350 had beaten older versions of I5/7s, but not new Haswell line-up.
4. Next gen consoles won´t use all 8 cores in gaming. As it was explained before, one core will go for OS, another one for background services, leaving only 6 cores for gaming. And I am not even sure if multiplats will use those 6 cores, and not only 4, to keep better compatibility with a huge quad-core user base. As we know, game developers optimize their game for the lowest common denominator.
Even if devs use all 6 cores, don´t forget that those are pretty weak, mobile tech cores.
1) yes, intels process is ahead of AMDs process and therefore AMD does consume twice as much power. Also AMD has 8 cores while intel only uses 4.
2)intel is definitely more advanced
3)yes this is also true
4) Next gen consoles will definitely use all available cores to optimize the best performance. Maybe not at the start but they will do it later on in the cycle. Devs won't do as you say and only use 4 of the cores, that is dumb. Compatibility my ass, if that were true then we'd be still using single cores.
Quadcore of Intel >>>>>>>>>>>  console  CPU´s 6 cores.
So the conclusion is this:
You are better off waiting for a next gen multi-core 22nm AMD cpu, which maybe will take a year or so to arrive, or go with i5 4670K.
AMD FX8350 is not beating Intel quadcores now, it won´t beat them a year later either.
It´s either waiting 6-12 months for a next AMD cpu or getting an i5 4670K right now.Â
 I personally agree with you there, intels CPU's are much better than AMD's currently. Hopefully AMD will catch up and can cut down the power usage, but im not holding my breath. Go with whatever is best now, not possibly what could be the best 1 year from now. I think everyone learned their lesson while waiting for the hardcore FLOP that was the bulldozer....LOL, i still feel sorry for those dudes who were waiting that long.
Log in to comment