Should i change to intel? from amd

  • 52 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for fearhome21
#1 Posted by fearhome21 (340 posts) -

Hello my gpu is 7850 my current cpu 3.4 ghz amd phenom ii 965
here is a list of interesting cpus of intel and will they perfom better wtih 7850?
Intel Core i5 3570K (s 1155 , 3.4 GHz , 6 MB)
Intel Core i5 3550 (s 1155 , 3.3 GHz , 6 MB)
Intel Core i5 3470 (s 1155 , 3.2 GHz , 6 MB)
intel core i5 2500k
intel core i5 2600k
intel core i7 3770k
OR should i upgrade my phenom to
Amd piledriver 8350 CPU? and if u say intel please suggest me a new mainboard..

Avatar image for djdarkforces
#2 Posted by djdarkforces (812 posts) -

sure you might gain a few fps and loading times may be faster but imo it wont be money well spent

Avatar image for Chris_53
#3 Posted by Chris_53 (5436 posts) -

sure you might gain a few fps and loading times may be faster but imo it wont be money well spent

djdarkforces
What he said^
Avatar image for kraken2109
#4 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

Not worth it

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#5 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

I went from a 955 to a 8350. Gaming experience is about the same, I get higher min fps though.

However, everything else, office apps, handbrake, cs6, vms. All run really fast. Faster than my buddies 2700k

For example the hard reset benchmark averaged 60 fps before and now averages 80 fps

Avatar image for jhcho2
#6 Posted by jhcho2 (5007 posts) -

AMD fans will never admit that getting an Intel cpu would be better, even after AMD's failure to consistently match Intel's performance from an overall perspective. The thing is, AMD isn't doing too well financially, and they will never be what they once were. If AMD goes down, the fanboy reaction will be the sweetest thing to watch. I'm telling you, these AMD fanboys would rather opt for an inferior product than support Intel or Nvidia. They console themselves by saying it's value for money. I've had first hand experience in this.

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#7 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

AMD fans will never admit that getting an Intel cpu would be better, even after AMD's failure to consistently match Intel's performance from an overall perspective. The thing is, AMD isn't doing too well financially, and they will never be what they once were. If AMD goes down, the fanboy reaction will be the sweetest thing to watch. I'm telling you, these AMD fanboys would rather opt for an inferior product than support Intel or Nvidia. They console themselves by saying it's value for money. I've had first hand experience in this.

jhcho2

Don't be mad at my ability to encode video, watch a video, play a game and have 2 VMs open.

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#8 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (24599 posts) -

I went from a 955 to a 8350. Gaming experience is about the same, I get higher min fps though.

However, everything else, office apps, handbrake, cs6, vms. All run really fast. Faster than my buddies 2700k

For example the hard reset benchmark averaged 60 fps before and now averages 80 fps

GummiRaccoon

Not with quick sync

:3

Quick sync is way too fast compared to handbrake's default presets.

Avatar image for Chris_53
#9 Posted by Chris_53 (5436 posts) -

AMD fans will never admit that getting an Intel cpu would be better, even after AMD's failure to consistently match Intel's performance from an overall perspective. The thing is, AMD isn't doing too well financially, and they will never be what they once were. If AMD goes down, the fanboy reaction will be the sweetest thing to watch. I'm telling you, these AMD fanboys would rather opt for an inferior product than support Intel or Nvidia. They console themselves by saying it's value for money. I've had first hand experience in this.

jhcho2
What???
Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#10 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6676 posts) -

AMD fans will never admit that getting an Intel cpu would be better, even after AMD's failure to consistently match Intel's performance from an overall perspective. The thing is, AMD isn't doing too well financially, and they will never be what they once were. If AMD goes down, the fanboy reaction will be the sweetest thing to watch. I'm telling you, these AMD fanboys would rather opt for an inferior product than support Intel or Nvidia. They console themselves by saying it's value for money. I've had first hand experience in this.

jhcho2

AMD might be inferior to intel, but only in your fantasies will AMD ever be beaten by nvidia. AMD cards have been superior to nvidia cards for a long time now, and its the reason I always go with Intel and Radeon for my combos. Some people prefer the brand name of "nvidia", but for me I go for the better performing card at the best price, and nvidia has always lost that battle (except 1 time with the geforce 460, which I did purchase). Radeon is the only thing keeping AMD on life support, other wise they'd be buried in the ground by now.

To the OP: I say definitely the core i5 3570k is a great cpu, now doubt about i, go for it you will enjoy. However its not like you will be dissapointed with the fx-8350 pile driver either. I suggest going for the fx-8320 which you can OC to the same speeds as the fx-8350 but will cost $30 less or so.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#11 Posted by ronvalencia (25410 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I went from a 955 to a 8350. Gaming experience is about the same, I get higher min fps though.

However, everything else, office apps, handbrake, cs6, vms. All run really fast. Faster than my buddies 2700k

For example the hard reset benchmark averaged 60 fps before and now averages 80 fps

JigglyWiggly_

Not with quick sync

:3

Quick sync is way too fast compared to handbrake's default presets.

Intel QuickSync + AMD VCE+GpGPU (HD 79x0) is better than solo solution.
Avatar image for GamerwillzPS
#12 Posted by GamerwillzPS (8531 posts) -

Yes, Intel CPUs usually perform better.

For a new motherboard, you decide it for yourself. Just look for the correct socket between your CPU and the motherboard. For example, if your CPU is socket 1155, look for a motherboard that supports 1155 and it will fit in it.

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#13 Posted by MonsieurX (36735 posts) -

Yes, Intel CPUs usually perform better.

For a new motherboard, you decide it for yourself. Just look for the correct socket between your CPU and the motherboard. For example, if your CPU is socket 1155, look for a motherboard that supports 1155 and it will fit in it.

GamerwillzPS
Can't you read? [QUOTE="fearhome21"] Hello my gpu is 7850 my current cpu 3.4 ghz amd phenom ii 965

Avatar image for GamerwillzPS
#14 Posted by GamerwillzPS (8531 posts) -

[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

Yes, Intel CPUs usually perform better.

For a new motherboard, you decide it for yourself. Just look for the correct socket between your CPU and the motherboard. For example, if your CPU is socket 1155, look for a motherboard that supports 1155 and it will fit in it.

MonsieurX

Can't you read?
Hello my gpu is 7850 my current cpu 3.4 ghz amd phenom ii 965 fearhome21

And?

Avatar image for Chris_53
#15 Posted by Chris_53 (5436 posts) -
I have an AMD Phenom X4 955 and I can run any game at high graphic settings, so with that said, I couldnt give a flying f**k what some benchmark says. Im sorry but I just find this whole fanboy attitude pathetic and childish. I mean when the times comes that I decide to upgrade my CPU/Mobo etc, then if a good Intel CPU came into my price range, then I shell purchase it, likewise with AMD. This entire forum is overrun by childish fanboyism, which is why if I need advice regarding hardware, I use other forums so that I can get advice from people who actually know their arse from their elbow!
Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#16 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (24599 posts) -
[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I went from a 955 to a 8350. Gaming experience is about the same, I get higher min fps though.

However, everything else, office apps, handbrake, cs6, vms. All run really fast. Faster than my buddies 2700k

For example the hard reset benchmark averaged 60 fps before and now averages 80 fps

ronvalencia

Not with quick sync

:3

Quick sync is way too fast compared to handbrake's default presets.

Intel QuickSync + AMD VCE+GpGPU (HD 79x0) is better than solo solution.

hmm nah  http://www.anandtech.com/show/5835/testing-opencl-accelerated-handbrakex264-with-amds-trinity-apu

With Trinity, AMD has an answer to Quick Sync with its integrated VCE, however the performance is hardly as similar as the concept. In applications that take advantage of both Quick Sync and VCE, the Intel solution is considerably faster.

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#17 Posted by MonsieurX (36735 posts) -

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"][QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"] Can't you read? [QUOTE="fearhome21"] Hello my gpu is 7850 my current cpu 3.4 ghz amd phenom ii 965 GamerwillzPS

And?

His mobo is obviously not 1155
Avatar image for jakes456
#18 Posted by jakes456 (1398 posts) -

There is no reason to upgrade that CPU to anything. It should have no problems with any current game because games have gone no where.

Avatar image for godzillavskong
#19 Posted by godzillavskong (7904 posts) -
I say go for whatever fits your budget. Go with the best performer that your willing to spend for. I think my next PC will be built around a Intel CPU . Depends on my budget.
Avatar image for godzillavskong
#20 Posted by godzillavskong (7904 posts) -
I have an AMD Phenom X4 955 and I can run any game at high graphic settings, so with that said, I couldnt give a flying f**k what some benchmark says. Im sorry but I just find this whole fanboy attitude pathetic and childish. I mean when the times comes that I decide to upgrade my CPU/Mobo etc, then if a good Intel CPU came into my price range, then I shell purchase it, likewise with AMD. This entire forum is overrun by childish fanboyism, which is why if I need advice regarding hardware, I use other forums so that I can get advice from people who actually know their arse from their elbow!Chris_53
Amen brother. I have a fx6100, from the bulldozer series, which wasnt received well at all, and the benchmarks were subpar, but I can run all my games maxed out, just as you said. That's the main objective for me and all those other benchmarks mean nothing to me. I just wanna game on high settings, with a solid frame rate. I don't care which brand helps me accomplish that.
Avatar image for C_Rule
#21 Posted by C_Rule (9816 posts) -
Whenever I need to justify my CPU purchase, I go join a massive zerg in GW2. :cool:
Avatar image for jhcho2
#22 Posted by jhcho2 (5007 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chris_53"]I have an AMD Phenom X4 955 and I can run any game at high graphic settings, so with that said, I couldnt give a flying f**k what some benchmark says. Im sorry but I just find this whole fanboy attitude pathetic and childish. I mean when the times comes that I decide to upgrade my CPU/Mobo etc, then if a good Intel CPU came into my price range, then I shell purchase it, likewise with AMD. This entire forum is overrun by childish fanboyism, which is why if I need advice regarding hardware, I use other forums so that I can get advice from people who actually know their arse from their elbow!godzillavskong
Amen brother. I have a fx6100, from the bulldozer series, which wasnt received well at all, and the benchmarks were subpar, but I can run all my games maxed out, just as you said. That's the main objective for me and all those other benchmarks mean nothing to me. I just wanna game on high settings, with a solid frame rate. I don't care which brand helps me accomplish that.

both of your statements are equally pointless as well. What exactly is "All of my games"? WoW and COD? or Guild Wars 2 and Crysis 2? And he said 'high graphic settings', which if taken literally, doesn't mean much since since all PC games nowadays either go up to very high or ultra settings.

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#23 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (24599 posts) -

If you play bf3 and have a 120hz monitor, then yes go Intel.
on my laptop with a 2720ES, it turbos to 3.3ghz, in BF3 I get 120fps, but it can even dip to 75fps which is gross.

GPU usage is not maxed out, it's like 85%.
If I crank the res up to 1280x960 it's 100% gpu usage. I play at 1024x768 on my laptop, I'd play at 1280x960, but it's a bit slower than I'd like.

When BF3 slows down to 75fps, it feels really unsmooth.

On my desktop with a 2600k @ 4.6ghz, I get 200fps and it dips to 150, so it's always smooth.

BF3 is super cpu dependent.


from hardforum
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1654043

first test i5-2500k with all 4 cores active, running an overclock of 4.2ghz
Frames
40855
Time (ms)
300000
Min
70
Max
201
Avg
136.183

second test i5-2500k with only 2 cores active and cpu downclocked to the minimum (3.4ghz no turbo mode)
Frames
19941
Time (ms)
300000
Min
32
Max
115
Avg
66.47

CPU usage on my laptop is 80%.

And yes it's noticible on my laptop display as well, I oc'd the display to 95hz.

Avatar image for godzillavskong
#24 Posted by godzillavskong (7904 posts) -

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="Chris_53"]I have an AMD Phenom X4 955 and I can run any game at high graphic settings, so with that said, I couldnt give a flying f**k what some benchmark says. Im sorry but I just find this whole fanboy attitude pathetic and childish. I mean when the times comes that I decide to upgrade my CPU/Mobo etc, then if a good Intel CPU came into my price range, then I shell purchase it, likewise with AMD. This entire forum is overrun by childish fanboyism, which is why if I need advice regarding hardware, I use other forums so that I can get advice from people who actually know their arse from their elbow!jhcho2

Amen brother. I have a fx6100, from the bulldozer series, which wasnt received well at all, and the benchmarks were subpar, but I can run all my games maxed out, just as you said. That's the main objective for me and all those other benchmarks mean nothing to me. I just wanna game on high settings, with a solid frame rate. I don't care which brand helps me accomplish that.

both of your statements are equally pointless as well. What exactly is "All of my games"? WoW and COD? or Guild Wars 2 and Crysis 2? And he said 'high graphic settings', which if taken literally, doesn't mean much since since all PC games nowadays either go up to very high or ultra settings.

My post wasn't pointless. I was replying to Chris 53's post. How about this? I can play all the games in the world in max settings @ 1080p! Is that better?
Avatar image for ronvalencia
#25 Posted by ronvalencia (25410 posts) -

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"] Not with quick sync

:3

Quick sync is way too fast compared to handbrake's default presets.

JigglyWiggly_

Intel QuickSync + AMD VCE+GpGPU (HD 79x0) is better than solo solution.

hmm nah  http://www.anandtech.com/show/5835/testing-opencl-accelerated-handbrakex264-with-amds-trinity-apu

With Trinity, AMD has an answer to Quick Sync with its integrated VCE, however the performance is hardly as similar as the concept. In applications that take advantage of both Quick Sync and VCE, the Intel solution is considerably faster.

Emmm, it's the VCE+GPGPU built into Radeon HD 79x0 not on AMD Trinity.

Intel Quick Sync and AMD 79x0 VCE+GpGPU covers both bases.

For example

46687.png

AMD A10 Trinity APU vs Intel Core i3 3220 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JcA9W1xb0Cs#t=66s

To enable Radeon HD 77x0-to-79x0's VCE, the user would need Catalyst 12.7. http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33991683

Avatar image for SPBoss
#26 Posted by SPBoss (3746 posts) -
I used to be a hardcore amd fan but then i bought a 2500k and never looked back. I have also never touched an AMD gpu in my life lol
Avatar image for SolidPandaG
#27 Posted by SolidPandaG (218 posts) -

As a few others are saying, go with Intel. You don't even need to think twice about this. For now and the future, a Sandy or Ivy Bridge CPU will hold you for a long time. Also, disregard the usual pro AMD rhetoric from the fanboys who, as someone claimed, would rather inject bias in the hopes of deluding themselves that their processors are awesome, than admit inferiority to Big Blue.

I run my i5 2500K @ 4.7 GHz and it smashes any AMD processor in the face like Bane did to Batman during their first fight.

Honestly, you might be feeling indecisive now but you'll thank yourself later and never look back.

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#28 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

As a few others are saying, go with Intel. You don't even need to think twice about this. For now and the future, a Sandy or Ivy Bridge CPU will hold you for a long time. Also, disregard the usual pro AMD rhetoric from the fanboys who, as someone claimed, would rather inject bias in the hopes of deluding themselves that their processors are awesome, than admit inferiority to Big Blue.

I run my i5 2500K @ 4.7 GHz and it smashes any AMD processor in the face like Bane did to Batman during their first fight.

Honestly, you might be feeling indecisive now but you'll thank yourself later and never look back.

SolidPandaG

screen shot or it didn't happen

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#29 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (24599 posts) -

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

As a few others are saying, go with Intel. You don't even need to think twice about this. For now and the future, a Sandy or Ivy Bridge CPU will hold you for a long time. Also, disregard the usual pro AMD rhetoric from the fanboys who, as someone claimed, would rather inject bias in the hopes of deluding themselves that their processors are awesome, than admit inferiority to Big Blue.

I run my i5 2500K @ 4.7 GHz and it smashes any AMD processor in the face like Bane did to Batman during their first fight.

Honestly, you might be feeling indecisive now but you'll thank yourself later and never look back.

GummiRaccoon

screen shot or it didn't happen

That's not that unreasonable. My 2600k is at 4.6ghz, I can do 4.7ghz. Lots of people's can do 4.9ghz
Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#30 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

As a few others are saying, go with Intel. You don't even need to think twice about this. For now and the future, a Sandy or Ivy Bridge CPU will hold you for a long time. Also, disregard the usual pro AMD rhetoric from the fanboys who, as someone claimed, would rather inject bias in the hopes of deluding themselves that their processors are awesome, than admit inferiority to Big Blue.

I run my i5 2500K @ 4.7 GHz and it smashes any AMD processor in the face like Bane did to Batman during their first fight.

Honestly, you might be feeling indecisive now but you'll thank yourself later and never look back.

JigglyWiggly_

screen shot or it didn't happen

That's not that unreasonable. My 2600k is at 4.6ghz, I can do 4.7ghz. Lots of people's can do 4.9ghz

My argument is that he can't. Not about anyone else.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#31 Posted by ronvalencia (25410 posts) -

As a few others are saying, go with Intel. You don't even need to think twice about this. For now and the future, a Sandy or Ivy Bridge CPU will hold you for a long time. Also, disregard the usual pro AMD rhetoric from the fanboys who, as someone claimed, would rather inject bias in the hopes of deluding themselves that their processors are awesome, than admit inferiority to Big Blue.

I run my i5 2500K @ 4.7 GHz and it smashes any AMD processor in the face like Bane did to Batman during their first fight.

Honestly, you might be feeling indecisive now but you'll thank yourself later and never look back.

SolidPandaG

It depends on the workload. Ivybridge (Xeon)'s lack of FMA makes it less desirable for math related HPC servers.

PS; Most complied X86 desktop programs doesn't use FMA instructions.

Avatar image for SolidPandaG
#32 Posted by SolidPandaG (218 posts) -

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

As a few others are saying, go with Intel. You don't even need to think twice about this. For now and the future, a Sandy or Ivy Bridge CPU will hold you for a long time. Also, disregard the usual pro AMD rhetoric from the fanboys who, as someone claimed, would rather inject bias in the hopes of deluding themselves that their processors are awesome, than admit inferiority to Big Blue.

I run my i5 2500K @ 4.7 GHz and it smashes any AMD processor in the face like Bane did to Batman during their first fight.

Honestly, you might be feeling indecisive now but you'll thank yourself later and never look back.

GummiRaccoon

screen shot or it didn't happen

Translation: I am jealous.

Avatar image for jakes456
#33 Posted by jakes456 (1398 posts) -

only those who are in denial buy AMD.

also people who think ghz means everything.

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#34 Posted by MonsieurX (36735 posts) -

only those who are in denial buy AMD.

also people who think ghz means everything.

jakes456
stop posting
Avatar image for godzillavskong
#35 Posted by godzillavskong (7904 posts) -

only those who are in denial buy AMD.

also people who think ghz means everything.

jakes456
Or on a budget.
Avatar image for ronvalencia
#36 Posted by ronvalencia (25410 posts) -

only those who are in denial buy AMD.

also people who think ghz means everything.

jakes456

It depends on the market segment e.g. best x86 tablet (for games) at Apple's iPad 3 price.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#37 Posted by ronvalencia (25410 posts) -

As a few others are saying, go with Intel. You don't even need to think twice about this. For now and the future, a Sandy or Ivy Bridge CPU will hold you for a long time. Also, disregard the usual pro AMD rhetoric from the fanboys who, as someone claimed, would rather inject bias in the hopes of deluding themselves that their processors are awesome, than admit inferiority to Big Blue.

I run my i5 2500K @ 4.7 GHz and it smashes any AMD processor in the face like Bane did to Batman during their first fight.

Honestly, you might be feeling indecisive now but you'll thank yourself later and never look back.

SolidPandaG
For raytracing, I rather have AMD Radeon HD 79x0 instead of pure Intel solution.
Avatar image for mitu123
#38 Posted by mitu123 (155184 posts) -

I used to be a hardcore amd fan but then i bought a 2500k and never looked back. SPBoss
Same here, lol.

Avatar image for C_Rule
#39 Posted by C_Rule (9816 posts) -
[QUOTE="jakes456"]

only those who are in denial buy AMD.

also people who think ghz means everything.

MonsieurX
stop posting

For the love of god, please.
Avatar image for Chris_53
#40 Posted by Chris_53 (5436 posts) -

only those who are in denial buy AMD.

also people who think ghz means everything.

jakes456
Or people who cant afford to spend twice as much on a CPU and Motherboard
Avatar image for fearhome21
#41 Posted by fearhome21 (340 posts) -

Guys i have my 3770k somedays now the Speeds vs amd phenom/fx are incredible this processor is the best for me editing/rendering/gaming gg
the only problem is i need a decent cooler im using Stock intel's not good

My ram is corsair vengeance high profile so i was thinking of Noctua nh-D14 But i think i cant?
what u think about Corsair h70? i heard some leaking problems tho
Also do i need an ssd? my retail has a good price on this one http://www.e-shop.gr/show_per.phtml?id=PER.305128INTEL 520 SERIES SSDSC2CW120A3B 120GB SSD 2.5'' MLC RETAIL Thank you

Avatar image for mitu123
#42 Posted by mitu123 (155184 posts) -

Guys i have my 3770k somedays now the Speeds vs amd phenom/fx are incredible this processor is the best for me editing/rendering/gaming gg
the only problem is i need a decent cooler im using Stock intel's not good

My ram is corsair vengeance high profile so i was thinking of Noctua nh-D14 But i think i cant?
what u think about Corsair h70? i heard some leaking problems tho
Also do i need an ssd? my retail has a good price on this one http://www.e-shop.gr/show_per.phtml?id=PER.305128INTEL 520 SERIES SSDSC2CW120A3B 120GB SSD 2.5'' MLC RETAIL Thank you

fearhome21

Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus if you want to save money.

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

As a few others are saying, go with Intel. You don't even need to think twice about this. For now and the future, a Sandy or Ivy Bridge CPU will hold you for a long time. Also, disregard the usual pro AMD rhetoric from the fanboys who, as someone claimed, would rather inject bias in the hopes of deluding themselves that their processors are awesome, than admit inferiority to Big Blue.

I run my i5 2500K @ 4.7 GHz and it smashes any AMD processor in the face like Bane did to Batman during their first fight.

Honestly, you might be feeling indecisive now but you'll thank yourself later and never look back.

SolidPandaG
But Bane dies and Batman saves Gotham.
Avatar image for DJ_Headshot
#44 Posted by DJ_Headshot (6427 posts) -
Defiantly Intel quad core is the only worthwhile upgrade.
Avatar image for DJ_Headshot
#45 Posted by DJ_Headshot (6427 posts) -

[QUOTE="fearhome21"]

Guys i have my 3770k somedays now the Speeds vs amd phenom/fx are incredible this processor is the best for me editing/rendering/gaming gg
the only problem is i need a decent cooler im using Stock intel's not good

My ram is corsair vengeance high profile so i was thinking of Noctua nh-D14 But i think i cant?
what u think about Corsair h70? i heard some leaking problems tho
Also do i need an ssd? my retail has a good price on this one http://www.e-shop.gr/show_per.phtml?id=PER.305128INTEL 520 SERIES SSDSC2CW120A3B 120GB SSD 2.5'' MLC RETAIL Thank you

mitu123

Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus if you want to save money.

Hyper 212+ is a great cheap cooler keeps my i7 920 which ran very hot with the stock cooler(100+ degrees under 100% load) alot cooler.

Avatar image for quebec946
#46 Posted by quebec946 (1600 posts) -

AMD fans will never admit that getting an Intel cpu would be better, even after AMD's failure to consistently match Intel's performance from an overall perspective. The thing is, AMD isn't doing too well financially, and they will never be what they once were. If AMD goes down, the fanboy reaction will be the sweetest thing to watch. I'm telling you, these AMD fanboys would rather opt for an inferior product than support Intel or Nvidia. They console themselves by saying it's value for money. I've had first hand experience in this.

jhcho2

pay 2x times the amount for 20% more fps.

Avatar image for SPBoss
#47 Posted by SPBoss (3746 posts) -

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

screen shot or it didn't happen

GummiRaccoon

That's not that unreasonable. My 2600k is at 4.6ghz, I can do 4.7ghz. Lots of people's can do 4.9ghz

My argument is that he can't. Not about anyone else.

Why not.. i mean anyone can hit 4.7ghz as there isn't a batch that would fail at this. I can go up to 5ghz but its not stable so im also at 4.7ghz
Avatar image for Store24
#48 Posted by Store24 (1146 posts) -

I always go best bang for the buck and was AMD / ATI for years. I have no brand loyalty and could not care less what brand name is on anything. Fact is right now Intel and NVIDIA are on top.

Avatar image for C_Rule
#49 Posted by C_Rule (9816 posts) -

I always go best bang for the buck and was AMD / ATI for years. I have no brand loyalty and could not care less what brand name is on anything. Fact is right now Intel and NVIDIA are on top.

Store24
AMD vs nVidia is not as definitive as AMD vs Intel. AMD have some really good cards in their 7xxx lineup. When it comes to AMD and nVidia, you cannot really say one is better than the other.
Avatar image for V4LENT1NE
#50 Posted by V4LENT1NE (12901 posts) -

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

AMD fans will never admit that getting an Intel cpu would be better, even after AMD's failure to consistently match Intel's performance from an overall perspective. The thing is, AMD isn't doing too well financially, and they will never be what they once were. If AMD goes down, the fanboy reaction will be the sweetest thing to watch. I'm telling you, these AMD fanboys would rather opt for an inferior product than support Intel or Nvidia. They console themselves by saying it's value for money. I've had first hand experience in this.

quebec946

pay 2x times the amount for 20% more fps.

Its not like that anymore, at least not in the UK. AMDs 8350 and the Intel 3570k are similar prices, you would be a fool to go for the AMD chip if your into gaming.