AMD or Intel for mid-high End Gaming/Video Editing System

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

TheGamingKiwi

Reputable
Sep 20, 2014
78
0
4,630
Ok, so.
I am currently planning on building a new rig. I thought all along that yep, I will go with Intel cause they are better etc etc. But I've always had a little voice in the back of my mind going, why not AMD? After watching some youtube vids from Tech Syndicate and JayzTwoCents (who are both very unbiased, thank god), AMD is starting to seem to me not necessarily a bad choice. Jayz said that the most wasted upgrade was going from the FX-8350 to intel (I think the 3770k). Tek Syndicate has being doing some benchmarking on the 8350 and the 4690k, and yeh, there may have been 1 or 2 fps here and there but it was negligible. Also, the 8350 bet the i5 in just as many games as the i5 bet the 8350. I decided that if I went with AMD, I would go all out. I'm thinking of going with the 9590, which is 400$(including the water cooler). Now, I am mostly a gamer, BUT I would like to start a youtube channel, so would the 9590 also be good at rendering and recording? And yes, I know it's really really hot and and consumes lots of power, but I couldn't give two s***t's really. I would like some unbiased answers, and if anyone has had first hand experience with the 9590, let me know.
Cheers

BTW I'm getting a Seasonic 850 psu, which is enough to power it. Also either the 29 290 or GTX 770/780
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
For rendering, a AMD overclocked CPU would perform somewhat better than an intel one, but if you are planning on doing gaming and general rendering / normal PC usage, i would probably say that intel is better for higher end builds. I find AMD CPUs are more directed at low / mid range builds. I have had some experience with the 9590, and i didnt really like it. If you are going to go with AMD your better off going with the 8370. If you go with intel, the i5 4690K is the best gaming CPU and i7 4790K is the best rendering CPU.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AMD's have better overclocking so that water cooler will get a workout. It'll get you a better deal if you got an 8000 series cpu and GPU that'll go well with it. I'd wait for the GPU until early July when the competition is fierce. AMD is great if you don't have a microcenter nearby to get dem sweet bundles.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Intel if nvidia card, AMD if ati radeon card

r9 270 if you go 6300, r9 280 if 8 series r9 290 if fx 9590

can't give advice for intel/nvidia equivilants as i can't stand them so know nothing about them as haven't used them in 15 years :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
On paper the Intel cpus are better than any of the FX series, AMD is better at multitasking but Intel excels at single core power so in benchmarks and framerates the intel is better than AMD even the 9590, but in real world terms the difference is negligible. When playing a game you're hardly going to notice the difference between 140fps with AMD and 170fps with intel, sure you get 20 more fps but in real terms how would you notice? You'd only have to vsync anyway to pull back down to your monitor/tv's refresh rate so in real world terms they'll both perform the same

pair an amd cpu with an amd card, or pair an intel cpu with an nvidia card

for the 9590 the r9 290x is recommended.

don't mix, amd doesn't like nvidia cards. amd cards will obviously be better optimized with an amd cpu so you'll get better performance out of amd/radeon than you will amd/nvidia

i've ordered a 9590 and two r9 290x's with the crosshair v formula-z board, can't wait til they arrive :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote






I'm literally rolling on the floor laughing guts out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


What? AMD fx 8 cores overclocked are able to match intels i7's in perfectly threaded scenarios. In real time applications like gaming or other programs that require strong cores, an i5/i7 is almost twice as fast.



Makes no sense, you can pair vice versa as well.


Goddamn no, it's not. It even bottlenecks the r9 290x.


Simply put: absolutely wrong. There isn't even the slightest bit of truth in this statement, it makes absolutely NO sense.



Have fun 😉
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


It will outperform it in anything but raw integer math where the fx is slightly faster.
In ~80% of todays applications it's noticeable faster, in ~19.9% it's slightly faster or ties and in ~0.1% it's a little slower.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


In that case... it absolutely would bottleneck it in the large majority of games. There's maybe two titles total where it won't.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Why not consider a Xeon E3-1231 v3? You can't overclock it and it doesn't have an integrated GPU, but it has eight threads and is very good value for money.

On the graphics card, the GTX 770 is a good choice for a 1920x1080 monitor. Yes, it's last generation, but so what? It's still a powerful card and you can buy them dirt cheap nowadays. Generally speaking, Nvidia cards also have better driver support when it comes to gaming.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


No, because the connectivity and communication standards between a graphics card and a CPU are universal and nothing to do with AMD.

Optimisation is dependent on driver support, which is a collaborative effort of both software developers and hardware manufacturers.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Is time money for you? If it is, get the i7 which is a couple of % better. Video editing is not about the strongest CPU, it's about balancing everything. You will need a proper hard drive setup, you will need enough RAM to handle your projects and or multitasking. You will need a decent GPU if you will bed using affects that can be CUDA-accelerated- these are usually color and different kinds of effects. If you can afford a Intel i7 but not a proper hard drive setup or enough RAM for your projects, then it's going to perform worse than a slower CPU optimised for the application. If you're considering the AMD FX-9590; buy a 8350 instead, and overclock it. As for Intel vs AMD in games, I've used both and can't tell the difference between the two, ridiculous arguments. Focus on what your needs are, not Intel or AMD, what fits your budget? This is the mindset you need right now.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Were these gaming or synthetic benchmarks? If gaming, then the frame rate is down to the graphics card and it's important to use one that won't bottleneck the CPU. Pairing a weak graphics card with a powerful CPU will skew the results. Can you link the TekSyndicate benchmarks?

At any rate, an i5 and an 8350 probably aren't THAT far apart in terms of gaming. There will always be times when one CPU edges out the other and that comes down to how the game is developed. Some games will favour multiple threads and some will favour per-core power (IPC). Battlefield 4 is a good example of the former and Far Cry 4 is a good example of the latter. The best way to make a decision is to compare gaming benchmarks from multiple sites, preferably ones where the test PC closely matches yours, but easier said than done.

The 8350 isn't a bad CPU by any means, it's just slightly let down by a weaker IPC and a much higher TDP. Given that the price is pretty close to an i5 (region-dependent, obviously), that usually swings it for most people.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't take Tek Syndicate seriously, they spin AMD like no tomorrow aka incredibly biased.

PS- AMD cards run just fine on Intel and Nvidia runs just fine on AMD, it doesn't really matter, it only matters to brand loyalists.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Tek Syndicate is full of shit. His "results" go contrary to any serious review site existing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom