AMD vs Intel for noob.

[Black_rab]

So talking about CPUs.

Mostly everyine says Intel makes betterCPUs , but i dont understand how a 160 dollar CPU that has 3.7 ghz and 2 cores is better than a $70 3.7 ghz 4 core amd cpu.

someone please tell me why intel is better.

Also check out my part listshttps://pcpartpicker.com/user/Blackrabbit/saved/

 

[BadActor]

The single core performance of the Intel's are much stronger. Basically, they do more "work" per clock cycle than than an equivalent AMD. This is why the G3258 dual core is able to outperform AMD 4 and 6 cores. Just for kicks, I did this build, which granted, is a little more and doesn't have an HDD (reuse an old one or add later when you need it), but should have much higher FPS in games. Plus, it uses all high quality hardware.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($174.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: MSI B85-G43 GAMING ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($36.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($77.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Asus Radeon R9 380 2GB Video Card ($166.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($47.99 @ Micro Center)
Power Supply: SeaSonic S12II 520W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($55.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $620.93
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-12-19 22:06 EST-0500

 

[unreal9400]

Cause most games are currently optimized for dual core compared to quad core except for rendering.

 

[Tradesman1]

As mentioned Intel cores are far stronger and perform better, you can just look at GHz - best example on that is the AMD 9590 - 8 cores, 4.7 GHz at stock. When released (at over $900) most everyone wondered why there weren't any pre-release sent out for review, that was soon obvious, once people did some evaluations and benching, a 4770K (then about $350), 4 core with hyperthreading, easily outperformed the 9590 at basically everything - while running at stock 3.5GHz, if you OCed the 4770K much at all it simply blew the 9590 away. To best match up the 8350 against Intel you go back a few generations to the IB (3570K or even the SB (2500K), both of which outperformed the 8350 in everything except video rendering

 

[Black_rab]

than what is the reason to ever buy an amd cpu then.

 

[Black_rab]

As mentioned Intel cores are far stronger and perform better, you can just look at GHz - best example on that is the AMD 9590 - 8 cores, 4.7 GHz at stock. When released (at over $900) most everyone wondered why there weren't any pre-release sent out for review, that was soon obvious, once people did some evaluations and benching, a 4770K (then about $350), 4 core with hyperthreading, easily outperformed the 9590 at basically everything - while running at stock 3.5GHz, if you OCed the 4770K much at all it simply blew the 9590 away. To best match up the 8350 against Intel you go back a few generations to the IB (3570K or even the SB (2500K), both of which outperformed the 8350 in everything except video rendering

what is the reason to ever buy an amd cpu then.

 

[Tradesman1]

Price And if you look through the threads here in the forums they see the AMDs showing a high freq i.e. the FX 9590 mentioned above and think "4.7, hey thats's really fast, it's a lot faster than that slower 4770K", then they come here and find out that the so called 'speed' just isn't there, or they look at articles comparing CPUs and find out the truth about CPUs.