AMD vs INTEL --- Gigabyte vs ASUS

[Hamz Azt]

Hello everyone. Firstly, I apologize for beating around the same popular bush but I need an honest opinion to finalize my list of items. After asking many many people and researching my hair off I learned that AMD and Intel are exactly same more or less when it comes to daily practical usage be it gaming or other memory-processing intensive tasks. There's a difference however and that's intel is better when it comes to benchmarks, yes I know all of it's CPUs overtake AMDs CPUs but that's pretty much limited to tests and benchmarks, which I don't really care about as their performances in real life are identical, also I should mention by now that I'm on a budget. Besides the negligible difference (Intel is 'slightly' better), I found almost nothing special about Intel. Please correct me as it could be that I'm wrong. What matters for me is that my processor doesn't falter and mobo keeps going for at least 2-3 years which is enough as I can upgrade after that. But right now my budget is tight and besides the cpu and mobo, my build is as under..

Unconfirmed Items

AMD FX-6300 -/\- Intel i3 4160 (Haswell refresh)

Gigabyte ga970a-DS3P -/\- ASUS h97-plus


Confirmed Items

Kingston hyper X Fury 8gb 1866

Sapphire R9 270X - 'Toxic' (2gb ddr5)

WD Blue 1TB 7200rpm

Corsair VX550 Psu

Optical drive (optional)

Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit


Thank you all a lot.. And no, I'm not an avid overclocker... God bless XD

 

[rockie_]

Both FX 6300 and i3 4160 will handle R9 270X well . even the i3 will be better . My choice is i3 4160 + Asus H97 Plus cus it will allow upgrade to i5/i7 in the future , which will be great for a future GTX 970.

Might get a cheaper but good H97 mobo.

 

[gytisxp]

At your budget id personally get AMD. They offer much better price/performance and have more cores then pentiums / i3`s so they are more futureproof if games start to use more cores.

For the motherboard one of my personal favorite budget AM3+ boards with a few extra features is the MSI 970 Gaming. It supports both SLI and Crossfire so in the future you could do that. It has 6+2 power phases so you could get a decent overclock if you wish to do that and its below 100$ and almost always on sale.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

For basic tasks, the 4160 and 6300 don't have any tangible differences. For gaming, some will favour the 4160 and some will favour the 6300. However, most games are optimised for single-thread performance, which is where the 4160 outshines the 6300.

If upgradability is a concern, then that's another reason to go for the 4160. The AM3+ socket is dead, in all likelihood, and the upgrade path is restricted. With the 4160 and H97 motherboard, you can stick with Haswell or upgrade to the new 14nm Broadwell and Skylake processors, so your upgrade path is much, much better.

If I were you, I'd go for the 4160; much stronger single-thread performance and much better upgradability.

 

[helpstar]

if you wanna upgrade in the future, clearly Intel.

power consumption of an fx-6300 is higher than Intel

B85 board and used i5 quad core could be in your budget as well

dual core cpus will be incompatible to games in the near future I think

 

[Hamz Azt]

I'm sorry for writing late. I never expected such fast responses.

Thank you all for your great inputs. It's really down to 'this' last detail or 'that' last thing about either of them which drives me crazy lol. On the contrary I do understand the implication and usage of the extra cores on the 6300 and the lack thereof on i3 4160.. But then again if games are optimized for single-threaded processing, then it makes sense to go with i3.. But it's only 2-cores (not that it's any less) compared to AMD's 6-cores. Which again could be irrelevant if gaming is the main purpose but the fact alone that it has 4 more cores is one of the main reasons why all the pc builders here in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) are advising me to go with AMD.

1) Now, I do plan on playing most of the latest titles I think it's fair to say all of them. If games will stop being compatible with dual-core processors then I believe we're talking at least 2 years before the first game which would be compatible with only quad-core and above, will be released. But is it any true this is possible in the near future, say in a year or two?

2) Next I would appreciate a brief summary as to why bicycle_repair_man posted that AM3+ chipset is doomed, or about to be doomed in the future. Is it because upgrades are not going to be as frequent or simply the design might become obsolete?

3) With the rest of my configuration staying as is, which is better suited for FX 6300; MSI 970 gaming mobo(gytisxp's recommendation) or gigabyte ga970a?

Except for higher bills, power consumption is at the bottom of my concerns as I do care about trees and greens but don't believe in global warming so there's that.

Lastly, I'm sorry for this ridiculously long reply. I learned that I couldn't reply individually so had to fill the space up a bit. Thanks again

 

[Rohit 13]

Buy a i5 4440 quad core ,instead of i3 !!! if u are going for amd fx 6300 , u need a extra after market cooler , so if u buy intel i5 4440 u can cut down your cooler money to it.

Even i am in state of commotion http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2494818/wanna-choose.html

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

No worries.

The important thing to remember is that whilst the 6300 has six cores, it only has three FPUs, meaning that only three of the six cores can be utilised simultaneously. Yes, that's still one extra core over the i3, but each core is considerably weaker.

Dual-core processors in the Pentium and Celeron ranges are quickly being left behind when it comes to AAA gaming. An i3 can hold its own for now, but it's difficult to say for how long. Personally, I would recommend you skip the i3 and go straight to an i5. If you find yourself upgrading to an i5 within two years, then buying the i3 now becomes a false economy.

AM3+ is a modification of the old AM3 socket, which was released in 2009. The latest processors that AMD have released are the FX-8350e and FX-8370, the former being a lower-TDP FX-8350 and the latter being a marginally faster FX-8350. In other words, both of these processors are simply rehashed versions of the FX-8350. AMD have been using the same processor architecture and lithography for years whilst Intel have constantly upped their game. The AM3+ socket is too old and it simply can't compete with Intel.

 

[helpstar]

"1) ...But is it any true this is possible in the near future, say in a year or two?..."

It has already begun:

http://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/Far-Cry-4-Does-Not-Support-Dual-Core-Processors-Budget-Landscape-Shifting

but I saw dual cores like Pentium GXXXX still run it, so I would predict 1year, till a game won´t even start with 2 cores only. Performance with 2 cores will decrease earlier.

2.) AM3+ is not really upgradable, because the only CPU nowadays besides the 6300 would be a 8350, nothing better produced since AM3+ was introduced. The FX-9xxx series is bullshit, so that should be the end of am3+, it´s going to be obsolete.

3.) more power consumption = more heat = better and more expensive cooling solution necessary

 

[Hamz Azt]

For taking time out to explain in such detail, thank you bicycle_repair_man. I'm now beginning to understand the implication of Intel's updates. You're spot on about AMD and there outdated architecture of CPUs, so if I go with Intel and pair it with a R9 270x Toxic then is it going to give me a buttery smooth 60fps at very high settings? Because just a notch lower than ultra would be enough for my eyes to enjoy crysis 3. However, I know that on ultra settings I'll get around a meager 20-40 fps, which is expected I guess. But for battlefield 4, I'd definitely need the smoothest frames on maxed out settings, as anything less would be like buying an expensive luxury car which could only be driven on weekends, which for me is pointless.

 

[Hamz Azt]

Rohit 13 thank you for your recommendation. Unfortunately that cpu is over RM.650 here, which is exceeding my budget greatly. I'm in a situation where the only alternative to a 6300 is an i3 and that's the Haswell refresh version. Because it's the latest(and the best) from Intel in thit line of CPUs.

 

[Hamz Azt]

Thank you for the reply helpstar. I agree with you on all points. You're right about the heat problem specifically, I already have extra fans and cpu cooler in mind but that might have to wait until a month after I build my PC. Cooler master evo 212 plus or anything similar or better will be good enough.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

An R9 270X is unlikely to hit 60fps in Crysis 3 at 'very high' settings; 40fps is more likely, but even if you drop the settings to 'medium' for 60fps, it still looks bloody good, trust me.

BF4 should manage 60fps at the highest settings as long as you disable AA. 64-player multiplayer matches are CPU-intensive but BF4 does utilise hyper-threading, if I remember correctly.

 

[Hamz Azt]

I think I'll go with r9 270x Toxic then. I selected Toxic as its the best performance card in 270 series. Or maybe second best or maybe even third, as long as it's factory OC'ed and has great cooler then I don't have to worry too much about reducing my graphics details. You're absolutely right about the medium settings crysis gameplay, just the reason for me to be content at 'very high' settings if not ultra. Can you give me potential alternatives to Toxic if I want to max out crysis? I'm willing to consider if it's in my reach.

And please leave a remark regarding my CPU options. AMD(6300) or Intel(i3) ? I mentioned above that i5 4440 is too expensive here, so I'll try to find out about the cheaper i5 chips that are available here. So any feedback on that too will help me out a lot. Thank you.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

I would always go for a card that has an aftermarket cooler.

In terms of alternatives, it doesn't really matter if you buy an R9 270X from MSI, ASUS, Gigabyte, etc. as it's still the same card underneath. The only substantial improvement you can make is to buy a card in a higher tier, such as an R9 280. A 270X will be fine as long as you disable AA and are happy at 'high' or 'medium' settings.

Instead of a Haswell i5 you may want to consider a Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge version instead. I wouldn't recommend it because the socket is no longer supported, but Haswell doesn't offer much of an improvement over Ivy Bridge, or even Sandy Bridge.

 

[Hamz Azt]

Ok so if I upgrade my gpu to 280X 3gb or 285X 2gb and pair it with i3 4370 or 4350, how well in your opinion can i run games that utilize single-threaded 'and' multi-threaded processing?

Also if you have knowledge about this, which one's better, the 280X 3gb or 285X 2gb ?

The i5 is at the bottom of my options because I don't want to buy an older gen i5, for the price of the latest gen i5, which is in my case quite steep here.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

I would say that the vast majority of games will run absolutely fine on an i3 4350. In fact, here's a benchmark; http://www.anandtech.com/show/7963/the-intel-haswell-refresh-review-core-i7-4790-i5-4690-and-i3-4360-tested/11.

The GPU may not be the same as yours, but that's not important. What is important is that the results are almost identical across a wide range of processors.

The R9 285 is just a lower-TDP version of the R9 280, but it sacrifices 1GB VRAM and has a slower 256-bit memory bus, rather than the 384-bit bus in the 285. As long as you don't mind the increased power consumption, I would go for the 280, particularly as the price has come down in most regions. Don't bother with the 'X' versions, they're just factory-overclocked, which you can do yourself.

 

[Hamz Azt]

Btw I think I'm not entirely correct up there, by 'single-threaded' and 'multi-threaded' games, I meant those that utilize single core and those that utilize multiple cores respectively. Like how Far cry 4 and BF4 use multi-core processing compared to other majority of games that capitalize on single-core processing power. So yea..

 

[Hamz Azt]

I got it now. Infact, I reached the same conclusion regarding the difference of 285 and 280. And I preferred 280 because of that very reason

Any suggestions for the mobo Or should I stick with the ASUS h97-plus?

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

The ASUS is fine, just bear in mind that it's not suitable for overclocking and Crossfire.

 

[Hamz Azt]

Neither are my intentions. If it's factory OC'ed then I don't mind. Because I won't really overclock but crossfire or sli... Maybe in the next major upgrade.

Thank you bicycle_repair_man. You do know how to help. I wish you all the best sir. Thanks to everyone who answered, good luck guys

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

No worries, good luck to you too.