AMD vs Intel. No bs or biased people.

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Mike3k24

Mike3k24

Respectable
Apr 21, 2016
1,218
0
2,660
I want to know, since tons of people are biased towards Intel, how many people have actually owned both Intel and AMD and can TRULY say which is better in gaming. Let's say like an i3 and an fx 8350. How many can actually say which is better. Cause half the people on here think they know what they're talking about cause they read some article on the Internet when half of them haven't even owned both. One of my friends has owned an i3 6100 and he switched to an fx 8350 and it was so much faster he says. He said the people don't even know what they're talking about when they say things like an i3 is better than an 8350. So really, I only want people who have experienced both companies to answer.
 
Solution
SKIPPY PB
I have yet to build an AMD rig but what I can say from asking others opinions on their experiance with their AMD rigs is that most of them work well. They are cheaper to attain and I am sure basic gaming would be no problem for an AMD set up. I agree that most people seem to repeat what others have said that intel is the only way to go, but I know plenty of people that play the same games as me on AMD rigs without problems.

Two things made me go intel off the bat, where that if I where to get a common socket like LGA 1150/1151 I could upgrade easily down the road and I wasn't convinced on driver support at the time. I know a bunch of people with AMD graphics cards got bugs more frequently with steam updates. When AM4 comes out I will...
Sort by date Sort by votes
The number of people who own or have owned both the i3 6100 and the FX 8350 is very small. Most of us here rely on our experience with our systems, compare our results with reliable benchmarks for our systems, so we know that they are accurate, and the expect that other data from the same source is equally reliable.

'Gaming' is a big thing and so is the system. What games, what GPU, what memory, what storage, what cooling. Since the same cooling and motherboard is unlikely to be used, and the FX 8350 can be overclocked, and some games are more CPU limited, and others are more GPU limited, and the settings you play at change the CPU/GPU balance, as can your internet connection if MP, then there will be NO Yes/No answer to your question based on the limited information provided.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I own both.

In games and workstation applications such as rendering it's all about fast single core performance, as long as the apps can't take advantage of multiple threads, that's very important to consider when buying a CPU.

Without knowing exactly what games, exactly what workstation applications, it's not possible to answer this question. That's why you see so many towards Intel who you call biased, but they probably aren't. They just view it a bit different.

In games, an i3 is generally faster than a FX CPU, as long as it's modern.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
intel has a variety to offer , and they are expensive , but AMD is straight to the point , it's for gaming , they give you what you want for your money , i have owned two i5's and two i7's almost one from each generation , before that i had a core two quad , and before that a pentium 4 and before that two other pentium 4's and i've been around since the 286's were around , and i can tell you with certainity , intel is not worth the money , it's a waste of money , if you want your PC fr day to day use , and of course gaming , and not for "video editing" or some other weird excuse , then you gotta buy AMD , when the new AM4 or the AM4+ comes out it's probably gonna beat intel , it's gonna support ddr4 and pcie 3.0 and it's gonna be 14 nm , all intel boasts about is architecture , which is pure non-sense
 
Upvote -1 Downvote

Well I mean, it doesn't have to be the 8350 but any amd CPU from the 6300 and up.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have yet to build an AMD rig but what I can say from asking others opinions on their experiance with their AMD rigs is that most of them work well. They are cheaper to attain and I am sure basic gaming would be no problem for an AMD set up. I agree that most people seem to repeat what others have said that intel is the only way to go, but I know plenty of people that play the same games as me on AMD rigs without problems.

Two things made me go intel off the bat, where that if I where to get a common socket like LGA 1150/1151 I could upgrade easily down the road and I wasn't convinced on driver support at the time. I know a bunch of people with AMD graphics cards got bugs more frequently with steam updates. When AM4 comes out I will be grabbing an FX8350 or 70

Given the reviews on the AMD stuff I can't believe all the people saying AMD is such garbage really own them. Half the bad reviews I found on the 9590 where because peoples motherboards didn't put out 220 watts for the CPU and they knocked the CPU on it.

That said how much CPU do you really need. I got a 4790K intel and i've played pretty much all the same games on my G3258 Pentium Intel.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
I've built a 4 relevant builds in the past 3 years the one in my Sig, another with a 4690k/gtx 770 a 6300/760 and a 8320/760 I will say I've yet to find a situation where the the amd builds beat my lowly 3350p and there are multiple games where I get 8-10 fps more (usable fps as in going from 40 to 50 not vanity fps 100-110) nothing wrong with the amd builds but there is no doubt the cpu is a hindrance in some situations
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Good points.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It depends. If you are on a budget, just surfing the web, plan to pair with a mid-range gpu, are not concerned with heat/power draw, or have specific apps that run well on AMD then it's a great buy.

If you have a larger budget and a higher end gpu it doesn't make any sense to go AMD. I try to read reviews of new cpus from multiple sources and its the same result every time - the Intel rigs with an identical gpu equal or exceed AMD every time.

It's that simple - not opinion, not passion, just benchmarks. I hope that Zen kicks butt and the GPUs coming out this Fall do as well. The minute AMD meets or exceeds Intel at my price point I'll switch during my next refresh - they've got about 2 years to make it happen :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

What about a mid range budget like $500-700

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes amd is behind in development but as stated above it all depends on what you need/using your computer for, requirements, cost ect. some things amd is better at some thing intel is better at. and really when they compare them overall your not talking about that large of performance difference. ( I love when people say cpu x is faster then cpu y but cpu y encodes a file in 1.04min and cpu x does it in 1 min. really doesn't make much difference for 99% of people
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AMD's Piledriver architecture was released in 2012, and was poorly received even then. The FX-83xx CPUs were positioned price-wise somewhere between Intel's Ivy Bridge Core i5 and Core i7. The FX-8350 offered 8 cores which were each about 2/3 as fast as an i5's cores, meaning that when all were used, they offered a bit more throughput than an i5 but less than an i7, but in anything that couldn't fully saturate all 8 cores, Intel CPUs offered very significantly better performance. Most desktop workloads will not saturate 8 threads. Because of this, FX CPUs were regarded as a poor value, because they only performed better than the cheaper i5's in a few niche uses, such as virtualization and compression.

Since 2012, Intel has released Haswell, Broadwell, and Skylake architectures, bringing significant performance per clock improvements, while AMD is still selling the same Piledriver architecture. Instead, AMD has dropped prices on their FX CPUs to the point that the 8-core FX-83xx CPUs are close to a Core i3 in price. Over time, some tasks have become better threaded, but the gap in single-threaded performance has grown to the point that an Intel core is in the range of twice, if not slightly more than twice as fast as a Piledriver core. Thus an FX-83xx performs between a recent Core i3 and Core i5 in well-threaded tasks, and performs far below a Core i3 in tasks that don't saturate all of its cores.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


How do you know this without experiencing having both?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I owned an FX-8320 system for a little while (sold it), and currently own AMD A8 based system I use for HTPC purposes. More importantly, there are websites such as Tom's Hardware and Anandtech who specialize in doing comparisons such as these, and publish hard data you can use to compare different CPUs. It's possible to know roughly how well a CPU performs without actually buying it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skylake-intel-core-i7-6700k-core-i5-6600k,4252-7.html

For example, Microsoft Office performance:

excel.png




 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Scientists do not have to perform experiments themselves to believe the truth in the peer-reviewed experiments of other, doctors need no personal experience of disease in order to treat or prevent it.

Your initial question was for facts, not opinions. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Without some narrowing or qualification this ' which is better in gaming. has no useful answer beyond 'it depends'

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Since a system is more than CPU and since all games are different and the i3 6100 is so new you will get little useful DATA, only opinion even from the few people who own both. One may game happily at 30FPS on their RTS, and other is dissatisfied with their CPU heavy shooter at 90FPS, and another unhappy with their 45 FPS RPG.

If you open the question to any i3 vs any FX 6300 or better, the wide range of difference between a heavily overclocked FX 8370e and an i3 530, vs a stock FX 6300 and a tweaked i3 6320 will be too great for a meaningful answer.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Half the time I feel like those are fake. That's why I asked here.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
My real-world experience with these CPUs generally reflects what I've read on review sites, at least if you stick with reputable ones. When I had my FX-8320, for instance, my Cinebench numbers were within around 5% of what you'd see on THG or Anandtech. There are a lot of other factors that come into play though, such as RAM speed, what storage is being used, and which brand of video card is being paired.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It all depends on what you do with your computer.
I own a 8370, bought it a few months ago (4 I think) because of its price and also because I needed a CPU with 8 cores (some will say a FX has only 4 cores and... but blah blah) because I encode videos quite a bit, and the more cores, the faster the encoding :)
One thing that all the tests are missing though, is the fact that in real life, in real use, you are not doing just one thing at one time. I mean, they test the CPU with some games, and the result will be better with an i3 than with a FX. But add another application during the same test, Handbrake for example, and have a look again at the results. The FX holds on while the i3 is now behind. I encode and play games and surf at the same time, and I don't have any slow-downs, my rig is still fast.
That doesn't mean an iX isn't faster than the FX, it is. But not all the time, not in real use.
You can be very happy with a FX, like your friend is :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom