AMD vs Intel. No bs or biased people.

[Mike3k24]

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.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

I have over 100 builds to my name from cheapo AMD systems to $5000 Intel supercomputers. Lets dispense with all the niceties around here: Intel is by far, superior to AMD performance wise. No bolgna, however you pay way more $$$ for that ownership. Amd is for users who can't afford a real computer so stay home and don't cry about why you still watching an hour glass spin around waiting for your program to execute or render a video. More people out there buy AMD because they wish to pay under $1000 for a gaming rig.

AMD is a bad buy for everything due to QuickSync, since you mentioned rendering. Intel supports H.264 which is the most common delivery codec out there. An i3 would mop the floor with an FX 6300 which would make the two rigs similarly priced.

As far as the hour glass is concerned, read speed isn't affected by the CPU in modern PC's. Buy an SSD.

 

[LeKeiser]

It's a fact. And yes, of course you can game with an AMD CPU. My PC has got an A8 5500 paired with a R9 380.

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($138.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($24.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($61.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $225.86

CPU: Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($110.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H110M-A Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($49.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $160.98

CPU: Intel Core i5-6400 2.7GHz Quad-Core Processor ($179.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H110M-A Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($49.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $229.98


The FX 8320 requires an overclock, otherwise a stock i3 would beat it even in multithreaded applications. And, the i5 no doubt beats the FX even if you manage to get 5 GHz out of it.

Price to performance, Intel definitely wins, in the US that is.

In other countries it may not be as big of a difference.

And, for the record. OP didn't like people's opinions, if you've been following the thread....

It's a fact if you just stick to the tests done by the websites, but not in real use. I mean I don't give a rat's ass if my FX has 10 FPS less in that game than with an Intel CPU, because they're benching only one game at one time. It's like all the reviews, they're always biased because no one uses a computer this way. It gives you an "idea" on how it behaves but that's it. It's not real use in real life... I myself have many things running in the background when I play a game, many open tabs, sometines some encodings running as well, and more. And that's how I use my computer, and it doesn't reflect the benchmark anymore.
An i3 wouldn't work as well for me. An i5 would compete. An i7 would (most of the time) beat it but at what price?

It's all about how you use your computer... And most of the posters here have just one sentence "AMD suxx, Intel is better"
That's why the OP doesn't like others opinions, and I can only agree with him.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

That's very true, and I'm no Intel fanboy, I own a few PC's with both brands. but the main problem I see is that a lot of reviewers don't benchmark properly. And some cheat and restart their PC after each run, but like I said on previous page, calculate the mean of several benchmarks and you'll get the answer you're looking for, for everything.

 

[LeKeiser]

That's very true, and I'm no Intel fanboy, I own a few PC's with both brands. but the main problem I see is that a lot of reviewers don't benchmark properly. And some cheat and restart their PC after each run, but like I said on previous page, calculate the mean of several benchmarks and you'll get the answer you're looking for, for everything.

I would "totally" agree with you but I believe (I prefer to write that ) that benchmarks are just benchmarks. Not real use of a rig.
It's like when you have benchmarks of cars. This car will use only X liter per km. Fine. Better than this other brand. But you don't drive your car inside a room on a special thing (dunno how it's called) with no wind nothing no one inside no... you get the idea. It gives you an idea on how well the engineers worked, but... That's all.

 

[Mike3k24]

LeKeiser You hit it right on the nail with that! Or however that saying goes xD

 

[Karadjgne]

It's not just how you you use the pc, but what the pc is. FX + ssd on games like Skyrim will still beat an Intel + hdd. An fx with a 390 will be better at 1440p than an Intel with a 970. If this sounds like comparing apples to oranges, it most definitely is, just as comparing 2x identical pcs, one with an fx, one with intel is comparing apples and oranges.

Both have very different architectures, but do similar jobs. But, they won't get the same results, someone always wins, someone always looses. Games are just a small part of what any pc is designed for, the monster intel game machine at heart is really a monster renderer or other multiple core app machine. Amd just does it cheaper at a performance loss that's honestly noted in minutes or less. Similar job, differing results. To average joe, a render taking 1 hr on a 4790k or 1 hr 4 mins on an 8350 isn't really any different. It's only pro's who need specific results that build pcs for exactly that, and it tends to be intel.

It doesn't mean anything if you can get 300fps from intel or 100fps from amd. Chances are you have a 60Hz monitor, so anything beyond that is moot