AMD vs Intel. No bs or biased people.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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
LeKeiser brings up a good point. Because in most modern tasks, an FX CPU's cores are mostly unused, you have a smaller performance hit when running multiple things at once.

However, an i5 6500 still has more total throughput than an FX-8370, and so should be faster in every case.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
It's not that amd is for gaming or intel is for gaming. They're both cpu's with different architectures, means of achieving the same goal. For the past several years intel has had the upper hand in just about every benchmark and it's not a slam against amd, it's just the way it is. Benchmark after benchmark keep turning up the same results.

Cpu's are priced pretty evenly if you ignore core count and core speed. Core speed means nothing comparing one platform to the other anyway. You'll notice an i3 and fx 63xx are similar in price and their performance is pretty even across the board. In a few tasks the fx will have a slight edge, in a few tasks the i3 will. An fx 8xxx tends to perform similar to an i3 in some situations and closer to an i5 in others, usually falling somewhere in between. It's priced higher than an i3 and less than an i5. Intel cpu's don't cost more compared to relative performance, they cost more because they perform better.

Does it mean intel is the absolute only choice? Of course not. But you tend to get what you pay for much like most other things. I own a kitchenaid or some random brand blender and it costs around $40. Is a $600 vitamix blender better, larger capacity, better built, better performing? Absolutely. For my needs the standard blender I got from the local store was 'good enough'. It still blends ice and things for the occasions I need it.

Will amd always be behind intel? Maybe or maybe not, it's been the other way around in the past and can go that way again. Zen has yet to come out so can't say for sure until it does. As others have said it depends on the tasks, the rest of the system, the software. There are a couple of games out there that saw a bigger fps increase from win7 to win8.1 than they get from changing from an i5 to an i7.

When it comes to a friend making statements it would help to know in what tasks the fx 8350 was better. By how much, what measurement. That's why benchmarks exist, sometimes people 'feel' a certain way but the only reliable way to quantify anything is via a benchmark. Compare fps to fps with all else being equal, same data drive, same speed and amount of ram and so on. Or compare a task such as encoding a specific video from one format to another and timing it. 65mph 'feels' faster on a motorcycle than it does in a semi truck but in reality it's the same 65mph.

An fx 8350 is $45 more than an i3 6100. If your friend had spent another $45 they could've gotten an i5 which most likely would have been faster in just about every task. It's not that amd performs better and it's cheaper, you pit a more expensive cpu against a less expensive one I would hope it performed at least a little better. It's apples and oranges. I could say the exact same by saying I got an i7 and it was faster than an fx 6300 so people with amd don't know what they're talking about. For 3x the price I would hope so.

The typical thought is that more cores means better performance in heavily threaded scenarios or better performance in multitasking. Not always true.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/09/03/intel-core-i7-5930k-and-core-i7-5820k-revie/5

Here's the total aggregate results from a variety of tests, real world apps, photo programs, video encoding, compression software etc. Some single threaded some multithreaded. The 4th gen i5 and i7 both came out ahead of the fx 8350. The fx 8350 overall came out behind the i5 yet ahead of the i3 and the i3 was almost dead even with the fx 6xxx which follows their pricing structure in the same exact order.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2015/-36-Total-Time,3728.html
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

it's not that I don't believe them. It's just that it's not what you do in real life with your rig.
I mean, is this what you only do? Launch Handbrake alone and see the results? Launch Cinebench alone and see the results? Launch a game with nothing in the background and check how many FPS you have?
And then you turn your computer off happy of the results?
I bet that's not remotly the case.
I have many applications opened at the same time, some using heavily the cores, some not, and that's how I judge my rig, that's how I compare it to other rigs. If it slows down to a crawl, then I know that it's not up to my use. I don't give a damn if it's faster with THIS software or THIS one. I'm talking a general use. And the FXs are not to be left on the side. On the contrary.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Actually thats exactly how I use it - I game. Or I check e-mail. Or I pause the game to look up stats on an armor set. I don't transcode or stream movies or music. I listen to music on the way to work and watch movies on the home theater. Again, it comes down to ones use case and AMD doesn't fit mine - for now. I hope Zen returns AMD to parity at the high end.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I've used both through the decades that I've been building pc's and can truly say that I haven't seen "that" much difference between AMD and Intel -------------------for GAMING purposes. In "high stress" situations (intense calculations, etc)------Intel "wins" (and always will). For those specific situations, AMD CPU's are "about" a "generational cycle" behind. That's NOT a "bad" thing----------except for those who only want "the newest, the baddest, the greatest" of everything-------------whether or not that truly "makes sense". For me, the performance/price ratio is the driver in my component choices----------and AMD fills that criteria better than Intel.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Hello,
Can you be more specific?
Because I think both AMD and Intel are as competitive there, especially AMD. If you look at the FXs, they were designed with servers in mind, brutal force available. And they are up to the task, when all the cores are used.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This, https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html for example, is the Passmark list for High-end processors. AMD is absent from the top part entirely.

This https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html is based on price performance (Passmark score per $) Again AMD is absent from the very top end.

Neither of these charts is for gaming, but the highlighted section in the post was about other uses.

The fact that the original post asked for comparison between the FX 8350, a four module, sort of eight core CPU, the top end silicon for AMD's desktop system (same silicon as FX9590) and Intel's i3 6100, a two core CPU, the top end silicon for Intel's lower processors (two core die) and that there is a meaningful discussion as to which is better, is a sign of the fundamental weakness in performance of AMD's products at the moment.

The processor market is quite 'free'. AMD has to sell its best desktop units and around the same price as Intel's transition between low and mid range. That is a powerful statement about their general performance as seen by the world Market. No amount of opinion or even analysis of benchmarks can change that fact, only new products.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanx for sharing DonkeyOatie :)
Indeed, in the first graph, AMD is waaay down... Can't see the 9550 till I scroll down 🙁
On the second graph, it's a bit better but... 😀

Oh well, doesn't change the fact that I'm perfectly happy with my 8370 :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Okay?
 
Upvote 1 Downvote


I showed you how to calculate the mean. That way you'll get the accurate results you're after. The more benchmarks you add, the more accurate the result.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Thanks
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've used both of these brands for many years. Both of them perform good. You should get one of them according to your needs and your budget.
Actually, extra cores does not help performance in gaming but surely fx 8350 outperforms a core i3. In gaming, you can compare fx 8350 with a core i5 5770. That does not mean 8350 equals to a core i5 but in gaming you really don't need more than that and an i5 can fulfill your needs. Maybe you want to use a high end VGA, then you may need to get a better CPU to prevent bottleneck. So fx 8350 outperforms a core i3 in every aspect.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
AMD is fine if you are on a budget. I upgraded to an FX6300, new MB, 16GB ram for less than the price of my i74790.

Intel is definitely better but costs more. Power consumption has been my concern so I prefer Intel. That one of the reasons I also chose an FX6300 because the 8,9 series use at least 125 Watts.

There is the debate the as for Intel being the better value because you won't upgrade it like you would an AMD system.

I've made both AMD and Intel rigs. If you want to spend less money go with AMD. If you want something that you plan on using longer go with Intel. A FX8350 right now is a bargain.

It's like comparing a Cadillac to a Hynudai. Both have different prices and they both will get you to work.

It's all about what you are willing to spend. I wish AMD would up their game so Intel wasn't so pricey.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
When was the last time anyone can remember an AMD commercial. This is AMD's biggest issue. Diversity. It's R&D dept has almost no budget because what budget there is s spread out between consoles, gpus, mb's, cpus, coolers and all the other hardware and software tech AMD has its nose in. The upcoming Zen architecture (from all reports I've read) will pretty much perform no better than your average Haswell. A 40% boost in single thread performance is a huge leap for an FX cpu, but is pathetically small when faced against Skylake superiority. If Zen works out as planned, AMD will remain competitive, but until it dumps some of the extraneous bs in its repertoire and sinks some serious cash into a 100% better single thread performance architecture, AMD will also remain 2nd best in a race of two.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Yeah I hope AMD comes out with some good products.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I disagree with this. Intel is not necessarily "better" for someone doing financial accounting for a corporation. What do you actually need is the question. Kids don't need GTX980's or Titan X's to play counter strike on a 60hz monitor. Real computer... i'm not sure how to take that. If your not utilizing any advantages you have sounds like your wasting money. People play games fine with AMD rigs and do all there homework. People that have AMD cpu's like the FX8350 never complain unless they put the thermal paste on the wrong side of the thing.

This is coming from someone with an i7, did I need it no. I just wanted it. My dual core pentium does everything exactly the same. I'm not 13 where i'll complain about an extra second of load time. Plus these days kid who need instant gratification play phone games while things load. Saving a few bucks on an AMD build and buying a skateboard or something might be a better overall outcome for them.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote

Good points.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


First, the original question is" which is better in gaming"
And there are many good answers in this thread explaining that if Intel CPUs are faster in some cases, it doesn't mean you can't play with an AMD CPU. You can play with a 6300 or 83XX, lots of people are and they don't complain. The only variable that could change that is the graphic card. Ok, I'll add another variable, the way the game is written. Get a good GPU and you can play any game with an AMD CPU. As you can also with an Intel.
You say "Intel beats AMD accross the board". As it's been said over and over, it all depends of one's use. I'm perfectly happy with my 8370, it beats the i3 in many cases, is on the level with the i5s in other cases, and almost as good as the i7s in some as well. Great processor, never fails me, never falters no matter what I thow at it.
So your comment doesn't reflect reality. It's not a fact.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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....


 
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