AMD vs. Intel: Which PC Build is Better for Under $500

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I think most people who frequent this site already knew the answer igpu vs gpu. I think what would be an interesting would be to see how cheap you can make AMD vs Intel. Trying to keep them as close as possible with cost, maybe a 2200G vs pentium+1030 GT (though probably still faster) and what the cost difference would be. Then say put in a high end card to see which one bottlenecks quicker. That way if some one is building a PC now but doesn't have the money for say 1060/580 but plan to add one later they can see which is a better long term CPU build or if it even matters if they plan on upgrading the CPU long with the GPU.
 
very interesting article.

i like the extra space of the AMD build for sure over the intel build. but i also know that an ssd is not essential to me at lower budgets and i'd easily drop a large hdd in place of it to stay on budget with the intel build. little bit of load time loss would be well worth fixing the anemic amount of storage space currently in there. dropping 1-2 tb hdd in there for the same money makes the system much more viable. the ssd can come later when some extra cash is on hand to add the upgrade :)

also like to see about the future upgrade path when better gpu is added in down the line. perhaps something like a 1060 or so would be interesting to see how it performs with the budget cpu's for that person thinking down the line but also wants to get started now.

but the rest seems like good choices made for the low budget builder.
 
Such a useless and biased article. And to have the never to write INTEL vs AMD on the chart, when INTEL based PC and dedicated GPU. Are you paid for this kind of reporting?
 


care to elaborate on how it is biased? budget was set, parts were picked within that budget and compromises were made on both systems to stay on budget. so how exactly is it biased? i prefer AMD myself but can't find fault other than storage choice for the intel build, which is more a personal preference than anything.
 

the smaller SSD+HDD argument makes even more sense with the AMD platform due to StoreMI... it uses so little SSD space, while making games & apps stored on the HDD load at about the same speed they would if stored on the SSD alone. huge value in that software, but not often noted by the tech press.
 
Good lord, Matt. Who proofed this before it was published?

That said, naturally the machine with the discrete graphics solution is going to win out against an iGPU even as good as the one on the 2400G. Unless you're comparing like for like, this doesn't make much sense to me. Come on, man. You guys can and should do better than this.
 


I think quantifying the difference between the two builds is important. How much do you give up with integrated graphics, but also, what do you gain if you use them?

Do these tests answer a question that directly impacts the readers' purchasing decision? I think they do.
 


I get that, Paul. If that is the case, then why not build four systems? Two each using integrated solutions and two using discrete cards. That seems a more fair and complete test in my opinion. Meh, what do I know. :/
 


You know a lot, eight badges! You make a fair point about testing multiple systems. I am working on the Athlon review, though. It has pretty decent Vega graphics for its price point, so you know we'll be testing them. Also, I'll test it with a GPU so we can see how it fares against the rest of our recommended cheap chips. The 2400G, 2200G, and Pentiums are in the test pool. We'll be testing both integrated and discrete there, too, so maybe that will help.

 
As long as you're looking at a larger test pool, you might consider tossing the i3 8100 (assuming it can be found near msrp) coupled with a gt 1030 into the mix. Since 'best' almost always comes down to use case in this price range, it would really highlight productivity vs gaming tradeoffs.
 
There are enough matching vid cards to save money to bump to the g5500 cpu. would stick with team memory only 16 16 16 39 vs 17 17 17 39 but enough for me. The Intel 545s ssd is also my choice. For mb saw the ASUS TUF Z270 MARK 2 Z270 for same as the MSI but I really like the TUF line and its also overclockable and with the cpu choice no need for 300 series mb.
 


Meh. I do okay.

I do know that you guys are limited to time and doing a more expansive test like what I've suggested might not be doable or worthwhile. It wasn't a dig on you guys by any means. Your work and reviews are appreciated, even if they don't indicate to JUST BUY IT. Sorry, I couldn't resist. 😉

I'll look for your test involving everything you mentioned. Keep up the nice work.
 
Here's what makes this a biased report. They chose the Pentium Gold dual core with a dedicated GPU while comparing to a more expensive R5-2400G with Vega 11 graphics. In gaming, the dedicated GPU will always win. Why didn't they use the i3-8300 quad core with HD Graphics 630. There is a $10 difference between the parts (found the 8300 on NewEgg for $169 compared to TH's $159 AMD price.) At least this way, you compare apples to apples and remain in the budget proscribed.
 


they've done the igp reviews already and of course amd won hands down. took a 1030 for the intel cpu to be competitive. we already know this info. was not the point of this article to revisit that article.

the idea was to see what you can do with $500 for an intel build and an AMD build. bang for the buck is the name of the game. it's what we strive for in the forums day in and day out when someone asks for help building a system. it's not "bias" that intel has a cheaper entry level cpu than amd. it's just what each company has released for sale. perhaps they could have gone with a ryzen 3 1200 at about $20 more than the pentium, night have balanced out with cheaper ram, small ssd and a 1050 like the intel build. no idea how that would have turned out.

may not have been the exact choices you would have made (or me for that matter) but i doubt there was an intentional decision to favor intel. they just got a heck of a cpu for a low price to offer that amd does not. just cause amd lost overall does not mean bias. had amd won, there'd be just as many salty folks in here crying foul cause "clearly amd paying them for the good press" and blah blah blah.

 
Ryzen 3 1200 = $94
With 1050 and 256GB hd - means you get a fair comparison between computers.
Also I don't see any Pentium Gold @ $59.99 available online. Normally, you link to all the places to buy at this price, but this price I don't see exists on Newegg or pcpartpicker.
To add more, if you think this is a bit more than the $500, you can reduce the ram to a slightly slower speed and save another $15.

This would be a fair comparison.
 


Yeah, Intel's 14nm shortage is hitting hard on the low end. Even coming up to the high-end, as we covered in the news today.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i7-8700k-price-increase,37877.html



 
You managed to make an Intel build with discrete GPU within the $500 range but couldn't do the same for the AMD build? I smell something fishy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom