Intel build or AMD build?

[Serrix]

Hello everyone, I just wanted to ask what build of mine would be better for gaming and other uses.

AMD build- http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=20099106

Intel build- http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=26922348

So which one would be better? Also, which one would last longer?
I plan on putting an IB 3570k in that intel build.

 

[Dreadteir]

Personally, I would go with the Intel build as there isan't an AMD processor that has anything on the i5-2500K. As for IB, remember to flash the UEFI before you install the processor.

Cheers and Happy Building,

Dreadteir

---- Edit ----

Hrm. I missed the 2 graphics cards thing. That could make up the difference between the CPU's on MOST games!

 

[maui67]

Those are 2 very nice builds.

Since the AMD build has 2 HD 7850s it will game better. Shouldn't be a game that it can't handle.

Of course, this thread will undoubtedly spark an "i5 2500K will blow away/hand asses to/obliterate any other possible configuration" rant. So be prepared. However, do your own research and see that the FX processors are not as bad as some would make them out to be.

Either build would be a great choice.

 

[Soda88]

Intel of course.

 

[maui67]

So the concenus thus far is that i5 + 1 HD7850 > FX + 2 HD7850s?

I find that hard to believe. Wouldn't BF3 love the dual GPUs?

OP...what games will you be playing mostly?

 

[kcsmacker]

two of these would provide more power. If you unlock them to 6970s it will preform even better then the two 7850s. Thats just me though. they do draw a lot more power.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150549

and good choice waiting for ivy bridge

 

[Serrix]

So the concenus thus far is that i5 + 1 HD7850 > FX + 2 HD7850s?

I find that hard to believe. Wouldn't BF3 love the dual GPUs?

OP...what games will you be playing mostly?

Newer titles such as BF3, the Stalker games, and some of the newer titles that come out this year.
Also some easier to play games such as the CoDs, DoD:S, CS:S, Civ and so on...
I'll play WoW most the time though.
If I could get a cheaper power house that could play games like that on ultra above 50 FPS, i'd be happy.

 

[Johnny828]

What I would do is get the Intel build and get a second 7850 in 6-12 months (since a single 7850 can pretty much max out all games for now anyway), as your AMD cpu will be a bottleneck. Single threaded performance (which is what's important in gaming) is rather lacking with the FX series.

These benchmarks might convince you to go with Intel:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_6.html#sect0

 

[maui67]

What I would do is get the Intel build and get a second 7850 in 6-12 months (since a single 7850 can pretty much max out all games for now anyway), as your AMD cpu will be a bottleneck. Single threaded performance (which is what's important in gaming) is rather lacking with the FX series.

These benchmarks might convince you to go with Intel:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_6.html#sect0

Some other benches to look at that were actually run at 1920 X 1080 resolution instead of 1680 X 1050:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1

http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/fx8120-vs-2500k-benchmark-results

All you ever see are statements that "AMD cpu will be a bottleneck" ... that seems to be the latest catch phrase, but I haven't seen any benchmarks that might prove this statement.

However, I digress, as Johnny828 does have a valid suggestion in getting one HD7850 now and another later and going with the Intel build.

 

[nekulturny]

Some other benches to look at that were actually run at 1920 X 1080 resolution instead of 1680 X 1050:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1

http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/fx8120-vs-2500k-benchmark-results

All you ever see are statements that "AMD cpu will be a bottleneck" ... that seems to be the latest catch phrase, but I haven't seen any benchmarks that might prove this statement.

However, I digress, as Johnny828 does have a valid suggestion in getting one HD7850 now and another later and going with the Intel build.

Even so, I would still take a Phenom II over a Bulldozer until we get a stepping revision. It is a load of crap that a lot of people keep exaggerating things however, they look at silly little charts saying the 2500k gets 120FPS on a game, and the Bulldozer only gets 80FPS but seem to forget their monitor only shows 60FPS.

But still like I said, Bulldozer is not ready for the big leagues. I'm saying go with the Intel build.

 

[Johnny828]

All you ever see are statements that "AMD cpu will be a bottleneck" ... that seems to be the latest catch phrase, but I haven't seen any benchmarks that might prove this statement.

It is a load of crap that a lot of people keep exaggerating things however, they look at silly little charts saying the 2500k gets 120FPS on a game, and the Bulldozer only gets 80FPS but seem to forget their monitor only shows 60FPS.

If we look at gaming benchmarks (NOT synthetic benchmarks, which don't truly show actual performance in games - and the OP wants to game), the intel build allows you consistent higher fps, with the same graphics card, compared to the AMD build. (And besides, maui67, the second link you provided compares the 8210 to the 2500k, not the 6100)

Sure, the monitor might only allow 60 fps, but if ever some guy intends to keep his build for a few years, then maybe the difference between the AMD build and Intel one will be noticeable in the more demanding games then come out in a few years.

But anyway...

 

[nekulturny]

If we look at gaming benchmarks (NOT synthetic benchmarks, which don't truly show actual performance in games - and the OP wants to game), the intel build allows you consistent higher fps, with the same graphics card, compared to the AMD build. (And besides, maui67, the second link you provided compares the 8210 to the 2500k, not the 6100)

Sure, the monitor might only allow 60 fps, but if ever some guy intends to keep his build for a few years, then maybe the difference between the AMD build and Intel one will be noticeable in the more demanding games then come out in a few years.

But anyway...

LOL, if you think you can stay ahead of gaming technology for more than 4 years with the same computer build AMD or Intel, good luck to you.

There are also a couple other considerations to take into account:

>Hardware technology is still ahead of software in a lot of cases. Most games cannot effectively use more than 2 cores to date. Some games can, but very few.

>Cost. In terms of computers, more often than not, its both economically and performance advantageous to buy a cheaper system that meets your needs today and replace it 3 years down the road than to spend a fortune for a top of the line system that performs better than you need it to today and run it for 10 years. Been there, done that. It was a mistake that I won't make again. That would fall into what people call "future proofing", and its a phrase that any respectable PC enthusiast needs to drop from their vocabulary. There is a limit to how much emphasis you can put on what your computer "may or may not be able to do in the future".

Don't get me wrong, if you have tons of money to blow on an all out gaming system, Intel is the way to go. But Phenom IIs may be dated technology, but they hold their own with Sandy Bridge, I know the OP is asking about a Bulldozer build, I offer no defense on AMDs behalf, they tried something new and it doesn't work as well as they thought it would.

 

[Johnny828]

LOL, if you think you can stay ahead of gaming technology for more than 4 years with the same computer build AMD or Intel, good luck to you.

I didn't specifically say "4 years" ( I said "a few years"), but since you mention 4, well I've had my build for 4 years, and I can still play recent games with quite good gfx settings: E8400 dual core and an ATI 4870, at 1680x1050 (my 22" monitor doesn't allow higher).

 

[Rockdpm]

maui man.... Take a Knee.... FX........ FX 6100 is crap. trust me, i tried it, i used it.... Phenom II is way better. If you can find one of new egg, a Phenom 980 or 975 BE are better.

But since you can afford it... Go Intel. I will be doing Intel from now on. As much as i have had to spend to wiggle around to finally get the best performance

 

[jdw_swb]

Even so, I would still take a Phenom II over a Bulldozer until we get a stepping revision. It is a load of crap that a lot of people keep exaggerating things however, they look at silly little charts saying the 2500k gets 120FPS on a game, and the Bulldozer only gets 80FPS but seem to forget their monitor only shows 60FPS.

But still like I said, Bulldozer is not ready for the big leagues. I'm saying go with the Intel build.

Yeah, but the AMD cpus will become a hindrance more quickly in the future, whilst it will take longer for the Intel cpu to become a significant bottleneck.

Sure, both are good now, but Intel will provide a longer lasting system. without the need for a cpu upgrade.

You mention a difference of 40fps between the the cpus. That's ok when its between 120 and 80 fps, but what about when its 70 and 30 fps. The Intel cpu will still be good, while the AMD cpu is lagging behind.

 

[nekulturny]

I didn't specifically say "4 years" ( I said "a few years"), but since you mention 4, well I've had my build for 4 years, and I can still play recent games with quite good gfx settings: E8400 dual core and an ATI 4870, at 1680x1050 (my 22" monitor doesn't allow higher).

Quite good, meaning not maxed out. Hey man, I'm not trying to start a war with you, so I hope you don't take it that way, just giving perspective.

I had a Dell 8200 cost my mother 3 grand (was my 16th birthday present) Pentium 4, Geforce 2 graphics, Rambus memory. That thing was the cream of the crop back in the day. But, it started not being as good, and it would have been cheaper just to build 3 computers myself over the course of 10 years I had it and I could have stayed on top of technology. Now I have this build, I have a nice case, and power supply I can get several builds out of.

 

[nekulturny]

Yeah, but the AMD cpus will become a hindrance more quickly in the future, whilst it will take longer for the Intel cpu to become a significant bottleneck.

Sure, both are good now, but Intel will provide a longer lasting system. without the need for a cpu upgrade.

You mention a difference of 40fps between the the cpus. That's ok when its between 120 and 80 fps, but what about when its 70 and 30 fps. The Intel cpu will still be good, while the AMD cpu is lagging behind.

True.

Well Sandy Bridge will become yesterday's news in another year or two. Just like everything else. DDR4 is set for 2014. If its not the RAM, its the SATA, or the PCI, or Direct X, theres always something. Its a race that can't be won. Theres always a bigger, badder, more brutal mousetrap on the horizon.

My boyfriend has a computer with an i5-2400 and a GTX 460, my system does everything his will do. I've run Cinebench on it, I could run a few other benchmarks if you're curious. The i5-2400 was 190 bucks, and Phenom II 975 is priced at 140 currently. And I think his video card was over 200 bucks, I paid 150 something for mine.

 

[hellfire24]

for performance,of course intel!

 

[Serrix]

Ahhh I see. I might drop alot of the expenses and get abit of a cheaper build. I'm loving all the attention this post has gotten. Keep giving tips everyone! It helps.

 

[Serrix]

Oh, and the links are gone, I cleared those wishlists. I will create another one shortly and post the results on here.

 

[jdw_swb]

True.

Well Sandy Bridge will become yesterday's news in another year or two. Just like everything else. DDR4 is set for 2014. If its not the RAM, its the SATA, or the PCI, or Direct X, theres always something. Its a race that can't be won. Theres always a bigger, badder, more brutal mousetrap on the horizon.

My boyfriend has a computer with an i5-2400 and a GTX 460, my system does everything his will do. I've run Cinebench on it, I could run a few other benchmarks if you're curious. The i5-2400 was 190 bucks, and Phenom II 975 is priced at 140 currently. And I think his video card was over 200 bucks, I paid 150 something for mine.

Indeed SB will become yesterdays news in two years...but it has less chance of being obsolete in 2 years than the Phenom II does.

Look at the Core 2 Quad range...they are yesterdays news now....but they are still capable chips, and perform well in games to this day.

If the OP is going to keep his computer for 3-4 years, then I really don't see AMD aa a better option (not saying it's a bad option, but Intel is better). Graphics cards can easily be upgraded/xfired/sli'd........but changing a cpu/mobo is much more hassle.

SB will be better equipped to handle the more demanding games and more powerful graphics cards of the next few years.

 

[nekulturny]

Indeed SB will become yesterdays news in two years...but it has less chance of being obsolete in 2 years than the Phenom II does.

Look at the Core 2 Quad range...they are yesterdays news now....but they are still capable chips, and perform well in games to this day.

If the OP is going to keep his computer for 3-4 years, then I really don't see AMD aa a better option (not saying it's a bad option, but Intel is better). Graphics cards can easily be upgraded/xfired/sli'd........but changing a cpu/mobo is much more hassle.

SB will be better equipped to handle the more demanding games and more powerful graphics cards of the next few years.

Depends, in my opinion as it is today, if you can't afford an i-5, you'd be better off taking a Phenom II. The reason for this is because software is going to favor quad cores more and more. At least, thats what I'm seeing, as it is hardware is ahead of software. We'll see. From most of the benchmarks I've seen, while its true the i3 steps over it on gaming slightly, almost every program that calls more than 2 cores into play the Phenom II beats it. Maybe some folks want a high power gaming system, but how many of us really just use our computer for games and nothing else? For the sake of a well balanced system a quad core is the way to go. Problem is, a Core i5 starts at 180 bucks.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=289 Check it out, for yourself. Now I know this is a 980 not the 120 dollar 965, but you can easily get a Phenom II 965 to run the same clock speed of a 980, and you can do it on the stock HSF.

As far as xfire/sli, you're almost always better off buying a whole new single card vs strapping on another old ass card to the one you have. xfire/sli is not all its cracked up to be, it seems the only time its a real advantage is if you're crossfiring from day one. Mobos and CPUs aren't any more of a hassle in my opinion, maybe in terms of install, but not cost a high performance video card can easily cost more than a good cpu and motherboard combined. Example: GTX 680.

But I see your point even so.

 

[Serrix]

Well, a Phenom can be OC'ed giving it some head advantage of an i3, but the general i3 has better stock set performance. Also, a Phenom is hungier for power, more so than an i3. Also, one other thing the Phenom has more than the i3 is cores... most games only utilize 2 cores, where the i3 is a dual. Having 4 cores is better than having 2 because as mentioned, software is starting to take advantage of it. Now it leaves me with being stuck in another crossfire... which one should I take?

There are now my 2 new sets because it did sound pointless to buy such a high end PC now when I can get a moderate one every few years,

the i3- http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=26981708

or the Phenom- http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=26981788

Also, if I take the Phenom build, should I get a bigger PSU?

 

[nekulturny]

If you take the Phenom build, 520 watts is enough for one of those video cards, probably not 2.

Don't concern yourself too much about power consumption in terms of your electric bill. Its quite insignificant unless you live somewhere with ridiculous electricity rates.

 

[Serrix]

If you take the Phenom build, 520 watts is enough for one of those video cards, probably not 2.

Don't concern yourself too much about power consumption in terms of your electric bill. Its quite insignificant unless you live somewhere with ridiculous electricity rates.

I managed to get an i5 build cheaper than both of those and I am rather happy with myself!
I dunno if I should even call using a Radeon 6870 a downside because from what i've read, its a very good card still.
Heres the build- http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=23855827

Would it be worth it? I'd buy an aftermarket fan too so I can OC that 2500k.