Intel or Amd?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mr potato

Reputable
Jul 1, 2015
44
1
4,530
Hello! I was wondering if Intel is better than AMD? I am building a gaming computer, and was wondering which one would be better for gaming (no video editing, etc) Thanks to all in advance!
 
Solution
Onus
In all but a very few unusual cases, Intel will outperform AMD in a gaming system, sometimes significantly. This kind of question tends to bring out trolls and fanboys though, so before they start up, you might just want to check benchmarks of various games to see that for yourself.
Sort by date Sort by votes
That depends largely on your budget.

In general:
Intel if you can afford an I5 or better.
AMD if you can't afford an I5 and are willing to overclock
Intel if you can't afford and I5 and don't want to overclock
AMD if you budget is very low (~$350 or less).
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
In all but a very few unusual cases, Intel will outperform AMD in a gaming system, sometimes significantly. This kind of question tends to bring out trolls and fanboys though, so before they start up, you might just want to check benchmarks of various games to see that for yourself.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution


Can't get a better answer than this one. If you don't tell your budget just saying that could cause a very annoying discussion
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Without trying to get fanboys on either camp here is the un-bias scoop:

Intel has more efficient architecture and has actually upgraded its platform while AMD has been very stagnant over the last few years in its fx series line.

Most games are coded to only use up to 4 cores/threads so the 4 stronger cores of an i5 will beat out the 8 logical cores (4 cores with 2 logical cores per core) of and fx-83XX AMD cpu. Since the AMD cpu can not be fully utilized the intel i5 will beat it in most every game. Now in a couple years as the number of games grow that will actually use 8 cores/threads, the fx-8350 could actually have an upper hand on an i5.

Now, at double the cost, an i7 which matches the fx-83xx in core/thread count will still beat it out because it is that much more efficient.


With all of that said an fx-8320 at $140 is a good budget cpu, at only $20 more then an i3 you get 60-65% of the performance difference between i3 and i5.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Depends .
In a fixed budget build its often worth spending less on an AMD processor so you can afford a higher performance graphics card .
In terms of building for games like BF4 /Crysis 3/ Witcher this would be a fairly common outcome rather than unusual
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Intel has a stronger single core power. Even though amd has higher clock speed the speed and power in total intel outperforms amd in every single game. Most games use 2 cores and 4 cores max. If you will not do any multi threaded programs like editing an i5 4690k. If someone has a decent budget and will 90% game (not including basic activity) an i5 4690k would be the option to go with. If you are more on a budget with multi core intended programs the 8350 is great but you need a decent after market cooler.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I agree, better to check benchmarks. Spending less on an amd cpu typically gets less performance. Maybe long ago amd was the price/performance champion but anymore intel has parts at every price level which compete heavily with amd. In many games a similarly priced i3 will top the performance of an fx 6300, sometimes falling short by a couple fps and in other cases coming within 1-2fps of a much more expensive fx 83xx. In a scenario where someone would overclock the fx6300, factoring price of the cpu, a decent enough mobo to overclock on and a cooler to allow it to be overclocked the price is close to that of an i5.

I would disagree that it's common to spend less on amd and get better performance. If the cpu/mobo or cpu/mobo/cooler for overclocking is comparable between the two then the gpu budget is no different. If someone is on a strict budget, the upcoming broadwell chips might be the best solution. Intel's new igpu's pulled way ahead of amd's apus and are comparable to a dedicated gtx 750 offering playable frames in newer games at lower settings while offering a stronger cpu at the same time. Obviously not optimal performance but sacrifices will always be made on a strict budget.

On the new broadwell chips, the i5 allowed 1920x1080 low settings to hit 86fps for bioshock infinite. 142fps on half life 2 at max settings. Gta v with 122fps and min fps of 38, more than half the min fps of an r7 250 and almost twice the min fps of a dedicated gtx 750. Not trying to be a fanboy or anything, but this seems to be a game changer for budget gaming at the lower end while providing the user with a strong cpu rather than a gimped one.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5675c-broadwell,4169-6.html
 
Upvote 1 Downvote


If you are on a hot place.... I'd really recommend a decent aftermarket heat sink. I got the FX-8320 and last summer before I got an aftermarket heatsink, it would go past 65C by playing BF3. Don't forget that if he buying in a local store prices may be different. For me it is cheaper to get a decent mobo and an AMD8-core than a single i5-4590k.

I really hope AMD steps up, I don't wanna live in a world with no competition :<
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ex-AMD fanboy here and in my honest opinion, AM3+ is a dead end.

They already made the FX-9*** which lead to nowhere, now, the only path that would be secure for you, now and in the future, is Intel.
Even if you had to squeeze out some extra bucks, it will be worth it, trust me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Lack of new hardware from AMD has already let intel let its tick/tock cycle slip . Competition can only be good for all the enthusiast community so i hope you are right .

Next year AMD will be selling 16 nm finfet Zen processors . Intel should be at 14 nm finfets so it might be a much closer race for performance per clock and per watt


And for those who think AMD's AM3+ is a dead platform .....well so is intels socket 1150 . No more processors for 1150 either
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Am3+ is considered a dead platform because it was released in 2011 and amd's done nothing new since. At that it was nothing more than a rehash of am3 from 2009, so yea - dead. Just because amd's failed to release anything new or relevant since then and intel has produced and upgraded 3 different sockets in the same time frame doesn't mean it's all that current. Am3+ cpu's often hit bottlenecks where even sandy and ivy bridge aren't, much less haswell or devil's canyon and that's not counting broadwell or skylake. Actually broadwell cpu's are just now being released for socket 1150 and since there aren't any socket 1151's or skylake's in hand, 1150 is still current day.

It's not that I hate amd, I don't. They're just twiddling their thumbs though and for the past several years intel is the only one moving forward. Far more people jumping ship for intel than the other way around. Other than luxury, there really isn't any 'need' for broadwell or skylake, or likely even devil's canyon for that matter since intel's dominated the top of the charts in every category, gaming, productivity, etc. Without even touching on the x99 platform. Amd's last hurrah was the 9590 and it's not only been a bear for customers because of the underwhelming choice of motherboards that support it to the recommended factory liquid cooling, but for the fact people can oc the 83xx's they have and get the same thing. Any 'new' amd releases have been rehashes of apu's and fm2 cpu's. Intel did a haswell refresh and the devil's canyon chips as a 'holdover' due to broadwell's delays with the new 14nm process. That was for less than a year, amd has been doing refresh's of refresh's the past 4+ yrs.

Hopefully zen materializes. Mantle was hyped for a good many months if not close to a year and never materialized. Scrapped before it hit the pavement for dx12. Broadwell pretty well decimated the apu market amd had going for the past couple years.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote



There is so much thats wrong with your entire post , but this last paragraph is special .

Mantle did "materialize " and is supported by a number of games .
Better still it forced MS to completely rethink DX for it to be competitive .
DX 12 is effectively MS's version of Mantle , and for AMD to step out now is wise since it keeps the pc gaming platform from fragmenting into multiple API's.
Good move AMD after a job well done

As for broadwell decimating the APU market....... broadwell is still not graphically competitive .
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And for those who think AMD's AM3+ is a dead platform .....well so is intels socket 1150 . No more processors for 1150 either
Click to expand...

This is something that's always made me look sideways at the poster. We have long since passed the point where "platforms" had an "upgrade path" because any major update to a product will result in a new socket to accommodate the new features. Different bus's and interconnects have different physical specifications so even if its the same number of pins you still get different voltages, signal timings and other electrical characteristics that render compatibility extremely difficult if not impossible. AMD tried to do it with the whole AM2/2+ AM3/3+ and it didn't work out too well for them. All platforms are "dead" in the sense that no major updates can happen once the platform is released. Its the result of putting so many components on the CPU that change frequently.

As for the OP, both have their places.

Firstly, forget about the FX8 line, its a poor mans workstation CPU and not priced right for the vast majority of desktop use case scenarios. The highest AMD CPU that's worth using in a desktop build would be the FX63xx which is about $100 USD. Pair it with a decent 970 motherboard and you have the core of a very inexpensive system that can do everything you want it to on a budget. Once you get past this your looking at i3 and i5 territory and it's really situational then. Stay away from Pentium-G, they are benchmark queens and struggle in real world use case's because two threads is not enough to run Operating System tasks, background tasks and whatever game or program you have on it.

Onto the whole "core" bullsh!t that happens. Fx6 is a six core, fx8 is an eight core, they are not "virtual cores" or other cockamamie that uninformed like to throw out. The FX6 has six independently addressable cores each with two dedicated integer units and one 128-bit SIMD FPU. The only thing that is shared is the 2MB of L2 cache per module. If there is a need for a 256-bit SIMD instruction, then the modules second 128-bit FPU can pair up with the first and execute that instruction, this is a very rare use case though. The FX8 has eight independently addressable units, again with two integer units each and one 128-bit FPU. In contrast the Haswell i3 has two cores each with four integer units and one 256-bit FPU along with 256KB of L2 cache and 64KB of L1 cache. Each of those cores has two separate schedulers which is enables it to process two separate threads simultaneously.

There is no such thing as physical or virtual cores, never existed. It was language that ill informed editors and reviews invented in order to sound like they knew what they were talking about. A "core" is a processing unit that has it's own separate control logic, I/O units and execution units.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom