Opinion & Fact: Intel vs. AMD (primarily gaming use)

[EvgaLover]

the FX-8350 will more than suit your needs in years to come for gaming at 1080 . why spend more than you have to?

Because buying Intel means you can postpone plans to upgrade. The higher performance it provides means it can actually save you money since you will likely not feel the need to upgrade the CPU compared to the FX-8350 in CPU dependent games.

spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life

The ssd provides faster boot times, not faster games. You might load up your game faster but you it wont improve the game

 

[jaguarskx]

spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life

Depends on the situation and the graphics card. A low budget graphics card, sure I guess you can use the price difference between a FX-8350 and i5-4670k (about $40 right now) to buy a better graphics card, but that better be a low budget card. An extra $40 on top of a $200 budget (or more) for a graphics card will not double FPS performance.

In one situation that took place in November, someone was looking to upgrade his i7-920 which be bought back in 2008. He was interested in either the FX-8350 APU or the A10-6800k APU because he did not want to pay "Intel prices".

I provided him as series of CPU benchmarks of around 12 - 16 different games from www.techspot.com. The benchmarks showed that on average the i7-920 and FX-8350 were pretty equal in perform. The i7-920 might have had 2% or 3% lower performance, but the results basically showed the 2008 CPU could still go toe with the FX-8350 which was released in 2012. Thus, long story short, he decided not to upgrade which meant he saved his money.

 

[cheapo gamer]

the FX-8350 will more than suit your needs in years to come for gaming at 1080 . why spend more than you have to? personally i would buy a ssd with the spare money for greater loading times , if you have one already a raid 0 setup would be cool or more ram for extended ssd life. intel is only good for photoshop and cad cam apps and gaming higher than 1080/1440

''why search for leftovers when you can get a steak'' Intel is best for gaming and photo editing. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/61451-intel-haswell-i7-4770k-i5-4670k-review-18.html

because amd have there 8 core processors in both latest gen consoles along with bf4 and more games and system apps will be optimized for these cores, look around http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html there are bench tests which contradict both arguments and i dont see a single i5 above that 8350,

Intel use totally different core-technology and a quadcore intel can beat a 8 core amd easely.

for a few fps difference where an overclock or/and the money spent on a graphics card can get better results or an ssd can reduce loading times and the length of times intel have changed there socket im surprised a new one isnt under way already. once again price to performance the fx-8350 beats it, the power drawn is not substantially more either http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4et7kDGSRfc, I really can't see a reason in spending so much more money on a processor that has a half fps increasehttp://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/380999-33-8350-3570k-overclocking-gaming

 

[cheapo gamer]

spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life

Depends on the situation and the graphics card. A low budget graphics card, sure I guess you can use the price difference between a FX-8350 and i5-4670k (about $40 right now) to buy a better graphics card, but that better be a low budget card. An extra $40 on top of a $200 budget (or more) for a graphics card will not double FPS performance.

In one situation that took place in November, someone was looking to upgrade his i7-920 which be bought back in 2008. He was interested in either the FX-8350 APU or the A10-6800k APU because he did not want to pay "Intel prices".

I provided him as series of CPU benchmarks of around 12 - 16 different games from www.techspot.com. The benchmarks showed that on average the i7-920 and FX-8350 were pretty equal in perform. The i7-920 might have had 2% or 3% lower performance, but the results basically showed the 2008 CPU could still go toe with the FX-8350 which was released in 2012. Thus, long story short, he decided not to upgrade which meant he saved his money.

like I said it's all in the optimization of the games but tell me with the most popular games coming from consoles running amd wont amd's core technology be getting optimized to get better performance still ?, i said the increase on the graphics card will double if not more the difference you would get in fps with an amd processor opposed to an intel processor , not to mention the sake of a frame or 2 less for all that multitasking power which is proven brilliant for amd's 8 core range

 

[jaguarskx]

spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life

That is your full reply. I did not edit a thing. You clearly stated spending money on a better graphics card yields twice the FPS improvement.

 

[cheapo gamer]

spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life

That is your full reply. I did not edit a thing. You clearly stated spending money on a better graphics card yields twice the FPS improvement.

i posted this: like I said it's all in the optimization of the games but tell me with the most popular games coming from consoles running amd wont amd's core technology be getting optimized to get better performance still ?, i said the increase on the graphics card will double if not more the difference you would get in fps with an amd processor opposed to an intel processor , not to mention the sake of a frame or 2 less for all that multitasking power which is proven brilliant for amd's 8 core range

 

[EvgaLover]

spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life

That is your full reply. I did not edit a thing. You clearly stated spending money on a better graphics card yields twice the FPS improvement.

i posted this: like I said it's all in the optimization of the games but tell me with the most popular games coming from consoles running amd wont amd's core technology be getting optimized to get better performance still ?, i said the increase on the graphics card will double if not more the difference you would get in fps with an amd processor opposed to an intel processor , not to mention the sake of a frame or 2 less for all that multitasking power which is proven brilliant for amd's 8 core range

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/61451-intel-haswell-i7-4770k-i5-4670k-review-18.html

 

[cheapo gamer]

spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life

That is your full reply. I did not edit a thing. You clearly stated spending money on a better graphics card yields twice the FPS improvement.

i posted this: like I said it's all in the optimization of the games but tell me with the most popular games coming from consoles running amd wont amd's core technology be getting optimized to get better performance still ?, i said the increase on the graphics card will double if not more the difference you would get in fps with an amd processor opposed to an intel processor , not to mention the sake of a frame or 2 less for all that multitasking power which is proven brilliant for amd's 8 core range

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/61451-intel-haswell-i7-4770k-i5-4670k-review-18.html

apart from skyrim who else plays them games ? intel optimized , there was a benchmark i came across on here and it had shown that these games you are showing me are just about the only games intel are beating amd in fps

 

[EvgaLover]

spending the money on a better graphics card yields twice the fps improvements if not more and the ssd shaves minutes off of your life

That is your full reply. I did not edit a thing. You clearly stated spending money on a better graphics card yields twice the FPS improvement.

i posted this: like I said it's all in the optimization of the games but tell me with the most popular games coming from consoles running amd wont amd's core technology be getting optimized to get better performance still ?, i said the increase on the graphics card will double if not more the difference you would get in fps with an amd processor opposed to an intel processor , not to mention the sake of a frame or 2 less for all that multitasking power which is proven brilliant for amd's 8 core range

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/61451-intel-haswell-i7-4770k-i5-4670k-review-18.html

apart from skyrim who else plays them games ? intel optimized , there was a benchmark i came across on here and it had shown that these games you are showing me are just about the only games intel are beating amd in fps

well i do want to see it then.

 

[jaguarskx]

It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.

 

[EvgaLover]

The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.

 

[cheapo gamer]

The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.

copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770

 

[WhiteSnake91]

with both new consoles PS4 and Xbox One using weaker 1.6ghz 8-core cpus you're not going to suffer certainly for years to come with an 8 core 8320/8350.

CPU intensive games are becoming less and less as time goes on. Starcraft 2 and Skyrim off the top of my head are the big two that play better on an Intel, but I believe it's because neither of them use more than 2 cores from my reading on it. Regardless, I think it's wrong that people make it out to be that AMD cpu's won't even play minesweeper with how bad people talk down on them. I'd have no qualms going to an 8 core AMD cpu 8320/8350.

As time goes on games are going to use more cores/threads. BF4 and Crysis 3 already do and those are big name big budget titles (yes BF4 is a buggy mess but that's a different story...lol)

Even on Skyrim and Starcraft 2 people act like the games are utterly unplayable on AMD, which isn't true at all.

 

[EvgaLover]

The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.

copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770

The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel

 

[cheapo gamer]

It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.

The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.

copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770

The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel

Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!

 

[EvgaLover]

It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.

The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.

copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770

The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel

Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!

Can a moderator please ban this troll? jesus christ you amd fanboys kids really can't control yourself once you feel the heat

 

[cheapo gamer]

It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.

The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.

copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770

The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel

Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!

Can a moderator please ban this troll?

A troll? no, you a facepalming self harming over dramatic prat ? yes!. How can you justify the price to performance ratio for an intel when amd have great optimised games coming out, the most popular games with the looks of it and it isnt just for there gpu

 

[EvgaLover]

It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.

The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.

copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770

The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel

Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!

Can a moderator please ban this troll?

A troll? no, you a facepalming self harming over dramatic prat ? yes!. How can you justify the price to performance ratio for an intel when amd have great optimised games coming out, the most popular games with the looks of it and it isnt just for there gpu

This is a respective forum and your beavior is immature and makes no sence. If you wanna blab out about how much you like to ''shove you back into your mother'' then i my best advice for you is to go to reddit, 9gag or any other immature forum. You are nothing but a little immature amd fanboy kid.

 

[cheapo gamer]

It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.

The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.

copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770

The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel

Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!

Can a moderator please ban this troll?

A troll? no, you a facepalming self harming over dramatic prat ? yes!. How can you justify the price to performance ratio for an intel when amd have great optimised games coming out, the most popular games with the looks of it and it isnt just for there gpu

This is a respective forum and your beavior is immature and makes no sence. If you wanna blab out about how much you like to ''shove you back into your mother'' then i my best advice for you is to go to reddit, 9gag or any other immature forum. You are nothing but a little immature amd fanboy kid.

says the tool trying to push bs overpriced I-5 processors on people when I clearly have stated that the amount of cash would be better invested on an I-7 did I not ? but since the man is asking about weather the extra performance is worth it for gaming and it is not especially since you will be changing a 4 core i-5 out before an fx8320-50 and both next gen consoles include that same technology and those games are made for multicore optimization, your clearly useless and trying to waste the mans money!

edit: i said i'd love to shove you back into your mother ,you behave as a sad acting emo that failed drama class facepalming your way through life , I bet you have a separate screen just for pornhub now stop over reacting if your spots burst you will have to clean your screen pal

 

[EvgaLover]

It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.

The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.

copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770

The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel

Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!

Can a moderator please ban this troll?

A troll? no, you a facepalming self harming over dramatic prat ? yes!. How can you justify the price to performance ratio for an intel when amd have great optimised games coming out, the most popular games with the looks of it and it isnt just for there gpu

This is a respective forum and your beavior is immature and makes no sence. If you wanna blab out about how much you like to ''shove you back into your mother'' then i my best advice for you is to go to reddit, 9gag or any other immature forum. You are nothing but a little immature amd fanboy kid.

says the tool trying to push bs overpriced I-5 processors on people when I clearly have stated that the amount of cash would be better invested on an I-7 did I not ? but since the man is asking about weather the extra performance is worth it for gaming and it is not especially since you will be changing a 4 core i-5 out before an fx8320-50 and both next gen consoles include that same technology and those games are made for multicore optimization, your clearly useless and trying to waste the mans money!

you are a waste of time. I dont even know why i waste time on you. I based my discussions on facts and i have linked benchmark and showed you why intel is better but you havent linked anything. you have given your personal opinons and told people to show themself up in their moms. Im unfollowing this thread.

 

[jacobian]

On one hand, the AMD FX-8350 is only $30-40 cheaper than i5-4670K. I don't know if this would sway me in favor of AMD, (1) considering i5 normally has faster per-core performance, (2) i5 runs cooler (edit: more power efficient), and (3) FX-8350 is not truly 8 core. It has 8 integer cores, but only 4 FPUs. On the other hand, the FX-8320 is right now $80 cheaper than i5-4670K, so I guess it does save you slightly more change.

However, i5-4670K still remains a fundamentally "cheap" CPU, being priced $230-240 in today's dollars. And, i5-4670K remains effectively as fast as the more expensive i7 CPUs for single threaded stuff, and it's not given that your applications will use enough threads to benefit from hyperthreading in the i7. Relatively speaking, CPUs are so cheap now that arguing about whether you save $30-40 bucks by going with Intel or AMD is almost inconsequential. I remember when Pentium II 400MHz, Intel's top CPU, at the time of release cost $800, and that's in 90s dollars. Back in those days, it might have been totally worth it to buy a CPU that cost 3x times less and then overclock it.

 

[cheapo gamer]

It's one thing to say that games will run on 8 cores. It is an entirely different thing to design the game to actually do so. So far with the exception of Dirt 3 all benchmarked games I have seen have shown that Intel does offer better performance.

Sometimes the performance difference is small. Small enough that the difference does not really matter; like 55 FPS vs 52 FPS. Other times it can be quite a difference. I cannot find the multiplayer benchmarks for BF3, but there is no doubt that Intel CPUs provide better performance. The same can be said of Skyrim.

In the end it is all a matter of perspective. I prefer Intel simply because of the processing power and while I like to play games, I prefer to have a more powerful CPU since I do things other than just play games with my PC. And I have to admit, I did not expect the i7-920 to hold up against the FX-8350 considering the difference of 4 years. But after seeing the results of the benchmarks, I would say that it is pretty impressive that the "ancient" i7-920 is still relevant.

The i5 3570k beats the fx-8350 on most titles and thats a really cheap cpu from intel.

copied from welshstig another cpu expert on this site.
With 8320 you can get a hyper 212 EVO and overclock to around 4.5 or 4.6, the 8350 is slightly higher binned so for the 8350 maybe 0.1 ghz more so not really a difference. And overclocking your cpu will just make it faster not useless and as time goes on the fx 8320 is becoming faster than i5s since games are utilising more cores.
I would suggest getting the fx 8320 and r9 280x especially because of mantle api which allegedly increases the performance of your gpu by 20-50% in games that use this mantle api. Consoles also have mantle api so yea...

But then you mentioned older games and strategy games, I do belive that i5 will be better due to the fact of lesser cores but stronger.

For the gpu: R9 280x = gtx 770

The amount of facepalming im doing right now. Back to topic, i did not copy anyone else. I mean what i mean and you can easely overclock the i5 3570k just as high and amd cpu's tends to run hotter so thats another advantage from intel

Facepalming?!? I'd love to shove you back in your mother and see if she can pop out a non self harming emo nerd this time , Once again the cost doesn't out weight pro's/cons for that bs i5 youre pushing!, may aswell spend a bit more and go for an i-7 if you want a serious improvement!

Can a moderator please ban this troll?

A troll? no, you a facepalming self harming over dramatic prat ? yes!. How can you justify the price to performance ratio for an intel when amd have great optimised games coming out, the most popular games with the looks of it and it isnt just for there gpu

This is a respective forum and your beavior is immature and makes no sence. If you wanna blab out about how much you like to ''shove you back into your mother'' then i my best advice for you is to go to reddit, 9gag or any other immature forum. You are nothing but a little immature amd fanboy kid.

says the tool trying to push bs overpriced I-5 processors on people when I clearly have stated that the amount of cash would be better invested on an I-7 did I not ? but since the man is asking about weather the extra performance is worth it for gaming and it is not especially since you will be changing a 4 core i-5 out before an fx8320-50 and both next gen consoles include that same technology and those games are made for multicore optimization, your clearly useless and trying to waste the mans money!

you are a waste of time. I dont even know why i waste time on you. I based my discussions on facts and i have linked benchmark and showed you why intel is better but you havent linked anything. you have given your personal opinons and told people to show themself up in their moms. Im unfollowing this thread.

If you want to know what I am bothered about is you post the 3 most optimised games for an intel processor! games hardly anyone plays and games what arent going to get much more optimised either not many games are going to be designed around an intel processor since the flagshit consoles of mainstream gaming are amd based

 

[cheapo gamer]

On one hand, the AMD FX-8350 is only $30-40 cheaper than i5-4670K. I don't know if this would sway me in favor of AMD, (1) considering i5 normally has faster per-core performance, (2) i5 runs cooler (edit: more power efficient), and (3) FX-8350 is not truly 8 core. It has 8 integer cores, but only 4 FPUs. On the other hand, the FX-8320 is right now $80 cheaper than i5-4670K, so I guess it does save you slightly more change.

However, i5-4670K still remains a fundamentally "cheap" CPU, being priced $230-240 in today's dollars. And, i5-4670K remains effectively as fast as the more expensive i7 CPUs for single threaded stuff, and it's not given that your applications will use enough threads to benefit from hyperthreading in the i7. Relatively speaking, CPUs are so cheap now that arguing about whether you save $30-40 bucks by going with Intel or AMD is almost inconsequential. I remember when Pentium II 400MHz, Intel's top CPU, at the time of release cost $800, and that's in 90s dollars. Back in those days, it might have been totally worth it to buy a CPU that cost 3x times less and then overclock it.

you see the difference for me is the 8320 costs £109 in the uk and the processor you mentioned cost 170, my motherboard cost £60 along with my 7870 xt what cost £165 , so what I pay for an intel processor and mobo i was able to add money and buy this over the standard 7870 what was £125 at the point of buying with money saved towards my cm212evo+ for my processor at 4 ghz i max out at 40-45c only because of the crappy cooler my graphics card has but I dont have to turn on the heating at least

 

[JOOK-D]

 

[vmN]

for gaming use, go with AMD unless you do have $900-1000+ budget.
Because in the end(gaming wise) you will only be looking at a few FPS going from AMD to intel.
Focus on the GPU instead.