Should I stick with my current CPU ( AMD FX-8350), or switch to an Intel® Core™ i7 3820 Processor?

Furret

Reputable
Mar 13, 2015
9
0
4,510
Which one is better?
I honestly think intel would be better.. but really? Should I overclock my CPU? I don't think it will create much of a difference.
I just don't know. There is a guy on Youtube that I watch and he has one of these processors and it seems to look very smooth and a constant fps. Mine goes as low as 29, which I hate. It always happens in mid battle in game and I can never operate in it.. I just want a set up like his, smooth gameplay. :(
 

Furret

Reputable
Mar 13, 2015
9
0
4,510
It also always shows my CPU in the parenthesis, meaning its my CPU doing the bogging. I know I have an equally good if not better GPU system than the guy on youtube does. He uses a single 660 TI
 

DubbleClick

Admirable
The I7 3820k is old, "slow" and expensive. Really no reason to get it. An I5 4690k or an I7 4790k on a z97 board will be a lot less expensive and deliver better gaming performance. Or, for even less money but still same gaming performance an I5 4590 with a b85 gigabyte d3h.
 

Furret

Reputable
Mar 13, 2015
9
0
4,510


No, planning on doing so and if I see any difference than I will keep the CPU.

It just seems so confusing to me why a 3.6ghz processor is getting better performance then a 4ghz processor. Could someone explain why?
 

Furret

Reputable
Mar 13, 2015
9
0
4,510
Okay I overclocked it to 4.5Ghz and its still not giving me what I want. It is still slooping down to the 20's in fps. It isn't constant, but it definetly happens. If its not in the 20's its in the low 30's. I'm not trying to act selfish its just that I feel like there should be more power and more performance.
 

DubbleClick

Admirable
If the overclock didn't help, it's most likely not your cpu but the dual gpu setup that is causing the frame drops.
Either way to your question: ghz is only a measurement of the "refresh rate". 1hz means the cpu starts a new cycle once per second, 1mhz 1.000 times per second and 1ghz 1.000.000 times per second. That however has nothing to do with how many instructions it can execute per cycle. Think of the cpu as secretaries whose job is to carry paper from a to b. Now, the amd guy runs from a to b and back 4 million times per second, the ibtel guy only 3.6 million times per second (well, those are two fast secretaries ;). The amd guy only carries 20 pieces of paper at the same time, while the intel guy is stronger and carries 35 sheets at once. In the end, the amd one runs faster, burns more energy and gets hotter due to air resistance while the intel one gets more done.
 
If you're talking about 3.6ghz intel compared to 4ghz amd, it's apples and oranges. A long time ago it was used to directly compare cpu performance and since it stuck it's been really hard to 'undo' that way of looking at performance. The only time frequency (mhz/ghz 'speed') is relevant is when comparing 2 cpu's from the same generation and line. Intel does more work per clock (each mhz/ghz) than amd does. That's how a 3.6ghz cpu can be faster. Just like a 4th gen intel cpu at 3.6ghz is faster than a first or second gen intel cpu at 3.6ghz even though just marginally.