Torn between getting Intel or AMD

[zigar01]

Howdy Folks,

So I have an aging 1035t Phenom X6 processor. I got it to OC stable at about 3.4ghz and it's served me well that way for the past couple of years, but I recently decided to get myself a GTX 780 (haven't purchased it yet) and know that that processor is probably going to bottleneck that GPU.

The motherboard I currently have is socketed AM3+ so I can easily upgrade to an FX-8320 or 8350, but I seem to be reading everywhere that the intel Core i5-4670k or the i7-4770k beats the pants off of the FX-83XX chips.

I guess the bottom line is whether or not it's worth it for me to spend an extra $200-300 to get a new motherboard/intel CPU or just save that cash and get the FX-8320/8350.

Also, as a side note is anyone expecting a price drop of the GTX 700 series soon? Just wondering if I should pull the trigger sooner or later for the GPU .

Thanks!

TL;DR - Worth it to spend an extra $200-300 to go with the newer Haswell Intel processors or save my cash and get an FX-8320/8350?

 

[Karadjgne]

I think nvidia tried to get into the 'chips' game a few years back with Gigabyte? and a few of their mobos, but they weren't all that successful, and I don't see nvidia doing such a major retool to get into CPUs unless they buyout someone like Lenovo (IBM).

 

[zigar01]

Just figured I should update everybody. After a lot of back and forth I decided to pull the trigger on the FX-8350 as it was on sale on Newegg for only $10 more than then 8320. I decided to pocket the $300 it would have cost me for the i7 + mobo and put it toward a fund for a new monitor and/or SSD/better HD. Next time I feel like I need to upgrade I'm probably going to need a new mobo anyways, so I'll have to revisit the Intel vs AMD debate then.

I sincerely appreciate all the input thrown in here. You guys have been more than helpful and informative. I haven't been part of this community here but I love it so far .

 

[Beezy]

you shouldnt feel bad, here is how ive boiled it down. For STRICTLY gaming, and intel rig would be ideal, because games tend to prefer less cores, with a few notable exceptions. But for gaming + anything else intensive, i would recommend the FX chips. 3D modeling, rendering, editing, with the exception of very high end VIDEO editing builds where i would say go intel for SSE, but the FX 8320 is clearly very capable. these passmark 8.0 benchmarks have the i5 4670k and i7 4770k in there to compare to my computer (FX 8320). test was run at stock for fair comparison, all else being the same. The 8320 beats out the i5 in every situation other than single threaded, and the 8320 and the i7 trade blows throughout, with the FX having the edge in integer math and physics based operations.

http://imageshack.com/a/img855/5489/z3es.jpg

 

[vmN]

@Memhorder

Spoiler

No. They get Intel because people tell them to. They look at benchmarks and immediately decide it's the better chip to have. When yet it's wayy more than they need. You mentioned before that oohh Intel is faster with Apps. Tell me this. For a normal user such as say 60-70% of people on here. How much performance gain would you see on a Browser or Microsoft Office maybe even a Windows Media Player? Zilch. It would perform exactly the same. And to go get an i7 4770k for gaming? LOL. That is Funny. All you really need is an i5.

If that is how you compare the two manufacturer, then it is incorrect, as Intel actually sells lower ends (celerons and pentiums).
Once again you have manage to turn around my comment completely, reread it. It is certain that must people in here do more than simply microsoft office and maybe even a media player. And I never mentioned anything about an i7 for gaming.

@Memhorder

Spoiler

Streaming has nothing to do with processor speed as most processor's on the market can easily manage what a router feeds.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Streaming can be CPU intensive, and most processors would have a hard time streaming meanwhile doing some other rather intensive task(example: gaming).

@Karadjgne

Spoiler

I really do like AMD, and have for years, but apart from better architecture and all that brings, the only real reason I can think of for why Intel performs better is that 90% of the software out now is tailored for single thread application. If AMD could find a way to tap into THAT, Intel wouldn't stand a chance.

Single-threaded isn't the problem, it have always been that way. Windows scheduler is trying to use as less cores as possible. AMD knew this, but I think the idea of having the first '8-core' CPU on the consumer market first made AMD make some stupid decisions.

@Memhorder

Spoiler

I'm not really sure by what you mean "Outlives" But I hope AMD stays in CPU game. There was rumor they were going give up high end CPU and focus on APU's but that was quelled when they stated they are not leaving Enthusiast behind and keep things competitive with prices and performance wise. The FX lineup will move through 2014 and on. , hopefully doing more with the AM3+ socket. Without them we would be paying out the ying yang for a mediocre CPU and not to mention all have the same computer. I like a little variety. It would be very neat if Nvidia got into the CPU game as they are already tapping.

I'm pretty sure AMD wont add steamroller or it successor to the FX line, they pretty much screwed it with the 9000 series.
Also AMD would have a far better chance going for low-end system, because that is what AMD do best. Provide reasonable spec for a reasonable price.

I don't think Intel would raise their prices, if AMD went all in on the lower-end CPU marked.

Nvidia wont get into the CPU market, as they would get stuck the same place as AMD.

 

[Beezy]

@Karadjgne

A lot of programs have added good multicore support, finding smart ways to divy up the workload onto many cores. In a lot of cases this doesnt make sense, depends on the program and type of computation etc. But where it counts its already happened.
Photoshop among other adobe programs have adopted mutli core support. 3D modeling programs, and basically ALL rendering suites (a lot of physics based operations) utilize ALL cores, and even get some help from GPU acceleration in certain tasks. Games too, while most still favor less cores, the first 2 or 4 being used predominantly with smaller sub threads being worked on in the remaining cores, lighter use on those. but other games utilize all core better, and that is in part on the developers end now.

What most people dont realize, (intel and AMD sure do) is we havefor now, hit a hardware wall. We work constantly on the manufacturing process of our hardware to make them smaller so they can run faster without getting too hot.

but right now we have pushed it very far and now we have to work on the language the computers and programs use to talk to the hardware, to give us better performance. With that said, i agree, most people dont notice the difference between an I7 and a lightly OC'd 8350 (except with some exceptions in frame rate drops in some games etc) but it terms of raw "power" all the high end chips are good enough.