What Is Better For Me? AMD or Intel? Please Help. : )

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ttechfs

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2011
56
0
18,630
Hi,

I will be building my first system come 6-8 months from now, I know, maybe a long way out in the technology world but I think it's good to ask now since a lot of changes are happening and have happened and will better prepare myself.


SO, AMD or Intel.

Let me start out by saying I have a Quad core AMD Phenom II 1.6Ghz laptop NOW and it's terrible. It's laggy and it's slow and I heard this processor is now on like the top 20 worst buys for processors. Go figure. Its probably due to this was the first quad core processor out for laptops from AMD with a low 1.6Ghz speed. Anyway, it's slow and is terrible and I've heard a lot of people have taken them back. I bought it in 2010.

BUT, I remember using AMD for my desktop computers in the past years ago with my family and they were just fine. Athlons and such. SO, I do think AMD is very good when it comes to desktops, maybe not laptops. Thats my experience.

I know Intel is king, got it, I know this. BUT Intel comes with a price tag and to me, I don't think Intel is very compatible. They've changed sockets, and I heard Haswell in 2013 the socket may change AGAIN for Intel so whatever you buy now, motherboard and such is a waste because you will have to buy a new one and good motherboards from Intel are very pricey - $200+ all the way to $400 - $500. Also, it seems like AM3+ is here to stay which I like until I'm ready to upgrade again in the future anyway. I'll get more into it below but I wouldn't mind buying a new FM2 motherboard, although I'm sure they need to come out with FM3 and FM4, and so on because I'd be keeping my motherboard and system for a long while.

So I wouldn't necessarily say I am on a "BUDGET" per se but I do like to save money and not buy things I don't need.

So I am gearing towards AMD. I've thought long and hard about what processor to get for my needs. When it comes to AMD, you can pretty much have the best processor they offer for very cheap and I don't mind this, might as well have the best when it's only $200 or less SO please don't tell me to get a dual core because I think that's silly, lol. I do like having nice things if the price is right AND even more than I need if the price is right to keep me future proof because I really don't feel like buying new things every year.

OKAY, lol. So, I've thought long and hard about getting one of the current FX 8 cores which will be dirt cheap when I want to build a computer, OR waiting for Piledriver. AND I've even been thinking about going with FM2 with the Trinity APU. It's too bad these aren't 6 six core or 8 core [yet] but maybe you can tell me if I even need 6 or 8 cores from AMD because cores from AMD are different from cores from Intel. I like the idea of having the graphics built into the chip and what I read, the A10-5800K is unlocked, I can overclock it, it comes already at 3.8Ghz and Turbo is 4.2Ghz and Im sure you can overclock past that while still being safe.

So, again, I thought long and hard about what I'll use my computer for and I'd like to be ready for anything basically but here's what I'd use it for the most.

- Music - Itunes - converting FLAC to MP3 [Not a ton, but enough]
- Video - Watching movies, and occasionally converting AVI to MP4 so I can put them on my iPad.
- I don't like to restart my computer often, lol. Like to leave it on and I usually like to have about 15 windows open in my Google chrome.

- I don't really game on my computer, BUT would love the option to if I wanted to. To play maybe 2 or 3 games.
- Have a few programs open at the same time
- Use Winrar to zip up files [wouldn't do this too much but enough]

I just really don't want lag, lol. I've never had a top of the line CPU before so I have no idea what it's like to be without lag, lol. I just want something that's going to be zippy and fast.

Any advice, help, suggestions, and comments are greatly appreciated to give me more of an idea what I should do.


Thank you for reading! : )

 
Solution


I think you will be fine with the AMD route. Alot of people round here tend to instantly disregard AMD as an option, which to a degree is right (When gaming/higher end stuff). However in this application where you are by no means a power user and would like to try some casual gaming AMD seems like more of an option. While the CPU in the AMD APU's is weaker than that of an equivalent Intel processor it makes it up by the much better graphics which is just as important. All of my experiences with...

ttechfs

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2011
56
0
18,630
One more [probably stupid question] too, lol. Do I need to buy a wireless PCI Adapter too so my desktop gets wireless internet or is that already built into the motherboard or whatnot? Thanks! lol.
 

Lfluxx

Distinguished
Sep 4, 2011
144
0
18,690


no problem, and more than likely no. As long as you have an SSD and a reasonably fast CPU then everything should be pretty fast!
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=289 Here is a benchmark comparing the two, the trinity will be a bit better than that. The gaming bench's are with a dedicated card and the synthetic benchmarks measure pure CPU power which obviously as stated before the intel is stronger.
But in many of the encoding/ compressing bench's there is at most a 5 second difference which is nothing.

What vrumour said about the adapter. Ethernet is optimal however a USB adapter will do just fine.
 
Well you seem hellbent on getting AMD so that's probably what you'll end up with. Even though all but one person told you the I3 will fit your needs fine, at a cheaper price and better performance. You got to love when people come on here asking for advice then decide to ignore it.
 

ttechfs

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2011
56
0
18,630




Hey, I am taking it with an open mind, you seem to forget I am not even buying my system for another 6+ months, so anything can change. I'm not a fan of AMD or Intel. I just like value. I just looked at a good i3. It's $150 dollars plus a decent graphics cards, thats another $100 - $130.

So best case, I get both those for around $250. THEN I still gotta buy the Intel motherboard which what? Thats probably another $100 - $150 for a decent one. So now we're up to $350 - $400 for Intel.

AMD, that processor, I dont think there's no way it's going to cost over $150, by the time I buy it, most likely $115, just like Llano is now. So Im going to say $115 + $89 for a motherboard [basing off FM1 pricing], no graphics chip needed so my cost is $204 dollars.


Big difference there. That's just my view. I do appreciate your help though. : )
 

ttechfs

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2011
56
0
18,630



I'm not Hellbent on anything. Sure, I think AMD offers more value due to it's cheaper but I know Intel is amazing.

I don't necessarily want what I NEED, I want some headroom too, a little more than what I need. I think everyone wants that, know what I mean? Thanks again. : )
 

ttechfs

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2011
56
0
18,630



Hey, I am not a fan of one or the other but after I build the system I want, my next build WILL be Intel like you once they release Skymont. Thanks. : )
 
For everyday use performance willvbe more or less the same between AMD and Intel.

For process intensive tasks like video encoding Intel will perform better. If using Quick Sync supported encoder then Intel will simply dominate.

When playing games using the integrated graphic core Trinity will perform better than Intel's Ivy Bridge. But if using a discrete graphic card Ivy Bridge will likley perform better especially if the game is dependent on the CPU speed.
 

ttechfs

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2011
56
0
18,630



So I was exactly right pretty much, $350 for Intel. I appreciate you pricing that up for me. What do you mean the upgrade path after the i3? My next upgrade will be Skymont and thats years away and Im sure I will need a new motherboard due to a socket change anyway, regardless with AMD or Intel. Both would need to change no matter which I buy.
 


You're right, of course that after Ivy 1155 is dead, but a Sandy or Ivy i5 or i7 will still be plenty powerful well into the time of Skylake. Certainly enough to make it worth the upgrade, especially a K series that can be OC'd to come close, if not exceed Skylake at stock speeds.
 

ttechfs

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2011
56
0
18,630



Ah, you do have a point there. If I was going to buy Intel, everyone is telling me i3, I think I would just spend the extra $100 and get a i5 K edition. I think that would protect me from having to upgrade and hold me over until Skymont but that can also be the case with AMD's Trinity. Quad Core. I mean, it's pretty attractive having the graphics and processor built into each other into one chip at a 3.8Ghz speed that I can overclock that is also quad core. Lol. Thats just my fight with myself right now.
 
Honestly man, if you are building a stop gap PC which it sounds like you are til Skylake hits, an i3 would be fine for the next few years. Its a competent little gaming CPU, even got a better score on Unigine with an i3 and a 6850 than I did with my 1090T and a 5870. Kinda scary.
 

ttechfs

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2011
56
0
18,630




Thats crazy, I'll have to keep that in mind, thank you. : )
 

bigj1985

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2010
331
0
18,810


To be fair RDS that's a bit harsh. You paint an extremely broad picture with a huge biased brush with that comment. Piledriver made some pretty significant improvements over the original BD architecture and keeps pace pretty well with the Intel line up; especially for its asking price.

An FX 8320/8350 will significantly outperform an i3 in anything and everything unrelated to gaming. And while the i3 may have a very small advantage in games that take advantage of fewer threads it is NOT enough of a lead to justify purchasing it over its AMD counterpart that will give the end user a way better all around productivity/Gaming PC.

Heck I would get an FX 6300 or 4300 over an i3 just for the simple fact they are both unlocked processors and can achieve better performance in the end. As someone who chooses to put Intel in my rig from now and into the foreseeable future I could not with a good conscience sit here and tell someone to purchase a lowly i3 over any of the piledriver line up.

The new FX line are great processors with uber performance for the money. Faster than Intel? No. But they are sure as heck are a better deal than Intel's low end offering and in many cases a user would benefit more from an FX 8350 over something like a 3570k.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.