Why do people talk bad about AMD ?

[Hydroshot]

Hi ive been wondering why some people talk so bad about amd(mostly intel fanboys)
i dont know why. i have an AMD FX 4300 3.8 Ghz and ive been more than pleased with it.
amd is cheap. very efficient. and usually overclocks to very high rates. i understand that alot of intel cpus are build a little better than amds but is it really worth the extra 200 dollars to get maybe 10 more frames in a game?

Feel free to correct me if u think im wrong or if u have something to say about amd or intel

 

[avenseth12]

Without going into a debate, the answer to your question is Yes

 

[Supernova1138]

Hi ive been wondering why some people talk so bad about amd(mostly intel fanboys)
i dont know why. i have an AMD FX 4300 3.8 Ghz and ive been more than pleased with it.
amd is cheap. very efficient. and usually overclocks to very high rates. i understand that alot of intel cpus are build a little better than amds but is it really worth the extra 200 dollars to get maybe 10 more frames in a game?

Feel free to correct me if u think im wrong or if u have something to say about amd or intel

They're really only cheap at this point. Efficiency with AMD is pretty much non existent at this point, their chips need more power than Intel at stock speeds and have to be overclocked heavily to even remotely remain competitive with Intel's offerings in most workloads, which increases the power draw even more. It doesn't help that AMD hasn't released anything new in the high performance arena for the past 3 years aside from factory overclocked versions and slightly lower powered versions of their 8 core Piledriver chips that originally came out in 2012.

AMD chips while cheaper to buy do have some extra expenses with them, especially if you are buying the 8 core CPUs and/or want to overclock. With AMD you have to spend more on a motherboard than you might with Intel in order to get a board with a more robust VRM setup. The cheaper boards have weaker VRMs that will lead to throttling with the 8 core FX chips at stock speeds, and can also be a problem if you want to overclock the six core model. With Intel you don't have this problem and you can buy a cheaper motherboard and it will work out of the box with any Intel chip it supports, even the i7. There are more expensive Intel motherboards, but you only need those if you want the extra features they offer, or are buying an unlocked CPU with the goal of pushing a high overclock.

The higher end AMD chips also practically require an aftermarket CPU cooler, as the stock AMD cooler apparently sounds like a jet engine and is only barely adequate for cooling the 8 core models if you can maintain an ambient room temperature of 20 degrees celsius. If your room gets hotter than that, the stock cooler will struggle.

With all that factored in, you're probably going to wind up spending roughly the same amount of money for an AMD chip as you would to get a decent but low cost Intel motherboard and a locked i5 which while not overclockable will beat the FX 8350 in all but the most extremely heavily threaded workloads. As such, it's getting hard to recommend AMD to anyone outside of people building extremely low budget gaming builds, and people looking to build a low budget video editing workstation.

 

[sizzling]

A lot depends on expectations. If your aiming for a high end gaming rig AMD CPU's can hold your PC back when compared to an equivalent Intel build. If your not aiming for high end but just something decent then AMD make some sense.

 

[Rogue Leader]

I'm an AMD Fanboy and if someone asked me for build advice right now I'd tell them to go intel. Heck if my PC took a shit right now my build would be intel.

I don't want to be this way but the truth is while AMD used to be the almost as fast an occasionally faster low cost alternative, they have done nothing new in the arena in years other than overclocking the crap out of their old offerings, sometimes to its detriment (look at the FX-9590). When I bought my Phenom II X6 1100T it was a killer chip... it was also 2011. Its still great now and the fact that my CPU not overclocked can keep up with Mid-high range offerings from AMD today 4 years later is kind of sad. My CPU should be a has been by now.

Hatred for AMD isn't warranted, every company has its ups and downs, they are having a hard time with some of their newest innovations, they diverted a lot of resources to be the OEM for Xbox and Playstation, and they have nowhere near the size strength and resources intel has. But they do have some promising offerings on the horizon for 2016.

SO why do people talk bad, well not recommending it on a value perspective right now is justified, however any hardcore hate is just fanboys being fanboys. If it wasn't for competition intel chips wouldn't be as good as they are. People need to keep that in mind.

 

[barto]

The reasons there is a negative aura around AMD is (1) because of their innovation mishap with Bulldozer chips and then lack of innovation in the subsequent releases and (2) because of the current chips architecture.

So the Bulldozer chips where a flop. They were no better in performance over the Phenom IIs, they were/are hotter chips and they use more power. There have been some improvements with Vishera chips (x3xx) but they still don't match Intel.

For non gaming applications, AMD chips are great and even hold their own against Intel. But the vast majority of games are single threaded while AMD chips are stronger in multi-threaded applications. AMD chips aren't true cores. They're modules that share floating point cores with dual threads. If application doesn't use multiple threads, you really have half the power. Thus gaming, where the vast majority of games thrive in single thread land, the AMD 4350 you have is simple a dual core CPU. Intel CPUs are very strong in single threaded applications.

So you're not spending an additional $200 for 10 frames. Really, an i3 can keep up with an 83xx in many games. And in the games the 83xx out performs the i3, an i5 is really only $20 more.

I'm not a fanboy, I'm a realist. There's little reason to buy an AMD CPU for gaming unless there is a very strict budget and even then, sometimes it takes some convincing.

Edit: I'd like to add, overclocking is the one thing AMD does have going for it even though overclocking margins aren't as big as they used to be.

 

[Abhishek Nair]

Hey bro see i really appriciate your question on amd But,lets try not to go into this situation of fanboys raging all over the place telling nothing but truth.What i meant by truth is,some of those amd guys out there might say "hey bruh' look amd rox cuz its cheap and ovetclocks lika boss!" Is that not true? Yes it is amd is like that.Oh! But there comes those intel boys who goes "oh yeah?talkin abut cheap? We have got the best gaming cpus on earth with the best energy efficency!!" True on that also,intel's got amazing cpu's too.All im trying to put together is that Amd vs Intel or anything else out there,all of them have their own advantages on different aspects of technology they use. 😀 😉

 

[CTurbo]

i understand that alot of intel cpus are build a little better than amds but is it really worth the extra 200 dollars to get maybe 10 more frames in a game?

It's ignorant statements like this that make me "talk bad" about AMD.

At this point in 2015, Intel is better at every price point. The i3 beats the FX6300 in almost everything and beats the FX8350 in alot of games. The weakest i5 4430 beats the entire AMD lineup.

Intel has an advantage of being about to run 100% on cheaper motherboards than AMD. The FX cpus run like crap on the cheaper AM3+ boards. You also pretty much HAVE to buy am aftermarket cooler for the AMDs too. Those things lead to ZERO price advantage for AMD.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($184.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($69.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $254.88

vs

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($164.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($26.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $271.95

So the i5 setup is not only faster, it's cheaper too. No amount of overclocking would allow the FX to catch up.






PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4160 3.6GHz Dual-Core Processor ($108.95 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($69.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $178.84

vs

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($94.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($26.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $201.95


Again, the i3 is not only faster, but it's cheaper too. No amount of overclocking will make up for the weak single core performance of the FX6300.






The Athlon x4 860k is the AMD chip that's even competitive in it's price range, and even it loses the the dual core Pentium a lot of the time.

 

[teknobug]

I'm a longtime AMD fanboy going back to the mid 90's, and these days I'm going to suggest Intel when asked, it's as plain as that.

 

[neverumindnow]

AMD has fallen behind. Their products are problematic for builders because the offer less peformance, use more power and generate much more heat. Price is only one consideration. Clockspeed does not mean all that much, taken by itself. If you buy Intel for a little more money, you get performance that AMD simpy can't touch, and a quieter, cooler, more efficent sytsem, that ends up being cheaper to operate. Who needs overclocking when my stock-clocked CPU blows every AMD chip away? Are we aiming for a number of GHz? Or is it about the operations the CPU performs in a given time period?

 

[VenBaja]

Hi ive been wondering why some people talk so bad about amd(mostly intel fanboys)
i dont know why. i have an AMD FX 4300 3.8 Ghz and ive been more than pleased with it.
amd is cheap. very efficient. and usually overclocks to very high rates. i understand that alot of intel cpus are build a little better than amds but is it really worth the extra 200 dollars to get maybe 10 more frames in a game?

Feel free to correct me if u think im wrong or if u have something to say about amd or intel

Calling someone a fanboy is an informal fallacy...an ad hominem. You're attacking their character rather than presenting any actual arguments. The fact is, no one hates the company AMD, just the products they have out right now. They're not relevant in the market anymore, and the company is not releasing anything new. The people you refer to as Intel fanboys are actually just fans of performance and cost effectiveness. They realize that Intel has AMD beat in every price segment right now. Hopefully that changes at some point, because it's nice to have healthy competition. But most people are not willing to spend more money on a worse product just to keep a company alive. Of course, there are those out there that just like tinkering with AMD's chips for the fun and challenge of it...and that's fine.

 

[IntelTurtleFan]

I will also let you know. If Zen AMD is faster / cheaper / reliable I will be recommending it over Intel no questions asked. It is just as of this second that AMD is behind. In no way do I want to be biased.

In no case is fact biased. That is why it is called FACT.

Read this guide and see the benchmarks.

 

[r_ward_87]

i understand that alot of intel cpus are build a little better than amds but is it really worth the extra 200 dollars to get maybe 10 more frames in a game?

It's ignorant statements like this that make me "talk bad" about AMD.

At this point in 2015, Intel is better at every price point. The i3 beats the FX6300 in almost everything and beats the FX8350 in alot of games. The weakest i5 4430 beats the entire AMD lineup.

Intel has an advantage of being about to run 100% on cheaper motherboards than AMD. The FX cpus run like crap on the cheaper AM3+ boards. You also pretty much HAVE to buy am aftermarket cooler for the AMDs too. Those things lead to ZERO price advantage for AMD.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($184.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($69.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $254.88

vs

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($164.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($26.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $271.95

So the i5 setup is not only faster, it's cheaper too. No amount of overclocking would allow the FX to catch up.






PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4160 3.6GHz Dual-Core Processor ($108.95 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($69.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $178.84

vs

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($94.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($26.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $201.95


Again, the i3 is not only faster, but it's cheaper too. No amount of overclocking will make up for the weak single core performance of the FX6300.






The Athlon x4 860k is the AMD chip that's even competitive in it's price range, and even it loses the the dual core Pentium a lot of the time.

You have got to stop spewing <mod edit>. An fx 8350 will destroy an i5 4430 in multi threaded tasks. Take all your power consumption <mod edit> and <mod edit>. I have like 9 intel cpu's and no AMD cpu's, but im not going to go around spewing <mod edit>. For god's sake the i5 4460 is $250 compared to the $220 for an FX 8350 here.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4430-vs-AMD-FX-8350
Heres a quick comparison. If you call only winning the single core benchmark, and losing all the multi threaded benchmarks by a fair margin "shitting" on the AMD you are delusional.

Im sick of fanboy's like you spewing *. i have an i3 4170, an xeon 5620, an i5 3470 and an i7 2600k at the moment. Im telling you now that my housemates 8320 kills my 3470 when running anything purely multi-threaded. And a 3470 is better than a 4430.

Please refrain from spewing such biased make believe facts. I have run his 8350 for a few weeks while my i7 2600k was in the shop and the two are pretty comparable. Its people like you who give intel a bad name. Pull your brand bias <mod edit> out your mouth and start quoting actual performance instead of "i5 4430 fUlLy ReKz uR 83%0 cAuse Its BlUe" <mod edit>.

If you call something better simply because it might edge out 3 fps while playing single threaded games, yet disregard any multi-threaded benchmarks that clearly show an fx 8320/50 eating an i5 4430/40/60 (which are still more expensive) show's you are nothing but a raving lunatic.

The worst part about your argument is that you claim "no amount of overclocking will let the fx catch up"
Well how come the x 8350 benches higher in all multi-threaded benchmarks such as cinebench, passmark, geekbench, Rendering with vegas and photoshop and so on and thats at its stock clock let alone overclocked? How delusional do you want to be.

Stop claiming that an intel is better full stop just because it might game a tiny bit better and lose at most multi-threaded benchies.

No-one gives a hoot about single core performance. Its 2015 mate.

 

[barto]

It's posts like these ^^^^ the reason we can't have nice things.

I'm going to ask a mod to close the thread. It was completely civil until you posted r_ward. It's one thing to attack the idea/message, but not the poster.

I have only two things to say. First, CPUBoss is garbage. Second, do some reading. The vast majority of games are single threaded. If you don't care about gaming, as previously stated, AMD CPUs are fine. If you build a computer for gaming, you actually care about single threaded performance.

 

[USAFRet]

People, let's keep it civil.
As usual, this thread is going nowhere. Just like the last 50 "Intel vs AMD" threads.

Either you can have a civil, fact based discussion, or we'll just shut this off.

Deal?

 

[Rogue Leader]

Man.... I knew it was only a matter of time before "that guy" showed up.

 

[r_ward_87]

People, let's keep it civil.
As usual, this thread is going nowhere. Just like the last 50 "Intel vs AMD" threads.

Either you can have a civil, fact based discussion, or we'll just shut this off.

Deal?

Id like to have a fact based chat too, but when people go around claiming that an i5 4430 wrecks an 8350 regardless there is something seriously wrong with this thread. And to the other poster, i know cpuboss is biased as all hell, but their benchmarks don't lie. Its ludicrous bias shows when an amd cpu wins in multi-threaded performance, price, age, instructions, overclocking and more and the intel cpu wins solely because of single thread performance and power consumption. Its a bit garbage.

If people stop exaggerating so much and claiming an i3 beats an fx 8350 in everything when in reality it only beats it in single threaded games and mp3 work, i wouldn't rage out so much. Everyone just refuses to accept that a lot of people do use heavily threaded apps and don;t just play games all day.

i am a dedicated intel user, but numbers don't lie. The FX series does have better multi threaded performance than any intel cpu at its price range. Fact. You can all go on all day about its power consumption and single threaded lack of performance and live in denail all you want.

I will gladly post my housemate's cinebench 11.5/15, vegas render times, passmarks scores and general gaming benchmarks all you want, and you will see my i5 performs worse in most heavy tasks but pulls ahead a bit while gaming in some scenarios. There is no need to live in denial forever. There is no point in plain out lying (i5 4430/60 beats fx in every way) just to defend your purchase.

That's all I am trying to get at. I don't give a rats whether his cpu is red and mine is blue, i am just looking at pure performance for the price here, and it seems pretty obvious to me. The i5 4430 compared to the 8350 has roughly a 30-40% disadvantage when it comes to multi-threaded workloads, and roughly 20-25% better single core performance at a price premium. If that is "beating it in every way" you are blind and deaf. It loses out in price, multi-threaded performance, overclocking and instruction sets, yet gets beaten in single threaded workloads and power consumption. How is that beating it in every way?

 

[USAFRet]

We still see no actual numbers here.

 

[IntelTurtleFan]

It is about the facts. I think this needs to be locked. No benchmark how real world, multitasking, or single core oriented it is it will never replace real world tests such as games and actual renders. AMD wins the category in some renders but looses in games and some other renders such as Premiere Pro. If you want numbers here you go. All tests used same mobo if possible, same GPU, RAM, HDD, and cooler. As far as I know that is the most stock unbiased test you can do. Pure stock and same hardware.

Battlefield 4 1920x1080 Ultra (FPS Higher is better)
I7-5960X - 110
I7-5930K - 99
I7-5820K - 94
I7-4790K - 94
I5-4690K - 83
FX-9590 - 66
FX-8350 - 62
FX-6300 - 58
FX-6350 - 60
I3-4150 - 50
I5-4460 - 70

Crysis 3 1920x1080 Very High (FPS Higher is better)
I7-5960X - 49
I7-5930K - 48
I7-5820K - 48
I7-4790K - 49
I5-4690K - 46
FX-9590 - 36
FX-8350 - 31
FX-6300 - 30
FX-6350 - 32
I3-4150 - 34
I5-4460 - 41

Far Cry 3 1920x1080 Ultra (FPS Higher is better)
I7-5960X - 73
I7-5930K - 69
I7-5820K - 66
I7-4790K - 80
I5-4690K - 73
FX-9590 - 53
FX-8350 - 51
FX-6300 - 45
FX-6350 - 49
I3-4150 - 52
I5-4460 - 59

CineBENCH R11.5 (Higher is better)
I7-5960X - 14.42
I7-5930K - 11.49
I7-5820K - 10.89
I7-4790K - 9.21
FX-9590 - 7.85
FX-8350 - 6.98
I5-4690K - 6.49
I5-4460 - 5.57
FX-6300 - 4.55
FX-6350 - 5.04
I3-4150 - 3.78

x264 HD Encoding (Higher is better)
I7-5960X - 81.1
I7-5930K - 63.3
I7-5820K - 61.5
I7-4790K - 49.3
FX-9590 - 46.4
FX-8350 - 40.2
I5-4460 - 30.6
I5-4690K - 36.8
FX-6300 - 28.2
FX-6350 - 31.4
I3-4150 - 21.1

Premiere Pro (Time in seconds Lower is better)
I7-5960X - 20
I7-5930K - 23
I7-5820K - 25
I7-4790K - 27
I5-4690K - 37
FX-9590 - 51
FX-8350 - 57
FX-6300 - 89
FX-6350 - 79
I3-4150 - 67
I5-4460 - 44

Power Consumption (Wattage Lower is better)
Idle / Load
I7-5960X - 70 / 306
I7-5930K - 70 / 260
I7-5820K - 70 / 251
I7-4790K - 53 / 236
I5-4690K - 53 / 211
FX-9590 - 94 / 288
FX-8350 - 79 / 249
FX-6300 - 76 / 236
FX-6350 - 75 / 240
I3-4150 - 48 / 196
I5-4460 - 51 / 197

 

[Rogue Leader]

It is about the facts. I think this needs to be locked. No benchmark how real world, multitasking, or single core oriented it is it will never replace real world tests such as games and actual renders. AMD wins the category in some renders but looses in games and some other renders such as Premiere Pro. If you want numbers here you go. All tests used same mobo if possible, same GPU, RAM, HDD, and cooler. As far as I know that is the most stock unbiased test you can do. Pure stock and same hardware.

Battlefield 4 1920x1080 Ultra (FPS Higher is better)
I7-5960X - 110
I7-5930K - 99
I7-5820K - 94
I7-4790K - 94
I5-4690K - 83
FX-9590 - 66
FX-8350 - 62
FX-6300 - 58
FX-6350 - 60
I3-4150 - 50
I5-4460 - 70

Crysis 3 1920x1080 Very High (FPS Higher is better)
I7-5960X - 49
I7-5930K - 48
I7-5820K - 48
I7-4790K - 49
I5-4690K - 46
FX-9590 - 36
FX-8350 - 31
FX-6300 - 30
FX-6350 - 32
I3-4150 - 34
I5-4460 - 41

Far Cry 3 1920x1080 Ultra (FPS Higher is better)
I7-5960X - 73
I7-5930K - 69
I7-5820K - 66
I7-4790K - 80
I5-4690K - 73
FX-9590 - 53
FX-8350 - 51
FX-6300 - 45
FX-6350 - 49
I3-4150 - 52
I5-4460 - 59

CineBENCH R11.5 (Higher is better)
I7-5960X - 14.42
I7-5930K - 11.49
I7-5820K - 10.89
I7-4790K - 9.21
FX-9590 - 7.85
FX-8350 - 6.98
I5-4690K - 6.49
I5-4460 - 5.57
FX-6300 - 4.55
FX-6350 - 5.04
I3-4150 - 3.78

x264 HD Encoding (Higher is better)
I7-5960X - 81.1
I7-5930K - 63.3
I7-5820K - 61.5
I7-4790K - 49.3
FX-9590 - 46.4
FX-8350 - 40.2
I5-4460 - 30.6
I5-4690K - 36.8
FX-6300 - 28.2
FX-6350 - 31.4
I3-4150 - 21.1

Premiere Pro (Time in seconds Lower is better)
I7-5960X - 20
I7-5930K - 23
I7-5820K - 25
I7-4790K - 27
I5-4690K - 37
FX-9590 - 51
FX-8350 - 57
FX-6300 - 89
FX-6350 - 79
I3-4150 - 67
I5-4460 - 44

Power Consumption (Wattage Lower is better)
Idle / Load
I7-5960X - 70 / 306
I7-5930K - 70 / 260
I7-5820K - 70 / 251
I7-4790K - 53 / 236
I5-4690K - 53 / 211
FX-9590 - 94 / 288
FX-8350 - 79 / 249
FX-6300 - 76 / 236
FX-6350 - 75 / 240
I3-4150 - 48 / 196
I5-4460 - 51 / 197

/thread

Exactly it, its not about 1 benchmark, its about all around performance. I feel bad for the OP as this has started to turn into the usual fanboy <mod edit>.

People please watch the language in this thread. It is getting out of control. - G

 

[CTurbo]

My biggest argument here is AMD is NOT cheaper as many are led to believe. As shown above, Intel has a better AND also cheaper option for gaming at the major price ranges. My above post was focused on gaming because that is what the OP referenced. I was not talking about pure number crunching and maximum threaded tasks.

 

[IntelTurtleFan]

AMD is not cheaper he is right. It takes a bigger cooler and a more than decent mobo to achieve some decent tests. The AMD is old if they released some killer CPU that performed the same as the new i7's I would be recommending it like I said before. I want to recommend what is right for a specific task and budget. Being non biased is correct. You got to look at fact based tests and ignore the rest. Even power consumption is not a valid argument normally.

 

[CTurbo]

I would like to point out that I have used an AMD cpu in EVERY single personal build that I have every made myself dating back to the single core Athlon 64.

 

[r_ward_87]

AMD is not cheaper he is right. It takes a bigger cooler and a more than decent mobo to achieve some decent tests. The AMD is old if they released some killer CPU that performed the same as the new i7's I would be recommending it like I said before. I want to recommend what is right for a specific task and budget. Being non biased is correct. You got to look at fact based tests and ignore the rest. Even power consumption is not a valid argument normally.

Thats true to a degree, but then how is it then that my house mate upgraded from a 970 mobo/tx3 evo (both cheap) to a 990fx mobo and h80 cooler and at the same clocks his pc performs pretty much identically? My old m5a97 r2 mobo could hold my old fx 6300 at 4.8ghz/1.45v for like a year and a half with a tx3 for $20.......you can pull out pro's and cons for both systems though. 8320 ($185), M5a97 mobo ($120) still costs less than a i5 4690k here in Australia ($330).

Our ridiculous prices are a big motivator over here. Im lucky i pick up all my intel stuff 2nd hand as I am a bum. An i5 4690 non k, H81 mobo (really basic) and 8gb 1600 Ram cost around $450 here and that's from pretty much the cheapest retailer in Australia. An 8320, Asrock 990fx board, hyper 212 cooler and 8gb ddr3 2133 goes for around $465 so over here in Australia for around $15 more you get 3 x16/x16/x8 pcie vs 1pcie x16, 4 dimm slots vs 2, overclocking capabilities, and a lot nicer product in general. A 4690k, h97 atx board, 8gb ddr3 1600 goes for around $540 here in Aust and the difference could be used to purchase a GTX 970 instead of something like GTX 960 or R9 280, which in my eyes is a bit more worthwhile.

You can always try and skew peoples opinion, but to say that AMD isn't cheaper is a bit skewed when you factor in other countries ridiculous mark ups, and not assume everyone that uses AMD is going to spend $200 on a mobo, and everyone that goes intel is going to buy a h97 or something similar.

Power requirements aren't too big of a deal. My housemate's 8320 @4.8ghz and r9 280 @ 1150mhz has been running happily off an evga 500w bronze psu we picked up for $50 Australian like 2 years ago.........despite everyone telling him he needs a 650w Gold psu at minimum.

I love my i5/i7 but i can definitely see the advantages of an 8320 on a decent 970 board with 16gb ram for $430 when you want to do a lot of heavy workloads compared to an i5 4460, h97 mobo and 8gb ram at the same price.

Keep in mind im using ridiculous Aussie prices as thats where i have to shop...... 🙁

 

[IntelTurtleFan]

Wattages mean nothing. Nor does "gold" "silver" "bronze." In different countries you are correct the prices can be different.