Almost done with my PC, just need to decide if im going with AMD or Intel

I know intel has more potential but AMD has so much value. Also, I checked on PassMark and the AMD FX-8350 actually has a higher CPU mark than Intel's i5 and a ton of i7. Of course I am a PC noob so most of this stuff might not matter. Please feel free to explain everything like I am a child :P

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

EDIT: Also, if you go intel, go for the i5. Hyperthreading is not needed for gaming and it's cheaper. If you want the rig now, get the 3570k, if you can wait, get the haswell (if I remember this name right) chip coming out this summer.  I can't make that many recommendations for AMD as I haven't done tons of research on them.

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

soolkiki

[QUOTE="soolkiki"]

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

jennycakes215

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"][QUOTE="soolkiki"]

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

soolkiki

[QUOTE="soolkiki"]

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"]If I do choose AMD, should I go for the 4 core or the 8 core? My friend told me that 8 core aren't really used much but as i learned from my time building this thing, the internet knows more :Djennycakes215

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"][QUOTE="soolkiki"]4 cores is what is generally used. Games like Crysis 3 are starting to use more cores, but that is rare. the i5 is quad and it runs thinks like a champ. :) Most of your performance will rely on your GPU. What are your specs now anyway?

soolkiki

[QUOTE="soolkiki"]

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"]I bought a HD Radeon 7970, 8GB GDDR3 of Ram, a 1TB HDD, and I'm choosing the Motherboard and processor right now. should I go for 8 core to be more future proof since I'm saving money not buying intel?jennycakes215

I have the FX-8350 and it does fantastic at games, but it smokes my friends 3570k in everything non-gaming.

I have the FX-8350 and it does fantastic at games, but it smokes my friends 3570k in everything non-gaming.

GummiRaccoon

[QUOTE="soolkiki"]

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"]I bought a HD Radeon 7970, 8GB GDDR3 of Ram, a 1TB HDD, and I'm choosing the Motherboard and processor right now. should I go for 8 core to be more future proof since I'm saving money not buying intel?jennycakes215

I have an 8 core and id rather have a 2600k

I'm actually about to upgrade my FX 4100 to a FX 8350. With the next gen console's specs being revealed, 8 core is definitely the future.

amd is great and you can save some money.

Look at Tom's CPU Performance Charts: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/benchmarks,140.html

Look at Tom's CPU Performance Charts: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/benchmarks,140.html

Blistrax

404

[QUOTE="soolkiki"]

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"]I bought a HD Radeon 7970, 8GB GDDR3 of Ram, a 1TB HDD, and I'm choosing the Motherboard and processor right now. should I go for 8 core to be more future proof since I'm saving money not buying intel?jennycakes215

[QUOTE="Blistrax"]

Look at Tom's CPU Performance Charts: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/benchmarks,140.html

osirisx3

404

Right. This editor breaks the link. Cut and paste the whole thing into the address bar.

Thank you everyone for your help. I already ordered the 8 core :D 

Thank you everyone for your help. I already ordered the 8 core :D 

jennycakes215

Thank you everyone for your help. I already ordered the 8 core :D 

jennycakes215

 [edit]

gratz! i think you made the right choice.

:)

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"]

Thank you everyone for your help. I already ordered the 8 core :D 

GioVela2010

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="jennycakes215"]

Thank you everyone for your help. I already ordered the 8 core :D 

C_Rule

More hyperbole from an australian, what a shocker.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Another good reason for AMD is because you will be able to upgrade the CPU in 2-3 years without having to upgrade the mobo. Intels "tick tock" strategy is annoying GummiRaccoon

More hyperbole from an australian, what a shocker.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Motherboards supporting future chips isn't as enticing as it sounds when there's nothing worth upgrading to. AMD's per core performance hasn't changed much since '09, with their only improvement being more cores (which may be beneficial now that next gen console/s are using 8 core chips).C_Rule

More hyperbole from an australian, what a shocker.

I'm not trolling, extreme exageration seems to be a common trait among australians.

Is every movie you watch "The best movie ever" or "The worst movie ever"?

[QUOTE="soolkiki"]

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

jennycakes215

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"][QUOTE="soolkiki"]

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

Maverick6575

[QUOTE="jennycakes215"][QUOTE="soolkiki"]

You can't go wrong with either. The general agreement around here is that AMD is good for gaming, but intel does it just a little bit better. The difference isn't all that huge, though. 

Maverick6575

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

More hyperbole from an australian, what a shocker.

GummiRaccoon

I'm not trolling, extreme exageration seems to be a common trait among australians.

Is every movie you watch "The best movie ever" or "The worst movie ever"?

LOL, aside from the fact that the AMD cpus generally suck, im surprised people are recommending it when they were recommending intel for the past who knows how long.  But when the new consoles come out, AMD should definitely perform better in games.  Right now its not like their cpus are unusable or anything,for the most part they're fine but when using a cpu intensive game like starcraft 2 is when you will see the difference between intel and AMD.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Another pointless post from one of our resident trolls, what a shocker.blaznwiipspman1

I'm not trolling, extreme exageration seems to be a common trait among australians.

Is every movie you watch "The best movie ever" or "The worst movie ever"?

LOL, aside from the fact that the AMD cpus generally suck, im surprised people are recommending it when they were recommending intel for the past who knows how long.  But when the new consoles come out, AMD should definitely perform better in games.  Right now its not like their cpus are unusable or anything,for the most part they're fine but when using a cpu intensive game like starcraft 2 is when you will see the difference between intel and AMD.

Starcraft 2 isn't "CPU intensive" there is a bug they discovered during WoL beta with quad core support and they didn't fix the bug but just got rid of the support.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Another pointless post from one of our resident trolls, what a shocker.blaznwiipspman1

I'm not trolling, extreme exageration seems to be a common trait among australians.

Is every movie you watch "The best movie ever" or "The worst movie ever"?

LOL, aside from the fact that the AMD cpus generally suck, im surprised people are recommending it when they were recommending intel for the past who knows how long.  But when the new consoles come out, AMD should definitely perform better in games.  Right now its not like their cpus are unusable or anything,for the most part they're fine but when using a cpu intensive game like starcraft 2 is when you will see the difference between intel and AMD.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I'm not trolling, extreme exageration seems to be a common trait among australians.

 

Is every movie you watch "The best movie ever" or "The worst movie ever"?

GummiRaccoon

LOL, aside from the fact that the AMD cpus generally suck, im surprised people are recommending it when they were recommending intel for the past who knows how long.  But when the new consoles come out, AMD should definitely perform better in games.  Right now its not like their cpus are unusable or anything,for the most part they're fine but when using a cpu intensive game like starcraft 2 is when you will see the difference between intel and AMD.

Starcraft 2 isn't "CPU intensive" there is a bug they discovered during WoL beta with quad core support and they didn't fix the bug but just got rid of the support.

whatever the reason, the fact remains that starcraft 2 and other RTS games perform better, much better (the difference between playable and unplayable) on intel cpus than AMD cpus

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

 

LOL, aside from the fact that the AMD cpus generally suck, im surprised people are recommending it when they were recommending intel for the past who knows how long.  But when the new consoles come out, AMD should definitely perform better in games.  Right now its not like their cpus are unusable or anything,for the most part they're fine but when using a cpu intensive game like starcraft 2 is when you will see the difference between intel and AMD.

blaznwiipspman1

Starcraft 2 isn't "CPU intensive" there is a bug they discovered during WoL beta with quad core support and they didn't fix the bug but just got rid of the support.

whatever the reason, the fact remains that starcraft 2 and other RTS games perform better, much better (the difference between playable and unplayable) on intel cpus than AMD cpus

Except there is never any point on my 8350 that SC2 is unplayable.  So I don't see how you can make that claim.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Starcraft 2 isn't "CPU intensive" there is a bug they discovered during WoL beta with quad core support and they didn't fix the bug but just got rid of the support.

GummiRaccoon

whatever the reason, the fact remains that starcraft 2 and other RTS games perform better, much better (the difference between playable and unplayable) on intel cpus than AMD cpus

Except there is never any point on my 8350 that SC2 is unplayable.  So I don't see how you can make that claim.

well I owned a phenom II 955 BE at one point and starcraft 2 to me was unplayable in 3v3 and 4v4 maps.  Constant 40fps, and dips ranging from 15-25 fps when the action got too heavy.  A phenom II 955 is pretty much the same as an fx- 8350 clock for clock.  A core i5 750, 2500k and 3770k are much better.  I have yet to see my 3770k dip below 30fps in sc2.  I don't think its dipped below 35 either, I will have to check.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"] 

whatever the reason, the fact remains that starcraft 2 and other RTS games perform better, much better (the difference between playable and unplayable) on intel cpus than AMD cpus

blaznwiipspman1

Except there is never any point on my 8350 that SC2 is unplayable.  So I don't see how you can make that claim.

well I owned a phenom II 955 BE at one point and starcraft 2 to me was unplayable in 3v3 and 4v4 maps.  Constant 40fps, and dips ranging from 15-25 fps when the action got too heavy.  A phenom II 955 is pretty much the same as an fx- 8350 clock for clock.  A core i5 750, 2500k and 3770k are much better.  I have yet to see my 3770k dip below 30fps in sc2.  I don't think its dipped below 35 either, I will have to check.

Having gone from a 4 Ghz 955 to a 4Ghz 8350 I can tell you this is incorrect.

I built a PC last fall.

Did a survey and intel was better all around.

AMD wasn't able to keep up with the efficiency per core, so instead they just did the brute-force method of packing more cores on a chip.

Only problem with that is it results in lots of power draw and heat. 

You don't need 8 cores anyways unless you're doing complex scientific calculations. I'd bet that you'd run into hard disk issues before you jammed up a 2 or 4 core CPU.

So even a low-end core i3 was out-performing like the mid-range highish ended AMD FX 8-core CPU's. It also consumed like half the power and produced much less heat.

Pretty much a no-brainer. Intel is better than AMD by a significant margin. 

I built a PC last fall.

Did a survey and intel was better all around.

AMD wasn't able to keep up with the efficiency per core, so instead they just did the brute-force method of packing more cores on a chip.

Only problem with that is it results in lots of power draw and heat. 

You don't need 8 cores anyways unless you're doing complex scientific calculations. I'd bet that you'd run into hard disk issues before you jammed up a 2 or 4 core CPU.

So even a low-end core i3 was out-performing like the mid-range highish ended AMD FX 8-core CPU's. It also consumed like half the power and produced much less heat.

Pretty much a no-brainer. Intel is better than AMD by a significant margin. 

taiwwa

I built a PC last fall.

Did a survey and intel was better all around.

AMD wasn't able to keep up with the efficiency per core, so instead they just did the brute-force method of packing more cores on a chip.

Only problem with that is it results in lots of power draw and heat. 

You don't need 8 cores anyways unless you're doing complex scientific calculations. I'd bet that you'd run into hard disk issues before you jammed up a 2 or 4 core CPU.

So even a low-end core i3 was out-performing like the mid-range highish ended AMD FX 8-core CPU's. It also consumed like half the power and produced much less heat.

Pretty much a no-brainer. Intel is better than AMD by a significant margin. 

taiwwa

You literally peppered your post with evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about and then made a claim like you are some expert or something.

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

I built a PC last fall.

Did a survey and intel was better all around.

AMD wasn't able to keep up with the efficiency per core, so instead they just did the brute-force method of packing more cores on a chip.

Only problem with that is it results in lots of power draw and heat. 

You don't need 8 cores anyways unless you're doing complex scientific calculations. I'd bet that you'd run into hard disk issues before you jammed up a 2 or 4 core CPU.

So even a low-end core i3 was out-performing like the mid-range highish ended AMD FX 8-core CPU's. It also consumed like half the power and produced much less heat.

Pretty much a no-brainer. Intel is better than AMD by a significant margin. 

GummiRaccoon

You literally peppered your post with evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about and then made a claim like you are some expert or something.

Woah, are you angry about their low share price or something?

It's been a while. I don't keep up with this stuff all the time if I don't need to. But...this article was one I relied on

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-9.html

showed the core i3 outperforming the fx4100 by around 15% in Starcraft 2. Also, the fx4100's power draw is 95w while the sandy i3 is 65w. And...AMD motherboards were on a whole more expensive when I last shopped. 

The only game that benefits from more than 2 cores was GTA4, and that was because it was optimized on an xbox 360 which has 3 cores. 

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

I built a PC last fall.

Did a survey and intel was better all around.

AMD wasn't able to keep up with the efficiency per core, so instead they just did the brute-force method of packing more cores on a chip.

Only problem with that is it results in lots of power draw and heat. 

You don't need 8 cores anyways unless you're doing complex scientific calculations. I'd bet that you'd run into hard disk issues before you jammed up a 2 or 4 core CPU.

So even a low-end core i3 was out-performing like the mid-range highish ended AMD FX 8-core CPU's. It also consumed like half the power and produced much less heat.

Pretty much a no-brainer. Intel is better than AMD by a significant margin. 

taiwwa

You literally peppered your post with evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about and then made a claim like you are some expert or something.

Woah, are you angry about their low share price or something?

It's been a while. I don't keep up with this stuff all the time if I don't need to. But...this article was one I relied on

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-9.html

showed the core i3 outperforming the fx4100 by around 15% in Starcraft 2. Also, the fx4100's power draw is 95w while the sandy i3 is 65w. And...AMD motherboards were on a whole more expensive when I last shopped. 

The only game that benefits from more than 2 cores was GTA4, and that was because it was optimized on an xbox 360 which has 3 cores. 

Can we all just agree that you have no clue what you are talking about?  Reading one article from one of the worst review sites on the net does not make you an expert.

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

You literally peppered your post with evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about and then made a claim like you are some expert or something.

GummiRaccoon

Woah, are you angry about their low share price or something?

It's been a while. I don't keep up with this stuff all the time if I don't need to. But...this article was one I relied on

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-9.html

showed the core i3 outperforming the fx4100 by around 15% in Starcraft 2. Also, the fx4100's power draw is 95w while the sandy i3 is 65w. And...AMD motherboards were on a whole more expensive when I last shopped. 

The only game that benefits from more than 2 cores was GTA4, and that was because it was optimized on an xbox 360 which has 3 cores. 

Can we all just agree that you have no clue what you are talking about?  Reading one article from one of the worst review sites on the net does not make you an expert.

The only time I'd recommend AMD CPU's would be if you wanted to do like some water-cooled ITX build with an overclocked AMD Trinity Fusion chip, and the case didn't have room for a video card. 

Even then, the AMD APU's don't make much sense because you can get similar performance just by getting like a dual core Intel celeron G-series and a discrete card for less heat and power.