AMD vs Intel

[Veta]

At this critical time in the gaming world many gamers are gathering their money and getting ready for NEXT GEN so am I .

It's still a bit early but might as well ask it from now.

 

Pretty simple question really which one has better CPU's , AMD or INTEL ? I am on a pretty intermediate level when it come to hardware , you give me one to assemble I can do it in less than 60 second , but when it comes to Herz and I am at a loss .( I am guessing the more it has the better )

 

The reason I pose this questions is because I see AMD's products with more cores and more herz yet Intel's are more expensive , why is that ? 

 

 

Examples

 

AMD FX 6100 Six Core 6x3,3GHz

 

4.4GHz AMD FX 4170 Quad Core Bulldozer Processor

 

Both are cheaper than

 

INTEL i7 3770k 3rd Generation Quad Core 4x3,5GHz

 

[windpl]

Intel is always overpriced.

 

Best way to find out what to buy is to check benchmark tests.

I run quick search but didn't hit a score, but I didn't dig to deep.

 

About Amd and Intel.

 

AMD is always cheaper alternative to intel in most of cases it is just a bit slower than Intel but sometimes it beats crap of intel (anyone remember p4 and amd64?)

 

If you don't mind wasting money go for Intel if not, you need to make research and look for amd alternative.

[reae]

Let's say that so far AMD was good at making better clones of 386/486 and they had two super ideas with Athlon XP (1700+ in times of p3 900) and Athlon64 and then...their luck run out. Athlons x2 were good, but first phenom (and it's not working cache) wasn't. Phenom II was and remains even more solid, but when it appeared older i7 were blowing it out of water and were cheaper. Now good, old Phenom II 965 is weak, when compared to sb/ib i5, but dirt cheap. Since then, there is no content: if one has cash, intel is the way to go. One exception: AMD is right choice for heavy multicore applications, like media converting and so on.

 

Oh, Hertz and cores...Bulldozers (and whatever their newer versions are named) don't have true cores. It's bit, like intels HT, my i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 virtual, that are run, when these true have not-so-heavy task and some ooomph left. Now AMD has not full cores as well. In short, my i7 is only teeny weeny bit faster, than same generation, same clock i5 with 4 real cores and no virtual. Same for AMD.

Now Hertz...they are nice to have, but important is, what comes from them. Long, long time ago, Pentium 4 run at...2000 MHz, but Athlon XP, which run on that speed was equivalent of P4 2800 or 3200, depending on AXP series and it's cache (Throughbred had 256kb of L2 chache, Barton, faster one, 512kb). Even funnier it was, when they compared Sempron to Celeron, as Sempron was AXP of lower grade (in times of Barton, Throughbred was in Sempron), and magically my AXP 2800+ became Sempron 3200+, sometimes more.

Now, my i7 may have average clock speed now, some AMD are running way faster, but thread to thread i7 packs more punch.

Part of that problem lies in acquisition of ATI, thus forcing AMD to compete with two strong opponents.

Oh, I have i7 2400, had Athlon XP 2400+ Same numbers, different experience. Both gave me wonderfull time.

[Veta]

So if it were up to these three  1 , 2 , 3 . which one would you guys recommend ?

[formel]

Of these three i would recomand you nr. 2

Resaons:

-It has a quadqore where each single core is stronger then at the six core cpus. For Gaming the power of the individual core is more  important than thier number. Most games today can't even utilise that many cores. That may change with the new consol generation but now they can't. So for a gaming PC i would always choose a quadcore because of the power I get from it and it's cheaper. (Expect you do a lot of video rendering or similar waht needs a lot processing power than a six core is the better choise)

-Option Nr. 3 has only a GTX560 Ti. This is still a good card (I my self use it but I build my PC for 1 1/2 years). I would tend to a newer model beccause graphics is the most importend element for gaming.

Downside from Nr. 2 is it has only an AMD Bulldozer a Intel i5 would the better choice and is has this games bundle where not evident is how it influnces the prise (200 £ is not worth it anymore).

 

Honestly I'am not that excited from any of these offerings. I would advise you to build one by yourself then you can choose the components and usually get a better price performance ratio.

[Veta]

The third one has a GeForce GTX660 not a 560 or so it say on the description , as for building one myself , where I live only the CPU will cost me 300 £ maybe even more and that much for each different part .

 

 

 

 

Edit: Not to worry anyway since I wont be getting anything until the new consoles are released .

[formel]

Ah in the details there is, the thick fat headline states 560.

 

300 £ for a CPU?! Madness! You don't life in the area of influence of amazon.uk? There you get an i5 3.30GHz for 172 £ (what is sitll quite expensive compared to the 180€ i found in my region but not on amazon).

 

Yeah to wait untill the new consols and see how harware requierments change may be the best way.

[R0R0N0]

I don't really see anyone here in LL requiring a cpu for heavy computation except for gaming and/or video rendering etc. I just go with whichever one is less of a hassle to work with and at this point, it's intel. My bro has a 2 year old amd which is still rocking hard so I know that both are upto par with one another.

 

If i was short on money, I would ofcourse go with amd all the way.

[Rayblue]

Been using Intels for years until last year, I went about assembling a 60% AMD tower on a budget (Athlon X2 260 processor and an HD4670 video card, but the ASRock chipset is nVidia) for two reasons: heat dissipation and economy.

 

The last rig I had was a Pentium 4 2.4Ghz that produced insane amounts of heat even at idle, and despite best efforts to cool it down.

[Veta]

You can play used games on PS4 and probably you will be able to on the next xbox as well or the CEO of Gamespot wouldn't have come out to say "The world is going to stand up take notice when microsoft reveals their next console "

[RitualClarity]

Nobody mentioned the requirement of building a computer. The parts must match. Not necessary the processor socket and such but the capabilities of each. The graphic card must match the spec of the board. PCI express 16 3.0 card slot should get a 3.0 graphic card. The processor needs to be as powerful enough to handle the data processing required while the motherboard must be able to handle the data transference to the rest of the components. Memory has to be at least the speed of the bus. etc. Try to not make bottle necks.

 

Those that are using outdated boards and put in an extremely powerful graphics card are bottle-necking their card. To many times I see people get a cheap 50-60 dollar motherboard and 100 dollar processor and dump a 900 dollar graphic card. Sure it will perform well with graphic. But not as well as a properly matched set of hardware. To many bottle necks. Nowadays it isn't as much of a problem as it was in the past but still something to consider. Same thing happens when you slap a current mid or upper level gfx card in a 1, 2 or 3 generation old computer.

 

AMD is just fine. However the last time I read about them they didn't support the new 3.0 PCI express in the chip set. 3.0 is the new standard. Any equipment even decent mid range gfx cards will be using 3.0 now and going forward. Therefore If that hasn't changed I would go Intel if I was building today.

 

A simple i5 motherboard, (mid range with needed USB etc so forth and so on) a 2500 and a GTX 660 or above with a 128 or better SSD. Add a 750 or so power-supply with 4 pci express power adapters for now and future upgrades. and finally 1 or 2 terabyte hard drive for storage of music etc needed.

Should satisfy a basic game build. An x79 chipset motherboard mid range i7 processor and a GTX 680 or better with a 256 - 512 SSD for a stronger computer/gaming station. Don't forget to get a 1000 watt quality power supply with 4 pci express with as many 8 pin power connectors as possible. the z79 chip set can run 2 x16 graphic cards for SLI without downgrading to x8. Don't really need that power unless you are running some insaine (above 1080p) resolutions or an extremely large screen (multiple screens) etc.

 

 

 

[lollol]

Nobody mentioned the requirement of building a computer. The parts must match. Not necessary the processor socket and such but the capabilities of each. The graphic card must match the spec of the board. PCI express 16 3.0 card slot should get a 3.0 graphic card. The processor needs to be as powerful enough to handle the data processing required while the motherboard must be able to handle the data transference to the rest of the components. Memory has to be at least the speed of the bus. etc. Try to not make bottle necks.

 

Those that are using outdated boards and put in an extremely powerful graphics card are bottle-necking their card. To many times I see people get a cheap 50-60 dollar motherboard and 100 dollar processor and dump a 900 dollar graphic card. Sure it will perform well with graphic. But not as well as a properly matched set of hardware. To many bottle necks. Nowadays it isn't as much of a problem as it was in the past but still something to consider. Same thing happens when you slap a current mid or upper level gfx card in a 1, 2 or 3 generation old computer.

 

AMD is just fine. However the last time I read about them they didn't support the new 3.0 PCI express in the chip set. 3.0 is the new standard. Any equipment even decent mid range gfx cards will be using 3.0 now and going forward. Therefore If that hasn't changed I would go Intel if I was building today.

 

A simple i5 motherboard, (mid range with needed USB etc so forth and so on) a 2500 and a GTX 660 or above with a 128 or better SSD. Add a 750 or so power-supply with 4 pci express power adapters for now and future upgrades. and finally 1 or 2 terabyte hard drive for storage of music etc needed.

Should satisfy a basic game build. An x79 chipset motherboard mid range i7 processor and a GTX 680 or better with a 256 - 512 SSD for a stronger computer/gaming station. Don't forget to get a 1000 watt quality power supply with 4 pci express with as many 8 pin power connectors as possible. the z79 chip set can run 2 x16 graphic cards for SLI without downgrading to x8. Don't really need that power unless you are running some insaine (above 1080p) resolutions or an extremely large screen (multiple screens) etc.

 

I was thinking of getting a custom build a desktop PC possibly in 1-2 years and starting to generally plan what I'll get. I might delay it further and just buy a PS4 if it is impractical to build a better then PS4 PC for about $1500(from sites like Newegg, NCIX on a boxing day or black friday sale) not including monitor. What are good examples of a motherboard and solid state drive to go with something like Nvidia GTX Titan and how do you get them to match well to maximize performance? I'd like to eventually run nextgen games with ENB and even higher resolution texture packs. I'm going to choose parts out now for now but will replace with future versions if it's a better deal. I'm considering Nvidia GTX Titan 6GB if the price has gone down and there isn't a better deal later on, wanting a ton of vram to use tons of mods on games like Witcher 3, Fallout 4, TES VI. Also a very good SSD to reduce loading time.  I might do like some of my friends have done and get a 40-50 inch flatscreen hd tv on sale on black Friday or boxing day and use that with with the PC. So far with PC/laptops I've had are always intel but I might switch because PS4 uses an AMD processor. A lot of info about xbox 720 doesn't look good, like it locking if you're offline more then 3 minutes, no used games, really weird subscription based $300 version. If it turns out to be true I'm never getting a 720 next generation. I think PS4 will be the lead console next gen and this might give developers a bias towards AMD rather then Intel  games ported from PS4 to PC run significantly better since it would be go through the development process being dev'd and tested on an AMD processor. I've always had Intel and believed they're better but I'm concerned that may not be the case anymore next gen

[RitualClarity]

 

Nobody mentioned the requirement of building a computer. The parts must match. Not necessary the processor socket and such but the capabilities of each. The graphic card must match the spec of the board. PCI express 16 3.0 card slot should get a 3.0 graphic card. The processor needs to be as powerful enough to handle the data processing required while the motherboard must be able to handle the data transference to the rest of the components. Memory has to be at least the speed of the bus. etc. Try to not make bottle necks.

 

Those that are using outdated boards and put in an extremely powerful graphics card are bottle-necking their card. To many times I see people get a cheap 50-60 dollar motherboard and 100 dollar processor and dump a 900 dollar graphic card. Sure it will perform well with graphic. But not as well as a properly matched set of hardware. To many bottle necks. Nowadays it isn't as much of a problem as it was in the past but still something to consider. Same thing happens when you slap a current mid or upper level gfx card in a 1, 2 or 3 generation old computer.

 

AMD is just fine. However the last time I read about them they didn't support the new 3.0 PCI express in the chip set. 3.0 is the new standard. Any equipment even decent mid range gfx cards will be using 3.0 now and going forward. Therefore If that hasn't changed I would go Intel if I was building today.

 

A simple i5 motherboard, (mid range with needed USB etc so forth and so on) a 2500 and a GTX 660 or above with a 128 or better SSD. Add a 750 or so power-supply with 4 pci express power adapters for now and future upgrades. and finally 1 or 2 terabyte hard drive for storage of music etc needed.

Should satisfy a basic game build. An x79 chipset motherboard mid range i7 processor and a GTX 680 or better with a 256 - 512 SSD for a stronger computer/gaming station. Don't forget to get a 1000 watt quality power supply with 4 pci express with as many 8 pin power connectors as possible. the z79 chip set can run 2 x16 graphic cards for SLI without downgrading to x8. Don't really need that power unless you are running some insaine (above 1080p) resolutions or an extremely large screen (multiple screens) etc.

 

I was thinking of getting a custom build a desktop PC possibly in 1-2 years and starting to generally plan what I'll get. I might delay it further and just buy a PS4 if it is impractical to build a better then PS4 PC for about $1500(from sites like Newegg, NCIX on a boxing day or black friday sale) not including monitor. What are good examples of a motherboard and solid state drive to go with something like Nvidia GTX Titan and how do you get them to match well to maximize performance? I'd like to eventually run nextgen games with ENB and even higher resolution texture packs. I'm going to choose parts out now for now but will replace with future versions if it's a better deal. I'm considering Nvidia GTX Titan 6GB if the price has gone down and there isn't a better deal later on, wanting a ton of vram to use tons of mods on games like Witcher 3, Fallout 4, TES VI. Also a very good SSD to reduce loading time.  I might do like some of my friends have done and get a 40-50 inch flatscreen hd tv on sale on black Friday or boxing day and use that with with the PC. So far with PC/laptops I've had are always intel but I might switch because PS4 uses an AMD processor. A lot of info about xbox 720 doesn't look good, like it locking if you're offline more then 3 minutes, no used games, really weird subscription based $300 version. If it turns out to be true I'm never getting a 720 next generation. I think PS4 will be the lead console next gen and this might give developers a bias towards AMD rather then Intel  games ported from PS4 to PC run significantly better since it would be go through the development process being dev'd and tested on an AMD processor. I've always had Intel and believed they're better but I'm concerned that may not be the case anymore next gen

Tech changes as time goes by. Two years ago I couldn't anticipate the equipment that would be best for the current time that is without throwing lots of money at it. Save some money. You have already a great start on what you need to begin with. You know what you want to do, just a matter of putting it all in one place.

[Rayblue]

Trying to build a simple, everyday PC for average people is okay, but when it comes to assembling a gaming rig, even for me with extensive technical experience I personally find it overwhelming. Overwhelming in a sense that I have to keep abreast of new hardware developments, make price and performance comparisons within a limited budget, pay attention to compatibility, make sure that the PSU isn't underpowered and that all components complement each other.

[LolGG]

You basically need to ask yourself whether you will use hyperthreading or not.

 

 

Me?I had (and still have) an intel 2 quad core,if I were to replace it,I would go for an AMD,since they are similar in a core aspect to what I have (I never got to see hyperthreading in action with great benefits to performance).

 

 

I am more interested in how amds compare to intels on laptops.

[Astaroth-Lite]

>hyperthreading

 

No, no, no. It has always been about Blast Processing.

[Veta]

Kind of a similar question as before , if it were up to these two cpu's  Intel vs AMD which one would you choose/is better

[RitualClarity]

Kind of a similar question as before , if it were up to these two cpu's  Intel vs AMD which one would you choose/is better

 

They both are good. It depends as much on the associated hardware as it does the processor itself. It is also important to consider what is going to be done with the processors as well.

 

Currently I would be leaning to the Intel. This is comming from someone that has an 8150 right now on a 990fx mobo.

 

 

It was, and still a great processor currently. It handles almost anything I give it. Except Mass Effect 1

 

Apparently there is a bug that doesn't like my processor.

 

This is only because as I move forward in tech any replacement graphic card will be PCI express 3.0. The current AMD processors and boards don't support 3.0. I will increase and continue to increase the bottleneck of the GFX cards now and more so in the future. So upgrades become less and less viable and less effective.

 

I most likely wouldn't even need an i7 processor, an i5 processor on a very good board and paired with a nice SSD most likely will match all my needs. If something needs more power I can let it process and go get something to eat while I wait. Nothing mission critical. (process video files, rip DVD's etc.) Only an i7 if I was going to get a x79 chip-set for full x16 SLI use.

 

Hope that helps.

[Spell]

Well..

[Caturday]

Having played 2 very CPU intense games in the past and having to hear a lot of people having FPS problems with it that mostly come from the AMD side, Id say go for an Intel.

 

If you have the money that is.

 

AMD CPU's still have the best value per dollar ratio, but Intel holds the flame in terms of performance.

[RitualClarity]

Well..

Like I said. There is some degradation. Not that you have to upgrade to newer system just to run graphics that are coming out, just that if you plan to upgrade why not use the system with the least resistance?

[deathparade]

It isn't just the output of GHz its putting out AMD cores use actual physical cores which programs seems to like more than intel's "fake" cores

Got a AMD FX-6100 and works GREAT! probably dont need anymore since the highest end game that is coming out soon (Metro Last Light) doesn't even require this!

[Rayblue]

 

Got a AMD FX-6100 and works GREAT! probably dont need anymore since the highest end game that is coming out soon (Metro Last Light) doesn't even require this!

 

I'm a little confused here: that's a high end processor and then you don't need it?

[deathparade]

Not one game requires 3,3 GHz... is what ment