• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD vs Intel

No one denies Intel could be cheaper.

But it's hard to say it's "overpriced" as it's impossible to get a product that offers the same exact performance in all situations from AMD.
But I do agree the i5 would be utterly pointless over the FX8320 with the 5870 (As well, I said go for the FX8320 route)

Keep classy though people.
 
Last edited:
If I was advising my closest friend or a member of my family I'd say get an i5 Ivy or Haswell with the expectation of a future upgrade of your gfx card. The AMD's are obviously very cheap and good value, but it lacks many things the the Intel does well.


But if you really cant afford an Intel in your budget then AMD is the only alternative.

AMD PRO's

Cost per frame AMD may be better value
Purchase cost very low to start with.

INTEL Pro's

Energy per frame (In Most Games) Intel Slaughters AMD
Cpu performance per clock Intel destroys AMD in most Games
Lower TDP
PciE3
Better IPC
Most games run better or faster on Intel

INTEL Con's

100 pound more expensive
 
dmferrett said:
If I was advising my closest friend or a member of my family ...

AMD PRO's

Cost per frame AMD may be better value
Purchase cost very low to start with.

INTEL Pro's

Energy per frame (In Most Games) Intel Slaughters AMD
Cpu performance per clock Intel destroys AMD in most Games
Lower TDP
PciE3
Better IPC
Most games run better or faster on Intel

INTEL Con's

100 pound more expensive
Click to expand...

All subjective if you are overclocking. Energy consumption will be skewed. Beside if I was recommending the average 'family' person a system that probably watches the tube, facebook, twitter, browses, plays the odd game, types a document or prints and boarding pass an i5/i7/FX83 is going to be overkill.
 
dmferrett said:
If you factor in the board to run the i5 verse an AMD 8350 and board it is around 100 smackers or there abouts.
Click to expand...

It's not, a Z87 board comes in at 80 quid, and you need that level board to run the FX8320 comfortably and overclock at least anyway.

There's about 50-60 pound difference in favor to the FX8320.

20-30 with an FX8350.
 
The last budget board I used was a £70 z68 that took all of 2 weeks to destroy my 2500k. Whatever platform you go on, don't cheap out on mobos as you can easily regret a bad one.

You're probably more likely to have positive feelings about the i5 out-of-the-box, as it's raw single threaded performance crunches through most games. The fx, on the other hand, does need to be overclocked to deliver.

If £20-30 is fine to push up for FX->i5, maybe consider the i7? Retail chips can be had for £240 at a lot of etailers. I'd take an FX over an i5, but it's hard to deny the i7 is the best (if you're not very price sensitive).
 
I don't think anyone has questioned the i7 for performance if you can afford one - it's what to get. The general tittle-tattle has been when i5's have been pushed as being superior to FX83's where in some cases that is not accurate.

Whilst motherboard prices overall effect the comparisons between the chips, sometimes people are skewing this for the sake of their bias. As with the above post, I never scrimp out on a motherboard - just like you wouldn't with a PSU.

Get what you can afford or are willing to part with. What you use the system for makes just as much difference.
 
EdgeDs said:
I would find it hard to recomend an i5 just Seems that 4 threads may not be enough in the very near future
Click to expand...

+1

The i5 should be priced where the top end i3 is, i7 8 thread where the i5 is and 12 thread i7 where the 8 thread is.
 
EdgeDs said:
I would find it hard to recomend an i5 just Seems that 4 threads may not be enough in the very near future
Click to expand...

The strength of the i5's cores compensates for the lack of them.. it's true that at stock the i5 might be a bit slower in optimal (for AMD that is) multithreading conditions but in MOST situations the i5 will still be faster, especially when overclocked.

EdgeDs said:
The general tittle-tattle has been when i5's have been pushed as being superior to FX83's where in some cases that is not accurate.
Click to expand...

That's because in most (not some) cases it is and Intel i5 carries a lot of other advantages (GPU/TDP/modern motherboards etc).
 
mmj_uk said:
That's because in most (not some) cases it is and Intel i5 carries a lot of other advantages (GPU/TDP/modern motherboards etc).
Click to expand...

Let's generate the full picture here. Software that has been compiled with intel compilers has inferior performance on AMD/VIA processors. This is sometimes referred to as biased CPU dispatching or intel's "cripple AMD" function.

If you chose an optimised compiler or AMD's own compiler then the results would not be as you say at all. Where software can take advantage of the FX properly you will see that it surpasses the i5 no problem and even gives the i7 a run for it's money.

When you start accepting some of the transparencies out there you can understand that for it's price with applied 'fair' tests/benchmarks then it is not as poor a performer as people are making out.
 
Th0nt said:
Let's generate the full picture here. Software that has been compiled with intel compilers has inferior performance on AMD/VIA processors. This is sometimes referred to as biased CPU dispatching or intel's "cripple AMD" function.

If you chose an optimised compiler or AMD's own compiler then the results would not be as you say at all. Where software can take advantage of the FX properly you will see that it surpasses the i5 no problem and even gives the i7 a run for it's money.

When you start accepting some of the transparencies out there you can understand that for it's price with applied 'fair' tests/benchmarks then it is not as poor a performer as people are making out.
Click to expand...

I understand all the above and maybe Mantle will liberate AMD from Microsoft's DX and Intels compilers, but we are not there just yet.

Maybe in the future with better IPC/Energy efficiency and Architectural improvements that day will come, but AMD have gone on record saying that its not releasing anything new next year to "bring it" with regard to competing with Intel.

There is also the fact that 8320's and 8350's are also very easily bottlenecked in sli/crossfire. I've seen many people change back over to Intel from AMD 8*** series because they dont perform well when used with 2x7970's, 2x680's etc.

I really hope AMD do release hardward to thrash Intel because the i7's are vastly overpriced, and I say this with specific cpu usage and performance in mind over my i5. I can be quoted but it looks like a 15% reduction at best in BF4 with an i7 over and i5 which doesn't sit well with the fact the i7 cost 40-50% more but offers only 15% less cpu utilisation. (FPS is also within 1fps clock per clock)

The only situation i would buy an i7 currently is if I bottlenecked my i5 in multigpu usage which at 4.7Ghz on my ivy doesn't. (It does bottleneck at 4.5Ghz).

Most benchmarking review site's put the i5 ahead of the 8350 in gaming. Even in BF4 the i5 is faster (than an 8350) and BF4 can use 12 threads on a Sandy Bridge e. So currently you cant get a game to my knowledge that is more multithreaded than BF4. (Happy to find another though). It takes a 5.0Ghz 8350 to compete with a 3.4Ghz i5 if my memory serves me correctly. (Not sure wether reviewer used turbo and speed step up to 3.9Ghz).
 
Last edited:
dmferrett said:
Most benchmarking review site's put the i5 ahead of the 8350 in gaming. Even in BF4 the i5 is faster (than an 8350) and BF4 can use 12 threads on a Sandy Bridge e. So currently you cant get a game to my knowledge that is more multithreaded than BF4. (Happy to find another though). It takes a 5.0Ghz 8350 to compete with a 3.4Ghz i5 if my memory serves me correctly. (Not sure wether reviewer used turbo and speed step up to 3.9Ghz).
Click to expand...

I have heard this too. I'm not sure a 5Ghz FX83 is the same as an i5 at 3.4 except for specific instances where my previous post would apply (or it just is not a multi-core supportive application).

There are so far a small handful of lads on this forum that own both systems and real world experience has been positive. Until an apples to apples comparison is shown that everyone will recognise this wont be put to bed for a while.

I still maintain the i5 is not hammering the fx83's as much as people are making out. Still I am open to seeing some decent data to support ones arguments.
 
Someone get. 50£ £100 150 200 300 500 pick 2 amd 2 intel cpu and compare...

Got8350 myself sad to see ,8 core s be wasted by.intels and gone all amd. Amd always used. to be the best... back in 3000+ days and dualcore... intel seemed to takeover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom