Does it matter?

Catsick · 4 May 2015 at 15:51

To a casual gamer, does it really matter whether it's Intel or AMD?
Have noticed there are some really good AMD chips out now alongside the Intel ones, but last I had was a 2ghz Amd dual core one although forgotten it's name now!

Armageus · 4 May 2015 at 15:55

Probably not - Not sure about AMD, but you could pretty much pick any Intel chip I3 or above, and gaming performance would be fine for most casual gaming.

As long as you have a reasonable clock speed, and the ability to run 4 threads at once, it is more than enough.

Catsick · 4 May 2015 at 16:01

i3 is only dual core though isn't it. Even though it does have 4 threads they aren't physical ones, so the chip is duplicating itself and doing more work than an i5 or i7 which have those 4 cores or am I totally wrong? lol

David Bisset · 4 May 2015 at 16:08

i3 is dual-core but hyperthreading does more than just pretend to the OS that there are 4 threads. Yes, not as good as a 'true' quad core but still much better than e.g. a pentium.

A decent i3 is good enough in most mainstream scenarios (i3-4170 would be what I'd pick right now if shopping in this price range)

AMD options like the 6300 are fine too for most uses, though I'd probably look to clock them up a bit (given they're all unlocked and stock clocks are a bit conservative). Plenty of people only see the manufacturer and go all hissy though

Armageus · 4 May 2015 at 16:10

Catsick said:
i3 is only dual core though isn't it. Even though it does have 4 threads they aren't physical ones, so the chip is duplicating itself and doing more work than an i5 or i7 which have those 4 cores or am I totally wrong? lol

Not totally wrong - I3's physically have 2 cores, however depending on what they are doing - bits of the Processor are left doing nothing, Hyperthreading makes these idle bits appear as 2 More virtual cores, which can then be used to run 2 more threads. You don't get the performance of 2 more full cores, but do get around 10-20% more performance overall.

The reason for suggesting an I3, is that games are now just starting to make use of more than 2 threads (certain games won't run unless they detect a processor that can execute 3 or more threads).

Martini1991 · 4 May 2015 at 16:16

For casual gaming, an FX6300's probably your best bet really.

Catsick · 4 May 2015 at 16:26

So how do the Piledrivers fare against the current i7?

Admetos · 4 May 2015 at 21:28

Hyper-threading gives anything from -5% to +50% extra performance. Typically most threaded software gains around 25% extra.

Any reduction in performance is rare today, as most modern compilers are Hyper-threading aware. One application was Microsoft SQL Server, it was the versions before 2005 that performed worse with Hyper-threading and MS recommended hyper-threading be disabled, however this has long been resolved.

gpuerrilla · 4 May 2015 at 22:01

Piledrivers do not compare against the current i7's. They are in a completely different price bracket for that reason. If you want to run VM and tinker or do some light gaming they are a great price.

If you have the money then just go with an i7 and be done with it.

implosiveturnip · 4 May 2015 at 22:18

Martini1991 said:
For casual gaming, an FX6300's probably your best bet really.

Great budget gaming chip right there, and it clocks pretty well too.

kaku · 4 May 2015 at 22:25

If it's choppy/stuttery and you can't play your games properly then maybe it does.

Otherwise, if people are happy their computer does what they want it to do who cares what's inside?

Randall8686 · 4 May 2015 at 22:53

Catsick said:
So how do the Piledrivers fare against the current i7?

In simple terms they dont, a current i7 is streets ahead of any piledriver. but they are very different price brackets. I have built a few AMD machines of late, using amd 8370 and 9370 and tbh been quite disappointed with them 4.4ghz 8 core sounds fantastic on paper. However it was not.

Im not an intel fan boy far from it. I used to be well into my AMD processors back when the athlon xp was offering great value/performance. however unfortunately they kinda suck compared to intel at the moment, I i say unfortunately as it just means intel prices stay high (they have no serious competition) and they dont push their own products as hard or as fast as they could as they can just maximise profit on the current range for a lot longer.

I would if your budget allows go intel all day long. However AMD offer some great budget CPU's for those not wishing to spend as much cash on a cpu.

However imo they at this moment in time do not compare. However i hope this changes so that intel have to become more competitive.

gpuerrilla · 4 May 2015 at 22:55

Too many howevers Randall.

I do not disagree though, if you were to go with an FX you would buy the 8320E and clock it as far as you can. People buying into the special binned models above this are wasting their money.

bru · 4 May 2015 at 23:17

Th0nt said:
People buying into the special binned models above this are wasting their money.

Only if you are willing to overclock, if your not willing to overclock then suddenly a 3820E at only 3.2 GHz kinda sucks, £30 for an extra 800 MHz that the 8350 gives you doesn't seem so bad all of a sudden.

kaku · 5 May 2015 at 01:01

Why would you buy an AMD processor and not be willing to overclock though?

It's literally the exact same chips with a price premium slapped on top. It's not even as if you could get away with a lower spec'd motherboard by buying the more expensive processors.

ALXAndy · 5 May 2015 at 01:55

bru said:
Only if you are willing to overclock, if your not willing to overclock then suddenly a 3820E at only 3.2 GHz kinda sucks, £30 for an extra 800 MHz that the 8350 gives you doesn't seem so bad all of a sudden.

Last time I checked this place was called Overclockers.

I must admit that so far I've been pretty much gobsmacked at the gaming prowess of the Pentium I have.

I wouldn't quite stoop so low for my actual gaming rig but in the same breath I would say that it's totally pointless spending a small fortune on a CPU.

I'd much rather have a mid range CPU and high end GPU than a high end CPU and mid range GPU.

Threepwood · 5 May 2015 at 02:21

ALXAndy said:
I must admit that so far I've been pretty much gobsmacked at the gaming prowess of the Pentium I have.

Bazinga!

It's a great chip, and a great platform for future CPU upgrading.

Did you get a second one to test what folk were on about with it? I seem to remember you had a poor clocking one to start with when you first tried it? Or did you overcome a frequency wall with your old?

Poneros · 5 May 2015 at 02:28

What does casual gaming mean for you?

bru · 5 May 2015 at 03:09

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that overclocking isn't a good idea, but saying that anyone who buys a binned chip is wasting their money is just wrong. Think of it this way anyone buying one of the factory overclocked GPU's from either side is wasting their money, you want to take that argument into the graphics card forum and see how well you get on.

There is a place for higher speed chips, if there wasn't neither AMD or Intel would sell them.

Randall8686 · 5 May 2015 at 08:23

Th0nt said:
Too many howevers Randall.

I do not disagree though, if you were to go with an FX you would buy the 8320E and clock it as far as you can. People buying into the special binned models above this are wasting their money.

Thats the thing with AMD though, the only reason you would go the amd route is budget. I do hope they change this soon and turn the market upside down and shake it up a bit. But in all honesty i dont ever see the 4790k beeing a bottle neck for a while unless running quad titan at 4k