Intel or AMD for gaming pc.

Gimpymoo said:
Neither as both 1150 and AM3+ are "dead sockets".

Now is a poor time to be building a new rig if you want to "futureproof".

I like to get at least one CPU change from a new system but I badly needed a new rig so after MUCH consideration (It was actually a hard choice) I went with an i7 4770K simply because I could not wait.

Yes, I have a "dead" socket BUT, 12/18 months is a long time for any new processors/sockets so will just wait and see. That is initial launch as well so taking into account the special offer "Early adopter" prices, it is probably nearer 2 years before I would consider upgrading anyway.

Build a rig around it strengths suited to what you need it for and try not to let the "fanboyism" attitudes you read online sway you. Sounds obvious, but many do not do this.

An AM3+ rig right now with an extra ton towards a graphics card is worth serious consideration.

Everyone is miffed as to where PC gaming is going at the moment so there is no "smart choices" to be made as such.

Will Mantle make a difference, will the next gen consoles have an effect on PC games being better threaded? Will AMD's dominance of the console hardware play to their advantage in the PC sector? Nobody knows.
Click to expand...

What would you build then mate?

AMD with best graphics card I can afford?

Surely a Eight-Core will be more futureproof.

I currently have a AMD Phenom 9500 which must be 6 years old and it runs bf4 on about 20fps.

The reason I got this 6 years ago because it was quad for the same price as Intel Dual... I'm seriously tempted by AMD, but then people come along and say the I7 4770k overclocks are much better etc.

I have literally been debating what to do for weeks!It's going to be after christmas now anyway so I will be looking what's in the sales etc!
 
I think I may be late to reply I apologise, as i've probably not read everything.

But if you look at things more open mindedly (that goes for everyone else who's saying amd because... and intel because....) you will see that no matter what option you choose you WILL have a good gaming rig that will most definitely perform in the years to come.

Don't be swayed from you initial decision and your amd temptation. I have both an i5 haswell system and an 8350 system. I use them both for gaming and work etc. There is not a godly difference between the two, they are both amazing performers. The intel is great, its more expensive whereas my amd is quite a bit cheaper but once again its great!

A lengthy post yeah but the bottom line is if you are tempted by AMD then by all means go for the 8350, get a decent cooler you have your gpu already planned just sort out the rest and you are good to go. Yes currently amd will not be developing on the FX/am3+ but that does not mean you will be losing out on anything big. 8350 systems are brilliant, so are i5 and i7.

########## p.s. the amd system is in my sig its too big to include both my systems. This system in my sig is what I use for bf4, crysis 3, far cry...you name it i'll max it. (maybe not max on crysis 3 graphics settings ;) that game is hardcore )
 
ussie said:
I think I may be late to reply I apologise, as i've probably not read everything.

But if you look at things more open mindedly (that goes for everyone else who's saying amd because... and intel because....) you will see that no matter what option you choose you WILL have a good gaming rig that will most definitely perform in the years to come.

Don't be swayed from you initial decision and your amd temptation. I have both an i5 haswell system and an 8350 system. I use them both for gaming and work etc. There is not a godly difference between the two, they are both amazing performers. The intel is great, its more expensive whereas my amd is quite a bit cheaper but once again its great!

A lengthy post yeah but the bottom line is if you are tempted by AMD then by all means go for the 8350, get a decent cooler you have your gpu already planned just sort out the rest and you are good to go. Yes currently amd will not be developing on the FX/am3+ but that does not mean you will be losing out on anything big. 8350 systems are brilliant, so are i5 and i7.

########## p.s. the amd system is in my sig its too big to include both my systems. This system in my sig is what I use for bf4, crysis 3, far cry...you name it i'll max it. (maybe not max on crysis 3 graphics settings ;) that game is hardcore )
Click to expand...

Well with an AMD I'd also be able to go for a 290X?

I'll only be using my comp for gaming so fingers crossed the eight core will be future proof :(
 
FX8350 and a 290X?
You'd get better results with 4670K and a 290 except from a very select selection of games (Like literally BF4/Crysis and maybe one or two more)
 
HEIS3NB3RG said:
What would you build then mate?

AMD with best graphics card I can afford?

Surely a Eight-Core will be more futureproof.

I currently have a AMD Phenom 9500 which must be 6 years old and it runs bf4 on about 20fps.

The reason I got this 6 years ago because it was quad for the same price as Intel Dual... I'm seriously tempted by AMD, but then people come along and say the I7 4770k overclocks are much better etc.

I have literally been debating what to do for weeks!It's going to be after christmas now anyway so I will be looking what's in the sales etc!
Click to expand...

I was in the same boat back then as well.

Everyone was raving about the dual core Conroes but I went with the newer AM3 socket and got myself a 720BE Tri core and I have to say, the fact it was DDR3 helped it last a long time. I then got a 4 core Phenom II after a few years which made it last even longer, overall, a great socket.

Nobody knows the direction the industry is going in.

If you could guarantee that developers will start properly multi threading their games so games will use all 8 cores, then an 8 core will be great... HOWEVER, that is not on the cards for the time being and by the time it does, a much better architecture will be available. Developers can barely use 2 cores at the moment. The i7's offer improved single thread performance over the latest AMD's.

The i7's have 4 cores but they do utilise hyperthreading which kind of splits each core into 2 so 4 cores, 8 threads.

AMD's Mantle is in the air but again, not all the questions have been answered.

I play Arma 3 a lot at the moment and will be for the foreseeable future so as long as I can play that game well, I am happy. At this time, the i7's offer the best performance in that game when tied to an equal VGA card.

My point being, look at what games you play NOW and build a rig around maximising the enjoyment of the games you play and needs you have NOW and not worry about what you might be playing or predicting where the industry is headed.

If that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Gimpymoo said:
Nobody knows the direction the industry is going in.
Click to expand...

consoles started to use dual core and so did pc's,
consoles started to use quad core and so did pc's
new consoles just started to use 8 core's and the new pc games are already asking for 6 core is a minimum requirement....

I cant see into the future but if i was a betting man i would say within 12-18months intel will have a main stream 6/8 core CPU. I also dont think it will be long till AMD push past 8 cores for main stream.
 
With the way games are going currently, I'd say more cores is of preference. Consoles are now 8 core so you won't go far wrong with an 8 core machine.

Personally I'd say an i7 would be better than an 8320 but thats personal opinion on the oldest debate on the forum.
 
Steveocee said:
With the way games are going currently, I'd say more cores is of preference. Consoles are now 8 core so you won't go far wrong with an 8 core machine.

Personally I'd say an i7 would be better than an 8320 but thats personal opinion on the oldest debate on the forum.
Click to expand...

The i7 does not have 8 cores though.

In a well optimised game, 8 cores will trump 8 threads, I think?

I have just built a 4770K rig. My aim was to build a rig which ran Arma 3 well, and for that purpose, I have the best rig I could. If not for Arma 3, I think I may have gone the AMD route.

Saying that, the hyper threading can be VERY efficient, sometimes more so than the 8 cores on the 8350.
 
Last edited:
Gimpymoo said:
The i7 does not have 8 cores though.

In a well optimised game, 8 cores will trump 8 threads, I think?

.
Click to expand...

Technically neither does the 83*0? As they are 4 cores and 4 virtual cores, I believe?
Which is kinda the same as the I7 with hyperthreading?
So it should get the same boost with mantle?
I know I saw a FPS chart for BF4 and the 4770k beat them.
I think whichever one you choose you will be happy with as its an upgrade from what you have.
In BF4 my 7970 bottlenecks my 4670k.
 
HEIS3NB3RG said:
Well with an AMD I'd also be able to go for a 290X?

I'll only be using my comp for gaming so fingers crossed the eight core will be future proof :(
Click to expand...

Sorry for late respons. Been busy, Going for 290 is great and so is 780. I Imo think its better to get a 290 as it's allot cheaper and overclockable to a 290x level or more it'. Also the price to performance king Imo. Sapphire toxic and direct CU version reviews have been released aswell!

Also your choice is great. You won't be disappointed with it
 
ussie said:
Sorry for late respons. Been busy, Going for 290 is great and so is 780. I Imo think its better to get a 290 as it's allot cheaper and overclockable to a 290x level or more it'. Also the price to performance king Imo. Sapphire toxic and direct CU version reviews have been released aswell!

Also your choice is great. You won't be disappointed with it
Click to expand...


By getting one of the custom cooled 290s that are just starting to enter the market, how easy will I be able to overclock?

I've never done it before but I'm probably quite capable of doing it with some guidance, is it a simple case of click this click that? Or is it ratios of voltages etc?

I was planning on investing in one of the best graphics cards now to probably add another in sli/crossfire in around a years or so time!

Thanks
 
In my opinion, im sure many others will agree. Overclocking graphics cards are easier and much simpler than doing overclocks on a cpu.

Why because we have software that aid us for this! for example ASUS gpu tweak which I use on my matrix platinum 7970. What I did first is google and research the overclocks people obtain with this graphics card and take note of temperatures, volts, settings etc.

Based on what I take note of I get a rough guidline as to what will be an easy target and what will be harder (considering my card wont perform as someone elses you got to be abit open minded) Then just attack the card with settings and test it with each one. The thing is im new to overclocking cpu's and gpu's i've only done it for a year now but i'd say im comfortable to overclock them now but I still prefer seeing what overclocks other people get as it helps the base of my tests.

For example in your case you are asking about a 290 custom cooled. So by that I've seen reviews and results from the Sapphire toxic 290 and the asus direct CU 290. I would look at their results and overclock frequency/settings and roughly work around that target (again there is no guarantee it'll be similar) but it's nice to have a realistic target right?

I may have gone off track and someone may decide to straighten up the facts in my post as i'm no pro to be asking. But yeah.. I hope this helps xD
 
You're right, GPU overclocking is very easy. With a program like EVGA Precision it is literally a case of moving two sliders up until it starts artefacting in benchmarks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom