Torn between AMD or Intel

WuMyster · 14 May 2013 at 16:08

Haswell probably won't even make much of a difference for the OP. Simple OC will level out the speed/clock anyway.

~>Dg<~ · 14 May 2013 at 16:25

yeah hassle is going to be nomans land.

old gamer · 14 May 2013 at 19:52

I was in the same boat, i fancied a 8350 and 990fx board but all the reviews put me off and ended up getting a 3770k which im well pleased with

JCX50 · 14 May 2013 at 20:31

Sin_Chase said:
Intel.

Unless you are budgeting for a very low cost build AMD are just not worth it.

+1

wozzizname · 14 May 2013 at 21:30

I've just changed from the i7 920 I've had for years to an AMD 8350 with an Asus Sabertooth mb and Samsung green RAM - my frame rates have gone up, and everything is running really smoothly.

For an upgrade price of about £350 I'm very happy - I know everyone says go Intel, but I've no regrets with the current setup and can upgrade using the existing MB when the new AMD chips come out.

Unless you care about benchmarking more than playing games and doing work I doubt you'd be disappointed with an 8350 or 8320.

subbytna · 14 May 2013 at 21:38

With a GTX570 would I see much difference in gaming, between a 8320 @ 4.5 and a i5 Ivybridge @ 4.4?

sorry for thread hijack OP....I'm pondering similar change to you too.

subbytna · 15 May 2013 at 08:09

Having dug a bit deeper it seems that the AMD 8 core offering is merely 4 dual cores on one chip, which doesn't play out that well in games. Looks like the intel route for me too...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8350.html

This might be a useful read for OP

Parabellum · 15 May 2013 at 08:17

Intel every time... you won't regret it.

squarehead94 · 15 May 2013 at 10:43

Intel tends to be more expensive for a reason. they perform better, they are better. they can charge what they like really, but to be honest, especially in the i5 area (mid-high end of the market) they are very competitively priced. the 2500k (now 3570k) are renowned for how good they are, and how well they clock.
Budget is the only reason anyone should consider AMD, other than specific things like programs more suited to AMD setups.

solado · 15 May 2013 at 11:12

subbytna said:
With a GTX570 would I see much difference in gaming, between a 8320 @ 4.5 and a i5 Ivybridge @ 4.4?

sorry for thread hijack OP....I'm pondering similar change to you too.

No you would not see a difference with your eyes or gameplay experience. These CPU's are overkill for gaming as you can game on an i3 or Bulldozer chip perfectly fine and not really feel the FPS difference in game.

On topic.
Intel are faster, No one doubt's that. Benchmarks are in intel's favor in gaming.
AMD are cheaper, Price to performance ratio goes to AMD (imo). If your on a budget then AMD is the way to go.

ubersonic · 15 May 2013 at 11:34

solado said:
No you would not see a difference with your eyes or gameplay experience. These CPU's are overkill for gaming as you can game on an i3 or Bulldozer chip perfectly fine and not really feel the FPS difference in game.

Depends on the game really, 8 cores is all good but clock for clock AMD are almost 5 years behind Intel in raw per core performance and if the game can't use the extra cores then you can get a noticeable improvement with an i5 over an FX-8 due to the raw power (admittedly this is the fault of the games code not the CPU ofc).

sastusbulbas · 17 May 2013 at 18:56

We seem to see a lot of quoted benchmarks putting Intel ahead at every point, but most of them seem to be irrelevant or even barely noticeable when used by the average user with no interest in benchmarks or reviews?

Makes it hard to decide just how important and how big those benched figures really are I guess. One thing I do think, Intel overpriced their CPU's due to market trends they created. And they seem keen to give us what they want, not what we ask for.

Everyone is waiting for a claimed 10% improvement with Haswell and many initial purchasers will be buying new hardware within months of release as improved hardware with better benchies gets reviewed, and we are all getting integrated graphics whether we want them or not, and NO no more than 4 cores unless you have more money for Sandy that is still equaled in many benchies by the 3770K. If you want 8 cores, Xeon only platinum credits cards only please!

Sometimes I really do wish AMD was offering more than impressive paper stats! The spec and cost of an AMD FX 8350 Black Edition with an Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z does look enticing, especially with NO ON BOARD GPU GUFF! But when you read the online reviews you feel dirty and ashamed for even considering it! Do many buyers even admit owning it?

Is this really that poor in comparison to Intels offerings for gaming and work?

WuMyster · 17 May 2013 at 19:12

solado said:
No you would not see a difference with your eyes or gameplay experience. These CPU's are overkill for gaming as you can game on an i3 or Bulldozer chip perfectly fine and not really feel the FPS difference in game.

On topic.
Intel are faster, No one doubt's that. Benchmarks are in intel's favor in gaming.
AMD are cheaper, Price to performance ratio goes to AMD (imo). If your on a budget then AMD is the way to go.

Ridiculous. A 3570k is definitely not overkill. An i3 will have trouble running crisis 3.

djshauny1 · 17 May 2013 at 19:19

wozzizname said:
I've just changed from the i7 920 I've had for years to an AMD 8350 with an Asus Sabertooth mb and Samsung green RAM - my frame rates have gone up, and everything is running really smoothly.

For an upgrade price of about £350 I'm very happy - I know everyone says go Intel, but I've no regrets with the current setup and can upgrade using the existing MB when the new AMD chips come out.

Unless you care about benchmarking more than playing games and doing work I doubt you'd be disappointed with an 8350 or 8320.

sastusbulbas · 18 May 2013 at 15:38

WuMyster said:
Ridiculous. A 3570k is definitely not overkill. An i3 will have trouble running crisis 3.

Why? And at what settings?

My old E8500 along with the 7950 had me up all night playing Crysis 3 at medium + settings with no glitches? I certainly could get better frame rates and higher settings with a better set up. But I doubt a 3570K is the bare minimum you need. An i3 3220 or FX6300 is perfectly adequate for most average users gaming needs on single monitors at 1080p.

I still have doubts about all the negative views on AMD. For the price of an Intel 3770K processor alone you can pick up an FX-8 Eight Core 8320, Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0, and 8GB of 1866Mhz ram for goodness sake! That is a considerable saving.
And yet both CPU's will rarely if ever see their maximum potential in average UK users homes. A good number of Sandybridge users will have probably bought them for work that the FX 8320would have been acceptable for too!

WuMyster · 18 May 2013 at 16:06

Not sure how you pulled that off cause I got a max of 40fps with a 7950 @ 1GHz and a Q9450.
I don't recall anyone giving the AMD negatives. Everyone just prefers Intel. Don't you find it weird that the 4 core is better than the 8 core in almost everything? Goes to show the architecture.
Everyone here will agree that the price/performance is great as well.

V F · 18 May 2013 at 16:50

sastusbulbas said:
Why? And at what settings?

My old E8500 along with the 7950 had me up all night playing Crysis 3 at medium + settings with no glitches? I certainly could get better frame rates and higher settings with a better set up. But I doubt a 3570K is the bare minimum you need. An i3 3220 or FX6300 is perfectly adequate for most average users gaming needs on single monitors at 1080p.

I still have doubts about all the negative views on AMD. For the price of an Intel 3770K processor alone you can pick up an FX-8 Eight Core 8320, Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0, and 8GB of 1866Mhz ram for goodness sake! That is a considerable saving.
And yet both CPU's will rarely if ever see their maximum potential in average UK users homes. A good number of Sandybridge users will have probably bought them for work that the FX 8320would have been acceptable for too!

Heh, so many posts on this forum and some are already in a way dissing 2500k processors and all the obsolete talk of sockets like it's going to self destruct with all the discussions of Haswell. zOMG I'm left behind!