What is Best CPU , AMD FX-8??? versus INTEL i5 i7 range. For Gaming. Comparison's

[Samantha1968]

How does the INTEL processor compare to AMD in GENERAL.



(1. Oldest question in the book: No real definite answer only personal views by users - which is what i need to here)

(Also each CPU has different graphics capabilities and also memory communication and control capabilities/utilities)



2. Is there a recommended benchmark/review website that takes into account overclocking capabilities.

now i been trying to purchase a new gaming rig on a Smaller than i would like budget and the processors make's a big difference.



3. So do i go for a intel i5 4690k stock 3.5ghz - unknown full o/c capability

(which i would like to know and what MB you used with it to obtain that O/C value ??)

OR

4. Is there a cheaper AMD CPU that would be equal too or better in CPU capabilities including overclocking capabilities.

4.a. Also how do the two different CPU's INTEL AND AMD effect the graphics card capabilities. Integrated HD 4600 Graphics / ?? / EG. , Other AMD or INTEL Specific item.

AMD Radeon™ RAMDisk , AMD Radeon™ Solid State Drives (SSD) , AMD Radeon™ Memory, max memory speeds and how it communicates with memory


4.b. Is CPU shared memory a Advantage/disadvantage and built in CPU graphics Controller, what possible bottleneck of GPU problems may occur with AMD or with INTEL , are there any particular graphics advantages with AMD or INTEL,what integrated graphics capabilities and effects on installed cards are there using AMD or INTEL. GEFORCE for INTEL and RADEON for AMD

4.c Also AMD have a range of there own memory and utilities. Does this help or does intel have similar advantages.

i looked at AMD FX-8350 4.0Ghz stock , 4 x 2 logical core - 8 core. that shows on a single benchmarks website that its faster than a Intel i5 4690K , 3.5Ghz stock, 4 cores.

However it also states that the AMD could only be overclocked by 0.2 Ghz and the INTEL by 0.4 Ghz. Not much of a improvement on either and sure that more can be obtained.

As i got 0.5 Ghz out of a old INTEL DUEL CORE E6700 3.2Ghz (Stock) got it to 3.7Ghz no special alterations just manual change of FSB. And a slightly better than stock fan a arctic cooler non stock.

If You use any of these CPU's Please advise O/C Capabilities..


5. what have you found to be the best stable Ghz on each of these two CPU's.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-540-IN INTEL CPU :£199.99

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-336-AM AMD CPU :£149.99

 

[Qitarah]

Ar the ol' classic 8320/8350 (8350 is just a factory overclocked 8320) vs the i5.

in general multi threaded applications the processors are quite similar depending on the task. When it comes down to single/duel threads the i5 is usually a clear winner. The i5 requires less Power to run as well.

Z97 Motherboards will come with some newer fancier things for the Intel camp.

As for overclocking it's a lottery. You may get lucky, you may not, the i5 will sit at a minimum of 3.9ghz (turbo speed). As for anything above that, is just anyone's guess.

Although the 8320/50 aren't bad. I personally couldn't recommend them over a 4690k. Especially for gaming.

My advise? Get the i5 and a gigabyte/asus/msi z97 mobo. Great platform to game on.

 

[snips86x]

What's your total budget?

 

[cheesyboy]

What's your total budget?

This ^ really.

The i7 and i5 CPUs are better for gaming, but only really if you have a good enough GPU - you won't generally see the difference on lower spec GPUs.Also, if buying an i5 leaves you with a budget of, say, £100 for a GPU, then switching to a FX-8 and putting the extra £70 or so toward a decent GPU would give you a better gaming machine.

 

[P0tenc]

The i7 and i5 CPUs are better for gaming, but only really if you have a good enough GPU - you won't generally see the difference on lower spec GPUs.Also, if buying an i5 leaves you with a budget of, say, £100 for a GPU, then switching to a FX-8 and putting the extra £70 or so toward a decent GPU would give you a better gaming machine.

Well said.

Speaking as someone who has had both AMD and Intel CPUs recently and in the past (I am no fan boy) I can say it very much depends on budget. The goal should always be a balanced system with one eye on the future for possible upgrades.

2. Overclocking the i5/7 processors are relatively easy, you WILL need a decent cooler which costs money. AMD processors can also be overclocked but I have had more issues with this. Over 4GHZ in both camps should be a given. How far is not easy to say, and really depends on your overclocking skills, cooling and silicon lottery. Recently both my i5's (2500k and 4690k) do 4.6Ghz. My older FX-6100 did 4.4Ghz.

3. With recent intel chips a lot of the VRMs have moved to the CPU so the mainboard is less of a factor. Check out the linus video on youtube about recent mainboard comparisons. Also a decent overclock on modern motherboards can be had with simple auto settings.

4. There is unfortunately no AMD cpu that is equal or better than intel unless you are comparing a cheap intel cpu to an expensive AMD one. There is always a compromise on the AMD side at the moment, hence the lower prices.

4.a If you want an AMD APU(integrated gfx) then these are better at graphical tasks such as games. If you are planning on using the intel HD4600 graphics in the intel chip for gaming then I would say the AMD APU will provide a better gaming experience. Both are pretty bad though and should not be considered for gaming. Both rely heavilly on fast ram 2400Mhz to get the best out of the integrated graphics because they use system ram. Bottom line...integrated graphics, don't do it. Unless you only play at low resolution and low settings.

4.b Sharing system ram with a integrated graphics unit is a comprimise for lower cost.
Don't think I completely understand your question. If you are wondering if there are any issue using Nvidia on intel or AMD platform then NO. If you are wondering if any issue using AMD GFX on intel or AMD platform...no issue. Choose any graphics card you want, they work equally well on both brand of CPU.

4.c It's just branding and utilities that are available to intel platforms too. If you have 16GB of ram then you can use 4GB for cache, but this eats some CPU cycles. Personally just don't use it, get a SSD and don't worry about disk caching or fancy branded AMD memory. Instead get the cheapest fastest ram you can find and use that.

I thnk you are confusing overclocking with turbo boost here. 3.9Ghz is the turbo boost function of the i5 4690K and you can overclock it higher. If you are looking in to which CPU overclocks better then there are no hard fast promises. Both can overclock, how far you can go will depend on your PSU, Mainboard, Cooling and skill. The 8 core AMD CPU will need more power, so keep that in mind when shopping for a PSU. There are PSU calculators online which can even take into account overclocking values to determine the predicted wattage required.

5 4690K 4.6Ghz on mine, I have good cooling and good overclocking skill. Auto overclocking shoould get you 4.2 to 4.4Ghz.
Can't comment on the AMD chip as I have not had that model yet.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Without declaring your budget there are countless 'gaming' builds you could consider. If you have a list of games you currently play (steam account for example) or ones you are wanting to play that would also be nice.

 

[mmj_uk]

i5 and i7 are faster in the majority of cases particularly when overclocked from their relatively conservative stock clockspeeds, AMD FX proponents will point to a narrow band of software (ie. encoding) or GPU bottlenecked games where the FX doesn't get smashed to argue that the FX is better but they're being selective because FX loses out in so many other cases.

Worst case i5/i7 performance (ie. GPU bottlenecked games) you match AMD FX performance, worst case FX performance (ie. software that has few threads of which there are lots) you get less than i3 level performance.

i5/i7 = consistently fast performance no matter what software.
AMD FX = performance can vary wildly from impressive to embarrassing.

 

[Threepwood]

I N T E L !

 

[pastymuncher]

The problem with that is that Intel are extremely poor value for money at the moment with the OEM 4690k costing £188 and the retail costing a ridiculous £200 and they are the cheapest k series cpu's. Z97 boards are also creeping up in price now.

 

[humbug]

This ^ really.

The i7 and i5 CPUs are better for gaming, but only really if you have a good enough GPU - you won't generally see the difference on lower spec GPUs.Also, if buying an i5 leaves you with a budget of, say, £100 for a GPU, then switching to a FX-8 and putting the extra £70 or so toward a decent GPU would give you a better gaming machine.

This, spend the price difference on a better GPU.

Forget about the FX-8350, this is the one you want, they are a newer bin, better and much cheaper.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=cp-383-am&groupid=701&catid=1967&subcat=1825

i5 and i7 are faster in the majority of cases particularly when overclocked from their relatively conservative stock clockspeeds, amd fx proponents will point to a narrow band of software (ie. encoding) or gpu bottlenecked games where the fx doesn't get smashed to argue that the fx is better but they're being selective because fx loses out in so many other cases.

worst case i5/i7 performance (ie. gpu bottlenecked games) you match amd fx performance, worst case fx performance (ie. software that has few threads of which there are lots) you get less than i3 level performance.

i5/i7 = consistently fast performance no matter what software.
amd fx = performance can vary wildly from impressive to embarrassing.

that ^^^ is hyperbole nonsense, modern games and applications they sit between an i5 and an i7.

its only really out of date applications and games like planet side 2 where intel have a significant performance advantage.

 

[Boomstick777]

No contest, Intel ftw.

Intel offer better performance VS price at every single level atm, motherboards with upgrade possibility's.

Z97 mobo's are dirt cheap and i3 / i5 / Xeon CPU's are dirt cheap for the performance they give.

Consider AMD again next year if they deliver with Zen. Until then it's Intel.

 

[gpuerrilla]

i5 and i7 are faster in the majority of cases particularly when overclocked from their relatively conservative stock clockspeeds, AMD FX proponents will point to a narrow band of software (ie. encoding) or GPU bottlenecked games where the FX doesn't get smashed to argue that the FX is better but they're being selective because FX loses out in so many other cases.

By reading many of this persons posts I would not absorb any of his information. Well summed up by:

That ^^^ is Hyperbole nonsense.

The problem with that is that Intel are extremely poor value for money at the moment with the OEM 4690k costing £188 and the retail costing a ridiculous £200 and they are the cheapest k series cpu's. Z97 boards are also creeping up in price now.

If the poster (or any other buyers) is coming in with a low budget then the FX8320E should not be discounted through snobbery or bad follow the sheep advice. These days it is far more important to have a good GPU as any spare cash will be way down the line.

Again. What it your budget OP, and what is your idea of 'gaming'?

If you play BF4, are interested in running VM's or well developed software that uses available cores properly then intel is not your only option! If you have a large budget then well its intel all the way with an i7.

 

[Martini1991]

The problem with that is that Intel are extremely poor value for money at the moment with the OEM 4690k costing £188 and the retail costing a ridiculous £200 and they are the cheapest k series cpu's. Z97 boards are also creeping up in price now.

This.

The 4690K is at an eye watering price, it's taking the biscuit.

The i5 K's have always been on the wrong side of 150 pound for me (Well, the 2500K was pretty good at launch, but it got worse later on), but closer to 200 it's a joke.

And "LOL" at Humbugs obvious purchase justification with blanket statements which aren't true (And doing exactly as MMJ said you would). But it's not like I expect any different. I can see his AMD PJ's from here.

MMJ, as harsh as it may be, is speaking truly factual talk (Because he's taken the personal out of it, and he also called you on your move Humbug). Dying Light is a modern game, and the CPU benchmarks are embarrassing for AMD relative to performance by others. That is one example obviously (And I'm obviously cherry picking), but it shows that you can't just throw a blanket statement in the mix. MMJ is completely justified in his post, performance goes from impressive (Because it *can* be, especially for the price) to embarrassing depending on situation (Embarrassing because of the factors of what CPU's it falls short against).

As it stands, there's no AMD CPU on the planet that will give you like for like performance with an i5 4690K, other factors aside. People can fanboy either side as much as they feel they need to (I really don't care) but that's just a fact.

Also, framerates aren't the be all and end all. You know, like how we're told when Mantle becomes the topic of conversation (I like Mantle, as far as the performance goes, to me that's all the matters)? What the API does isn't just to frame rate, it affects performance in a game similar to how a better CPU would in a game. But of course I expect that to be ignored.

 

[humbug]

This.

The 4690K is at an eye watering price, it's taking the biscuit.

The i5 K's have always been on the wrong side of 150 pound for me (Well, the 2500K was pretty good at launch, but it got worse later on), but closer to 200 it's a joke.

And "LOL" at Humbugs obvious purchase justification with blanket statements which aren't true. But it's not like I expect any different. I can see his AMD PJ's from here.

MMJ, as harsh as it may be, is speaking truly factual talk (Because he's taken the personal out of it, and he also called you on your move Humbug). Dying Light is a modern game, and the CPU benchmarks are embarrassing for AMD relative to performance by others. That is one example obviously (And I'm obviously cherry picking), but it shows that you can't just throw a blanket statement in the mix. MMJ is completely justified in his post, performance goes from impressive (Because it *can* be, especially for the price) to embarrassing depending on situation (Embarrassing because of the factors of what CPU's it falls short against).

As it stands, there's no AMD CPU on the planet that will give you like for like performance with an i5 4690K, other factors aside. People can fanboy either side as much as they feel they need to (I really don't care) but that's just a fact.

Always the one going for personal attacks, i think you have issues Martini.

Dying Light is a modern game, and the CPU benchmarks are embarrassing for AMD relative to performance by others

Nothing wrong with this performance.

 

[Martini1991]

Pray tell Humbug, why'd you change the site you're using for benchmarks to showcase me Dying Light?

Oh yeah, I know.

You'll cherry pick and cherry pick, so there's no point playing graph wars. I'll be the first to admit that Dying Light isn't the norm as far as games on 2015 go (And 2013/2014 for that matter, but there's the odd one here or there).

End of the day, pretend what you will, no AMD CPU is factually as good in games as an i5 4690K is on the whole (Which doesn't make the FX83 bad, far from)

 

[humbug]

Pray tell Humbug, why'd you change the site you're using for benchmarks to showcase me Dying Light?

Oh yeah, I know.

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...Test_GPU-Action-Dying_Light-test-dl__proz.jpg

The game had a CPU threading problem that's been fixed, GameGPU obviously did that before the fix.

 

[Martini1991]

The game had a CPU threading problem that's been fixed, GameGPU obviously did that before the fix.

Fair enough.

It's no longer embarrassing.
It was embarrassing though.

Doesn't make what MMJ said any less true though (Nor does it make you right, you're still not right. Factually an FX can and does go from i5/i7 performance to i3 performance depending on the situation, that's not hyperbolic nonsense, that's just called cutting the crap.). In fact, all it shows is how little I care about Dying Light

I'll change my cherry picked benchmark then to FarCry 4 from Techspot then

 

[Dave2150]

I5 is by far the better option for gaming.

 

[humbug]

I5 is by far the better option for gaming.

He doesn't have an infinite amount of money

£90 worth of extra GPU grunt and an FX-8320E is by far the better option.

 

[Martini1991]

He doesn't have an infinite amount of money

£90 worth of extra GPU grunt and an FX-8320E is by far the better option.

Unless I'm mistaken, a budget has never been mentioned in this thread.

Also, by your logic, none of us should ever but anything more than an FX8320E ever (Because hey, none of us have infinite budget)

Hell, lets just not get higher end GPU's either for that extra performance.

Lets all sit on 1080p too while we're at it.

You could be correct however for this case, than an FX8320E and better GPU would be the objectively best option to take. But again, from what I see, you've just derped and went "AMD FTW!" despite the topic at hand.