Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

AMD VS Intel, CPU, GPU & MB suggestions

2456711

Comments

  • Cramit845Cramit845 Member UncommonPosts: 395

       Thanks for all the ideas guys.  So far started doing a build on newegg to see how a build around the i5-4690k would look.  Doing well so far, will break $500 barely with everything but a GPU, which I think is pretty good.  Still gonna try doing a i7 build and a AMD build to see what they all would look like.  This is a purchase that won't happen till end of December or end of January so I still have time to make a good decision.  Will definitely check out those AMD suggestions above, but if anyone has any other ones to compare please link them.

     

       Would love to do "all new" but upgrading is really my only option I have.  Unfortunately I will probably have to keep my current case, which is only like 2 years old at most, so it should be sufficient.  Not to mention, I already have some old pcs laying around still, don't need another lol.   

  • syntax42syntax42 Member UncommonPosts: 1,378

    Christmas sales are the best time to buy anything.  Retailers pay tax on items they have in inventory at the end of the year, so their goal is to have as little as possible.  This means they can take a loss on the purchase price of a product and still be better off than if they had not sold the item and paid a tax on it.  After the end of the year, the sales are gone.

    PCPartPicker.com is a good site for getting the absolute best deals if you're looking to spend as little as possible.  If you want to buy from fewer sites for convenience, Amazon is usually competitive with Newegg's pricing and if you already have Prime you can save on shipping costs over Newegg.

  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,086

    I would avoid AMD CPUs right now for a simple reason. Their non-IGP chipsets have not been modified in 3.5 years. To me thats just too outdated for creating a modern system. The ones for the IGP come with less cores diminishing their selling point, and I don't believe it is advanced enough yet to warrant using it in a desktop with a discrete graphics card.

    The only reason I would go with an AMD CPU right now is if you are using your computer for one of the niche areas where AMD excels at like CPU based rendering for CG.

    The GPUs are pretty dead even currently, you can't go wrong choosing either. Since an AMD will be cheaper, I advise getting an AMD.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,855


    Originally posted by Cleffy
    I would avoid AMD CPUs right now for a simple reason. Their non-IGP chipsets have not been modified in 3.5 years. ...The only reason I would go with an AMD CPU right now is if you are using your computer for one of the niche areas where AMD excels at like CPU based rendering for CG.

    I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think "budget" is one of those niche areas that AMD continues to excel at. Even if the tech is older, it still performs adequately, and if you are trying to build a sub-$800 (US) build, your doing yourself a disservice by eliminating the FX-line as an option.

  • herculeshercules Member UncommonPosts: 4,919

    think people basically answered the 8 core vs 4 core thing

    most games are developed not to use more then 4 cores so the other 4 cores in amd 8350 are not used.

    some say with ps4 and xbox using a 8 core processor developers might be more willing to make games using more then 4 core but till today that not really happening.

    essentially in real gaming terms a i7 performs better then a amd 8350 because their cores are better pure and simple(note i use a amd).

    also i7 uses less power meaning in the long term less electricity .

    however,a amd 8350 is cheaper then the i7 in inital cost.

    personally both will perform nicely for any game.

    i went for the amd for 2 reason.i always liked AMD.also the motherboard i wanted  was on sale brielfy for half the price and it was a amd one.

    the amd 8350,i7 and i5 will handle all games thrown at it.

    in benchmark the best would be i7 then amd 8350 then i5 but in real gaming sense they are hold their own well.

    if you are not bothered about which motherboard you use then i say go for the i7 or i5.

    however if you plan to dip your hands in the higher end of the motherboard amd ones tend to be cheaper and go on sale more often in the UK at least.

  • N1kthequickN1kthequick Member UncommonPosts: 24

    I thought id reply since I just built my new gaming PC over the last few weeks and my budget was around $6-700. Keep in mind i did look for deals over the course of 2 weeks on newegg/tigerdirect so I got my system about $100-150 cheaper then what you would normally find.

     

    Case: Antec 300 Illusion - $35

    CPU: AMD 8350 - $130

    CPU Cooler: Cooler Master 212 EVO $30

    RAM: 2 x 4GB 1866mhz G.Skill - $50

    PSU:  Corsair 600W PSU - $35

    MB: MSI 990FX - $60

    DVD Drive: $15

    Hard Drive: WD Blue 1TB - $60

    Video Card: MSI Radeon 290 - $225 w/ 4 free games

    Total Cost: $640

     

    Lets just say this system is a beast and I couldnt be happier.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,855


    Originally posted by hercules
    think people basically answered the 8 core vs 4 core thingmost games are developed not to use more then 4 cores so the other 4 cores in amd 8350 are not used.some say with ps4 and xbox using a 8 core processor developers might be more willing to make games using more then 4 core but till today that not really happening.essentially in real gaming terms a i7 performs better then a amd 8350 because their cores are better pure and simple(note i use a amd).also i7 uses less power meaning in the long term less electricity .however,a amd 8350 is cheaper then the i7 in inital cost.personally both will perform nicely for any game.i went for the amd for 2 reason.i always liked AMD.also the motherboard i wanted  was on sale brielfy for half the price and it was a amd one.the amd 8350,i7 and i5 will handle all games thrown at it.in benchmark the best would be i7 then amd 8350 then i5 but in real gaming sense they are hold their own well.if you are not bothered about which motherboard you use then i say go for the i7 or i5.however if you plan to dip your hands in the higher end of the motherboard amd ones tend to be cheaper and go on sale more often in the UK at least.

    A couple of comments:

    Yes, the i7 uses less power, but that difference in power, unless you have the CPU loaded 100% 24-7 (such as server farms, where it is a huge consideration), the difference in your power bills will be pretty negligible. The real benefit there is going to be heat output/overall system noise.

    As far as the "Consoles are 8-core so developers will shift to 8-core"... that's pretty well a fallacy. The PS3 has been 7 cores since it's introduction (actually 8 by design, but one is disabled). The 360 is a triple-core CPU. And yet, once you port something to the PC, most straight ports start out heavily single-core dominate, and you only really see a lot of multi-core use in the few titles that started out on the PC and migrated from there.

  • herculeshercules Member UncommonPosts: 4,919
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Franconstein

    Well, considering that next year we're getting all the new 20nm technology (DDR4 RAM, I'm looking at you!), there's no point on going big budget right now. 20nm obliterates current technology, and the stuff you'll be able to get for the same price in 2016 will be mind-boggling in comparison. I'd say go for the cheapest build now (but with quailty parts), and then worry about this again in 2 years.

     

    Cheers!

    There's always something new coming, but there's probably nothing critically important coming in the near future.  There's a good chance that the Core i7-4790K that you can buy today will still be the fastest gaming CPU on the market a year from now.  Nvidia just recently launched new top end GPU cards.  It's not clear whether AMD will be able to meaningfully beat them in the near future, and even if so, it's not at all clear how soon.  There's a huge difference between waiting a week versus waiting 8 months.

    The primary advantage of DDR4 memory is reduced power consumption.  That's a big deal in laptops and data centers, but not in desktops.  The extra memory bandwidth doesn't matter in desktops, either, unless you're going to feed integrated graphics from it.

    It's not at all clear whether there will be any 20 nm parts that matter for desktops.  That Nvidia launched the GTX 970/980 so recently tells me that they're not moving to a new process node imminently.  AMD might, but it's not clear that there is any 20 nm process node appropriate to high-power video cards.

    Die shrinks don't even matter anymore for desktop CPUs, unless you believe that eight cores isn't enough and we need more die shrinks so that we can have more cores.  Intel does have some products available on their troubled 14 nm process node, but the fastest of them has a max turbo boost of a meager 2.9 GHz.  AMD, meanwhile, is staying on 28 nm with next year's Carrizo.

    The only reason die shrinks matter for DRAM or NAND flash is that you can get more capacity.  For for NAND, never mind 20 nm; Crucial will sell you SSDs with NAND made on a 16 nm process node today.

    Really, though, die shrinks are starting to hit a wall as their traditional radiation source just can't etch small enough features very well.  EUV will probably fix that for some years, but it's not ready just yet.

    yep technology moves on.

    remember when the 280x radeons came out last year it beat the nvidia cards at the same price with it .now nvidia doing same with the newer 970 and 980s (though nvidia always seems to price higher).

    radeon will probably launch something new again in a few months and beat nvidia and then the cycle continues when nvidia launches again!

  • herculeshercules Member UncommonPosts: 4,919
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

     


    Originally posted by hercules
    think people basically answered the 8 core vs 4 core thing

     

    most games are developed not to use more then 4 cores so the other 4 cores in amd 8350 are not used.

    some say with ps4 and xbox using a 8 core processor developers might be more willing to make games using more then 4 core but till today that not really happening.

    essentially in real gaming terms a i7 performs better then a amd 8350 because their cores are better pure and simple(note i use a amd).

    also i7 uses less power meaning in the long term less electricity .

    however,a amd 8350 is cheaper then the i7 in inital cost.

    personally both will perform nicely for any game.

    i went for the amd for 2 reason.i always liked AMD.also the motherboard i wanted  was on sale brielfy for half the price and it was a amd one.

    the amd 8350,i7 and i5 will handle all games thrown at it.

    in benchmark the best would be i7 then amd 8350 then i5 but in real gaming sense they are hold their own well.

    if you are not bothered about which motherboard you use then i say go for the i7 or i5.

    however if you plan to dip your hands in the higher end of the motherboard amd ones tend to be cheaper and go on sale more often in the UK at least.


     

    A couple of comments:

    Yes, the i7 uses less power, but that difference in power, unless you have the CPU loaded 100% 24-7 (such as server farms, where it is a huge consideration), the difference in your power bills will be pretty negligible. The real benefit there is going to be heat output/overall system noise.

    As far as the "Consoles are 8-core so developers will shift to 8-core"... that's pretty well a fallacy. The PS3 has been 7 cores since it's introduction (actually 8 by design, but one is disabled). The 360 is a triple-core CPU. And yet, once you port something to the PC, most straight ports start out heavily single-core dominate, and you only really see a lot of multi-core use in the few titles that started out on the PC and migrated from there.

    thats why i say do not buy because it has 8 cores or 4 cores.Buy based on your preference  and budget.i5 or i7 or amd 8350 handles well in games .

    as pointed out i find price wise and still giving good performance you get more for your money by combo of amd 8350 with a good motherboard like sabretooth as the higher end motherboard for intel are more expensive.i think i saved £150 by using a amd 8350 with a sabretooth motherboard had i used a similar motherboard with a i7 which enabled me to spend more within my budget on a better then planned PSU and more RAM  with some change left.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,818

    You would be stupid to buy FX-8350 or any AMD instead of i5-4460 that goes for 190 USD these days.

    It is a no brainer.

  • Leon1eLeon1e Member UncommonPosts: 791

    Each time you decide to upgrade your PC, your first thought should be how much you are willing to spend, once you figure that out, add some 100$ more :) And then let us know what's the top. I wouldn't give much thought about a CPU. i5 or FX-8350 are good enough for gaming in the next 3-4 years. Anyone telling you otherwise is quite clueless IMO, especially since the load is more and more shifting to the GPU (E.g. OpenGL extensions, Mantle and starting next year Dx 12). I would personally go for a cheaper part with unlocked modifier and invest the remaining money in better cooling and powerful GPU.

    And seriously, if you are going for the i5 because you have the extra cash, please for the love of God get the K series one. Being able to squeeze extra 1GHz from your CPU is huge, granted you can cool it off. I have no experience with the Haswell cores and how well they overclock, haven't even looked at it all that much but 4 GHz out of the box should be possible with any modern CPU. 

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,818


    Originally posted by Reckloose

    Just to add to the cores thing, Intel uses hyperthreading, which essentially doubles the cores. So 4 physical cores, becomes 8 virtual cores. I haven't actually encountered any particular scenario where physical cores are superior to the virtual cores, but other than my home systems, a lot of my experience in virtual cores is within ESX clusters (which seem not to care at all, one way or another)....I use an i7 in my rig, because of SWTOR, since swtor's engine is ridiculously dependant on processor cycles for performance.

    Just to clarify, i5 does not use HT. i5 is basically defective i7 with disabled cores and HT.


    I play SWTOR wiith maxed graphics on my C2D E8400... The issue with SWTOR was poor optimization, it is not CPU intensive, vast majority of games aren't.

  • Cramit845Cramit845 Member UncommonPosts: 395
    Originally posted by N1kthequick

    I thought id reply since I just built my new gaming PC over the last few weeks and my budget was around $6-700. Keep in mind i did look for deals over the course of 2 weeks on newegg/tigerdirect so I got my system about $100-150 cheaper then what you would normally find.

     

    Case: Antec 300 Illusion - $35

    CPU: AMD 8350 - $130

    CPU Cooler: Cooler Master 212 EVO $30

    RAM: 2 x 4GB 1866mhz G.Skill - $50

    PSU:  Corsair 600W PSU - $35

    MB: MSI 990FX - $60

    DVD Drive: $15

    Hard Drive: WD Blue 1TB - $60

    Video Card: MSI Radeon 290 - $225 w/ 4 free games

    Total Cost: $640

     

    Lets just say this system is a beast and I couldnt be happier.

      Thank you very much for this.  I've been hoping someone would give a suggestion on a AMD build.  I finished the i5 build I was trying on my last post.  Got to $946 and change without any HD's or case.  Just CPU, MB, PS, GPU, RAM and that wasn't too bad.

       Although I must admit this above price point is extremely attractive.  Especially after I consider what another poster above said about DDR4.  If DDR4 is going to be more prevalent in the next 1-2 years, would it be worthwhile going for more of a budget system now and then plan at least a MB, CPU, RAM upgrade in 2-3 years to take advantage of new technology? 

      My thought process being, go a bit over on GPU and PS now and then take advantage of new RAM which would require a new MB and possibly a new CPU later.  Not to mention then I would have a second system for my family.  (Son or wife)  However, after 2-3 years would probably want a GPU upgrade as well, but something to consider.

       If anyone else has other AMD options, would love to see just to have an idea on price point options, the more money saved the better, and since I wouldn't be getting a DDR4 MB now, I feel like I should prepare for purchasing one in the next 2-3 years, which makes myself feel, don't go balls to the wall ....      ..... yet...   Thoughts & opinions?

  • DeniZgDeniZg Member UncommonPosts: 697

    I've had both AMD and Intel CPU's as well as Nvidia and AMD GPU's in last couple of years.

    And I have to say that I really feel that AMD CPU's are lagging behind Intel, especially when it comes to MMORPG's and multiplayer gams in general. They just don't have the single core performance as Intel, which many MMORPG's are dependent on.

    I certainly would like to pay less for more and go with AMD, but AMD CPU's are just not cutting it for me.

    GPU wise, I think the situation is much more clear and straightforward. Pick you maximum budget for GPU and go with the card which has the best gaming benchmarks.

    My 2c.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,818


    Originally posted by Cramit845

    I feel like I should prepare for purchasing one in the next 2-3 years, which makes myself feel, don't go balls to the wall ....      ..... yet...   Thoughts & opinions?

    DDR4 is non-factor. In regard to further upgrade, only relevant information is that next intel chips - Broadwell, will be using 97 chipsets and LGA1150 socket.

    Quick i5 rig:

    i5-4460
    Gigabyte H81
    HyperX 8GB module
    Antec 550W
    Seagate 1TB HDD
    PowerColor R290

    668.94 USD Total, no rebates included.

    Add case up to your likehood. Feel free to spent extra for 97 MB if further upgrade is your concern or w/e you wish to adjust to fit your preference and wallet.

  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 5,928
    Originally posted by Gdemami
     

    Quick i5 rig:

    i5-4460
    Gigabyte H81
    HyperX 8GB module
    Antec 550W
    Seagate 1TB HDD
    PowerColor R290

    668.94 USD Total, no rebates included.

    Add case up to your likehood. Feel free to spent extra for 97 MB if further upgrade is your concern or w/e you wish to adjust to fit your preference and wallet.

    Do I read that wrong, or did you just suggest a computer built with only 1 RAM module?

     
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,855


    Originally posted by Gdemami
    Originally posted by Cramit845I feel like I should prepare for purchasing one in the next 2-3 years, which makes myself feel, don't go balls to the wall ....      ..... yet...   Thoughts & opinions?

    DDR4 is non-factor. In regard to further upgrade, only relevant information is that next intel chips - Broadwell, will be using 97 chipsets and LGA1150 socket.

    Quick i5 rig:
    ....
    668.94 USD Total, no rebates included.

    Add case up to your likehood. Feel free to spent extra for 97 MB if further upgrade is your concern or w/e you wish to adjust to fit your preference and wallet.


    I agree that DDR4 is a non-factor. Heck, even DDR3 vs DDR2 is not much of a consideration (except that DDR2 is much more expensive now, because of supply/demand). I wouldn't build a rig today and expect it to upgrade to Broadwell (even if it's the same socket type) - there's no guarantee that the BIOS and such for whatever motherboard you pick will get updated, or that it wouldn't be a good idea to just upgrade the motherboard along with the CPU for other various reasons. That, and the jumps from Bloomfield to Sandy to Ivy to Haswell have all been pretty anemic and not worth a step upgrade. In fact, you could easily argue that Bloomfield cores are still very capable and relevant in gaming today, 6 years after their release.

    A computer you build today (well, maybe not this build Gdemami is recommending - it isn't something I would recommend) put together thoughtfully will still be a good computer 2-3-4 years from now, and possibly well beyond that with a couple of minor upgrades. I wouldn't worry about what may or may not be coming out next year, because that's always the case - there's always something coming out "soon" that is faster/smaller/better/shinier. In almost every cause, it's good to build what makes sense within your budget, and then re-evaluate that not when some new hardware comes out, but when the performance of your build no longer meets your expectations in new titles that have actually released and you are trying to play.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,855

    Here's specifically why I wouldn't recommend that build:

    The difference between the i5 4460 and 4690:
    3.2Ghz (3.4 Boost) vs 3.5Ghz (3.9 Boost)
    You save $30, but you lose almost 15% in performance just off clocks alone. If your trying to save money and willing to lose that performance, why not save $110 and gain 2 cores for the outlier cases where it can help (Let alone, compared to an H81, breaking even on a comparable motherboard while getting a lot more features out of it).

    H81 chipset:
    Reduces DIMMS down to 1 channel (this is substantial)
    Eliminates Intel RST and SRT (not huge, but good for SSD or RAID support)
    No supported overclocking (not huge)
    Fewer SATA3 ports (could be a big deal, you only get 2 without addon controller support, which will require additional drivers and possible compatibility issues)
    Fewer USB3 ports (but I guess the flip side is you get more 2.0 ports?)
    Typically packaged as "budget" models with very low end support (power, auxiliaries, build quality, etc - this is per-model but something you have to be very aware of)

    No SSD - I always recommend an SSD, any computer without one is going to feel substantially slower slow. This isn't a question of saving money, it's a question of available capacity. Sure, an SSD for the same price will be lower capacity, but it is vastly faster - an order of magnitude. Most people don't need nearly as much storage as they think they do, and that storage is easy to add later on if you do really need it. But an SSD is a significant upgrade over a traditional drive.

    If your goal is to put any Core i5 in a cheap computer, this would be the build. But that isn't the same thing as setting your goal to make a decent gaming computer, as you have to make a whole lot of questionable decisions to pack an i5 in there on that low of a budget.

    Anyway, I didn't so much post this for Gdemami, who will probably come back with something ridiculous about Hyperthreading or benchmarks, but for the sake of everyone else who may be reading this and wondering why that build may not be the best of ideas.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,855


    Originally posted by Vrika
    Originally posted by Gdemami  
    Quick i5 rig: i5-4460 Gigabyte H81 HyperX 8GB module Antec 550W Seagate 1TB HDD PowerColor R290 668.94 USD Total, no rebates included. Add case up to your likehood. Feel free to spent extra for 97 MB if further upgrade is your concern or w/e you wish to adjust to fit your preference and wallet.
    Do I read that wrong, or did you just suggest a computer built with only 1 RAM module?

    H81 only supports 1 DIMM per channel, and only up to 2 DIMMs total - even if you put 2 DIMMs in there they are going to be gimped to single channel anyway.

    Yeah, I know...

  • Cramit845Cramit845 Member UncommonPosts: 395

      Great information.  So far I am still feeling a bit overwhelmed with everything.  There seems good reasons for both routes.  Although right now, I feel like the AMD makes more sense on the price point but I still worry that I would be missing out on some power if I don't go with an Intel.  Could be my personal bias, not sure at this point, just sure of being unsure, LOL.

     

       I have made a Tom's Hardware post if anyone is interested in checking out the recommendations there.  You can find it here:

       http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2419992/gaming-build-suggestions.html

     

       So far the one response I saw suggests an AMD as well.  Does anyone have any suggestions on a i5 intel that would be under the $300 price point that would give comparable performance or is the i5-4690 the preferred gaming i5 model?  Do you AMD guys feel that overclocking AMD is necessary to get a lot of performance out of them or do you think they are on par with intel i5-i7 without it?

       I was thinking of going with a FX8350 if I go AMD, cause the price point is barely over a $100 from what I've seen and many people seem to be suggesting it as a good AMD processor.  Do the AMD guys agree or is there another model that makes more sense for another reason?

     

       I appreciate all the points guys, your helping a lot!

     

  • DrukstylzDrukstylz Member Posts: 189

    I'm a noob, so here's my noob "bang for buck" setup

    do like you said, and get a barebones setup, housing, power source (400 wat+), cooler/fan, hard drive (1tb is all you need considering you survived on 80gb), see if they throw in windows8 if you need it (for dx12 later dunno).  

    intell core i5 motherboard bundle from MSI or Gigabyte (benchmarks show the drop off between price/performance is at the i5 mark)

    8gb dd3 ram (go single stick if you only have 2 free ram slots, so you can upgrade later, some swear by corsair or other brands but I dunno)

    radeon 280x/290x or geforce 750ti 2gb (aka gangbangers delight, cheap and effective)

    this setup wont require more than a 400-500 wat power source and only needs a single cooling fan in your housing. 

    you can upgrade to i7 when it gets cheaper, also add ram when you need,

    the graphics card should last you another 2 years if you ok with playing medium settings on newer games) 

    this setup will definetley place you under 1,000 cashmoney and if you source it right even under 800 cashmoney

     

     

     

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,818


    Originally posted by Cramit845
     
    Although right now, I feel like the AMD makes more sense on the price point

    It doesn't, it is your bias only. You were leaning towards AMD before you posted here :)


    AMD is simply not a gaming CPU.

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,873
    Originally posted by Gdemami

    Originally posted by Ridelynn

    Anyway, I didn't so much post this for Gdemami

    No worries, you posts are so off I am not going to bother :)

    That is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on these forums. It crushes "one channel is better than two" and "2 cores are better than 4".

    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • ZebbakeiZebbakei Member UncommonPosts: 38
    I have a 8320fx and I can play any game out there with maxed settings so I'm not sure why you would think AMD doesn't make gaming cpus.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,818


    Originally posted by TorvaldrThat is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on these forums. It crushes "one channel is better than two" and "2 cores are better than 4".

    It is not better, it does not matter. It has no impact on performance and since the board supports only 2 slots, it is reasonable to leave 1 available for later upgrade...

Sign In or Register to comment.