When to recommend AMD CPUs

[Dubesta11]

Forget about the Intel circlejerk for a few minutes and lets have a somewhat productive thread. So my first CPU was an AMD Phenom 2 x4 965 @ 4.0GHz. This was fine, but it was a small bottleneck for a 650tiB. I ended up switching to an i5-3330 from a BF sale, and I was getting almost twice the amount of FPS on most games (from 30 to 60). Now I assume the only AMD CPU's we recommend are the Athlon, 6300, 8350, and some APUs for lower power builds. When would it be smart to recommend one of these processors over a Pentium, i3, or lower priced locked i5? 

 

TL;DR, AMD is far behind Intel both physically and economically, so recommending AMD is only mostly viable for workstations that rely on more than 2 cores (many threads, low workload), if the price/performance is better than Intel (mainly sales, combos, used), or if Zen actually brings them back in terms of price/performance and features. Otherwise, Intel is best for everything else not because of fanboyism, but because its the cold, honest truth.

[soaringchicken]

soz not soz, never.

 

EDIT: I guess if someone just really wants an AMD build I guess.

[Oshino Shinobu]

When they're on a budget and need it for a workstation/server type build where multiple threads are utilised very well. They really shouldn't be used for gaming, they're too outdated and weak per core. 

 

Recommending Intel over AMD for gaming isn't being a fanboy or an "Intel circlejerk", it's just good advice. 

[comicsansms]

I would recommend AMD when Zen comes out, but until then get APU's for builds where you want a good CPU for cheap and you are not going to upgrade anytime soon.

 

OR if they want a low budget that will Virtual Machine like a ghetto boss or a computer that renders videos or 3d models.

 

APU's are aimed for people who don't have dedicated graphics card and want a low budget and I don't think they are aimed at gaming. 

[EllieThePurpleFuzzy]

When someone wants to make a workstation for 500$-600$ i believe would be the ideal situation.

Also cheaper streaming PC's too, where the fx will really shine.

also low low budget builds too where the 860K would be prefered over the g3258? cause of the 2vs4 cores thing

[WoodenMarker]

when 

[Arty]

When they live somewhere cold.

[wangyuji431]

Forget about the Intel circlejerk for a few minutes and lets have a somewhat productive thread. So my first CPU was an AMD Phenom 2 x4 965 @ 4.0GHz. This was fine, but it was a small bottleneck for a 650tiB. I ended up switching to an i5-3330 from a BF sale, and I was getting almost twice the amount of FPS on most games (from 30 to 60). Now I assume the only AMD CPU's we recommend are the Athlon, 6300, 8350, and some APUs for lower power builds. When would it be smart to recommend one of these processors over a Pentium, i3, or lower priced locked i5? 

When the next generation of AMD processors hit the market.

[TheKDub]

Forget about the Intel circlejerk for a few minutes and lets have a somewhat productive thread. So my first CPU was an AMD Phenom 2 x4 965 @ 4.0GHz. This was fine, but it was a small bottleneck for a 650tiB. I ended up switching to an i5-3330 from a BF sale, and I was getting almost twice the amount of FPS on most games (from 30 to 60). Now I assume the only AMD CPU's we recommend are the Athlon, 6300, 8350, and some APUs for lower power builds. When would it be smart to recommend one of these processors over a Pentium, i3, or lower priced locked i5? 

 

AMD CPUs - Never.

AMD APUs - Very low budget very compact builds that don't need to be very powerful.

[LinusLoveMe]

I would recommend AMD when Zen comes out, but until then get APU's for builds where you want a good CPU for cheap and you are not going to upgrade anytime soon.

 

OR if they want a low budget that will Virtual Machine like a ghetto boss or a computer that renders videos or 3d models.

 

APU's are aimed for people who don't have dedicated graphics card and want a low budget and I don't think they are aimed at gaming. 

Well intel's integrated graphics wrecks the shit out of an apu these days so...

[comicsansms]

Well intel's integrated graphics wrecks the shit out of an apu these days so...

No they don't. The AMD APU's are have a more powerful GPU in them then the Intel  CPU's

 

Anyway you can Crossfire with the APU and a dGPU

[i_build_nanosuits]

WORKSTATION = FX-8320 overclocked...fine!

GAMING: go intel.

[amd133mhz]

I have not seen too many benchmarks that justify the cost of most intel cpu's. 3-5fps more maybe depending on the game. Granted AMD runs hotter and uses more power. I have a team green card on my team red (8320) mobo. I personally think amd fx 8320/8350 works just fine for gaming. Any test I see using the comparable Intel processor shows a slight , I do mean SLIGHT,improvement at a much higher cost for mobo and cpu. IMO I would go amd if wanting to spend less than 300 for mobo and processor combo and gaming for entertainment /casually. My benchmark  statement is verifiable by just watching youtube in game benchmark tests of real game performance. Yes the intel will beat a lot of benchmarking software, but you don't play 3dmark you play video games and that's where it matters. I don't really care what score what gets on a test, I wanna see what it does in real world performance vs the cost of the components 

 

Ie amd fx 8350 vs i5 4690k. The i5 4690k does beat the fx 8350 in most real world fps v fps benchmarks but costs $70 more (newegg) and in a lot of games , it's maybe 2-8 fps better. Negligible In my opinion unless you are a pro gamer .

 

I run a gtx 980 on a fx 8320 on a 990fx mobo . I can say that in most games in 1080p, I do not believe my cpu is bottlenecking me in anyway. The only game it MIGHT be is BF4 and it still performs great.

 

In more cpu intensive games like BF4, it makes a bigger difference . but in most games a fx 8000 series on a 990fx board should be just fine if you're on a budget or don't want to spend intel money.

 

imho

[Ketcchup]

Mostly when someone wants to buy a Pentium g3258, an Athlon 860K is a much much better alternative

[Godlygamer23]

No they don't. The AMD APU's are have a more powerful GPU in them then the Intel  CPU's

 

Anyway you can Crossfire with the APU and a dGPU

Broadwell has a more powerful IGP than what AMD offers.

[Mew]

Never because in Merica, you can always find deals and build an Intel pc that will perform better with the same graphics card for the same money as the AMD one that's not on sale. 

[TheMissxu]

Broadwell has a more powerful IGP than what AMD offers.

Are you talking Iris Pro?

 

How does the price to performance compare?

[niofalpha]

No they don't. The AMD APU's are have a more powerful GPU in them then the Intel  CPU's

 

Anyway you can Crossfire with the APU and a dGPU

Iris Pro beats 7870K by 10-15 Frames iirc.

 

No broadwell i3's which are were it would be useful in tho.

 

Recommend APU's on LOW Budget builds.

Other CPU's in VERY Multithreaded scenerios where the budget is not high enough for a 1231 v3.

[Dubesta11]

Forget about the Intel circlejerk for a few minutes and lets have a somewhat productive thread. So my first CPU was an AMD Phenom 2 x4 965 @ 4.0GHz. This was fine, but it was a small bottleneck for a 650tiB. I ended up switching to an i5-3330 from a BF sale, and I was getting almost twice the amount of FPS on most games (from 30 to 60). Now I assume the only AMD CPU's we recommend are the Athlon, 6300, 8350, and some APUs for lower power builds. When would it be smart to recommend one of these processors over a Pentium, i3, or lower priced locked i5? 

 

TL;DR, AMD is far behind Intel both physically and economically, so recommending AMD is only mostly viable for workstations that rely on more than 2 cores (many threads, low workload), if the price/performance is better than Intel (mainly sales, combos, used), or if Zen actually brings them back in terms of price/performance and features. Otherwise, Intel is best for everything else not because of fanboyism, but because its the cold, honest truth.

 

[Agent181]

When it's a workstation and really low budget

[Hieb]

Forget about the Intel circlejerk for a few minutes and lets have a somewhat productive thread. So my first CPU was an AMD Phenom 2 x4 965 @ 4.0GHz. This was fine, but it was a small bottleneck for a 650tiB. I ended up switching to an i5-3330 from a BF sale, and I was getting almost twice the amount of FPS on most games (from 30 to 60). Now I assume the only AMD CPU's we recommend are the Athlon, 6300, 8350, and some APUs for lower power builds. When would it be smart to recommend one of these processors over a Pentium, i3, or lower priced locked i5? 

 

Depends on the situations and uses of the person.

 

Over a Pentium G3258 I'd happily recommend an AMD CPU, unless the person would be able to upgrade from the G3258 relatively shortly. Two threads just is not enough for modern games. Now when it comes to higher end Intel CPUs, I would always recommend them over AMD's for gaming. The i3 will outperform even an FX-8350 in most games, however there are a handful of newer ones where the FX will do as well or a bit better. The i3 just gives you a better upgrade path and more often better performance.

 

In this case I'd recommend the FX-8 over the i3 if the person does a lot of video editing and things like that, because that's where the FX CPUs perform really well.

 

So in my opinion, for a gaming system under normal conditions:

i7 > i5 > i3 > FX-8 > FX-6 > FX-4/Athlon > Pentium

 

For a gaming system where someone thinks they'll be able to upgrade soon:

i7 > i5 > i3 > Pentium G3258 > FX-8 > FX-6 > FX-4/Athlon

 

For a gaming system where someone will be doing a lot of productivity (video editing, streaming, virtual machines, etc.):

i7 > i5 > FX-8 > i3 = FX-6 > FX-4/Athlon > Pentium

[handymanshandle]

While I know this thread has already been marked solved, I would consider buying an AMD CPU over an Intel CPU if I needed a system to be a file server and buying an FX 6300 made more sense than buying an Intel CPU.

[Dubesta11]

While I know this thread has already been marked solved, I would consider buying an AMD CPU over an Intel CPU if I needed a system to be a file server and buying an FX 6300 made more sense than buying an Intel CPU.

 

Thats about right, since AMD is best used for its low powered cores, not for gaming.

[Dubesta11]

Depends on the situations and uses of the person.

 

Over a Pentium G3258 I'd happily recommend an AMD CPU, unless the person would be able to upgrade from the G3258 relatively shortly. Two threads just is not enough for modern games. Now when it comes to higher end Intel CPUs, I would always recommend them over AMD's for gaming. The i3 will outperform even an FX-8350 in most games, however there are a handful of newer ones where the FX will do as well or a bit better. The i3 just gives you a better upgrade path and more often better performance.

 

In this case I'd recommend the FX-8 over the i3 if the person does a lot of video editing and things like that, because that's where the FX CPUs perform really well.

 

So in my opinion, for a gaming system under normal conditions:

i7 > i5 > i3 > FX-8 > FX-6 > FX-4/Athlon > Pentium

 

For a gaming system where someone thinks they'll be able to upgrade soon:

i7 > i5 > i3 > Pentium G3258 > FX-8 > FX-6 > FX-4/Athlon

 

For a gaming system where someone will be doing a lot of productivity (video editing, streaming, virtual machines, etc.):

i7 > i5 > FX-8 > i3 = FX-6 > FX-4/Athlon > Pentium

 

This sums it up quite well too without bias, good job. I have recommended an i3 to my friends and they all love it, since they have upgraded from old machines and the performance boost is quite good, and they even have the upgrade path to an i5 if they really wish.