AMD VS Intel Two Different Builds, What to Pick?

[MeesterJackson]

lol, yeah.

Anddd Intel is slowly catching up again, god this is like a race of fanboyism, lets see which fanboys beat which (Course the first couple of votes were from people who actually left a comment so those people don't count) 

[Kratikos]

Ok, so I'm going to let this be the final decider. Which one is better for me/more convenient?

I am making a computer build for gaming, rendering, editing, recording, and livestreaming. (I'd really like to stay under 850 - 875 dollars more so 850)

AMD Build:

Case: NZXT Phantom 410 $83.98 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006I2H084/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

CPU: FX 8320 $153.61http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009O7YU56/ref=ox_sc_act_title_4?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Motherboard: ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 $134.02 (Has Rebate $114.02) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008B6ONXK/ref=ox_sc_act_title_5?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

CPU Cooler: XIGMATEK Dark Knight II $49.14 (Will be OC'ing to 4.5Ghz) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00275V1PE/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

PSU: Corsair 750w Bronze 80 Plus $83.24 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008RJZQSW/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Intel Build:

Case: N/A (I will probably use the Micro ATX one I have now and later down the line when I want to Dual GPU's I'll have a bigger one)

CPU: E3 Xeon 1240 V3 (i7 4770) $276.00 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116905

Motherboard: The ASUS Z87M-Plus $140.00 (I like ASUS) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131984 OR the MSI Z87M-G43 $105.00 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130706&Tpk=msi%20z87

CPU Cooler: N/A Extra Money, plus I'm not OC'ing (You can't on a Xeon) I picked the Z87 Boards because I'm not sure if the 1240 V3 is compatible with most or all H87's.

PSU: Same as the AMD Build, the Corsair 750w Bronze 80 Plus

I have not yet decided on a Graphics Card (If you could help me pick one, that would be great I was thinking about the R9 280X since it's 300 dollars and it's a 7970 Ghz Ed).

So which one should I go with? Technically the AMD one is more convenient because of the case, and I'd have a cooler for future newer builds, but Intel is technically faster by a bit, especially in rendering, and saves power. So which one is really the best option?

AMD Build Total = 503.99 (plus tax)

Intel Build Total = (with ASUS board) $500 (with MSI) $465 - Keep in mind the MSI seems to be getting a lot of hate/having on arrival problems compared to the ASUS board. (This also has tax...unless Newegg doesn't do taxes)

You will get more out of the FX 8320 when it comes to live streaming, rendering, and editing. Depending on how much you render may want to get a GTX 780, but if cuda cores it's a need then 7950/270x will work fine in 1080p.

I just made a full AMD build, can play any game I want with NP. IMO both your builds will satisfy, but the 8 core FX will benift you more then just gaming.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

[D3MON]

*just now checking* THAT MOBO IS 220 DOLLARS WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?

my bad meant the ud3

[Memphaestus]

I vote that you pay the extra $30 for the 8350.  You will never get anywhere close to 4.5ghz on the 8320 with that combination of parts. You'll already be seeing very high temps just clocking to 4.0ghz. You'd need a minimum of a 240rad aio and a better psu. That 750w unit won't send stable enough power to get to much more than 4.0.

 

I'm voting amd because they are better at game streaming by a decent margin, and hang around the margin for error in pretty much everything else.

[V1RK]

I've owned both intel and amd and found only minor difference, in some benchmarks amd is ahead and in others intel keeps the lead. WIth streaming wise and multitasking I would say go amd it will process it alot better than intel. Only downside for me is the amount of heat amd generates and the voltage on the overclocks. Price wise little difference but amd has stepped there game up and have a lot of great features still. My vote is with amd p.s I am also looking into building an amd rig for overclocking fun

[VegardInNorway]

You don't need a intel K cpu to overclock, though it is simpler with a K Cpu, but you can OC a non K. http://forums.vortez.net/overclocking-cooling/5109-how-overclock-non-k-intel-cpus.html

[Katness Everdeen]

Go for the 8350, overclock it and it will beat the 3930K in BF4.

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/61740-bf4-beta-benchmarks-released-amd-takes-cpu-performance-crown/

[Jumper118]

intel rig be as fast and cooler and quieter,

[MeesterJackson]

my bad meant the ud3

Thats what I thought you meant lol. 

[MeesterJackson]

You don't need a intel K cpu to overclock, though it is simpler with a K Cpu, but you can OC a non K. http://forums.vortez.net/overclocking-cooling/5109-how-overclock-non-k-intel-cpus.html

You can't overclock non K Haswell Xeons, they are LITERALLY LOCKED You can't. 

[MeesterJackson]

I vote that you pay the extra $30 for the 8350.  You will never get anywhere close to 4.5ghz on the 8320 with that combination of parts. You'll already be seeing very high temps just clocking to 4.0ghz. You'd need a minimum of a 240rad aio and a better psu. That 750w unit won't send stable enough power to get to much more than 4.0.

 

I'm voting amd because they are better at game streaming by a decent margin, and hang around the margin for error in pretty much everything else.

Dude the 8320 can do 4.8Ghz easily the 50 does 5.0Ghz (what everyone generally aims for) better than the 20. I'm not aiming for 5.0Ghz so there's no issue here, I want 4.5 Ghz which is what a lot of people usually do to their 20, or they max it to 4.8 like I just said. I'm pretty confident my parts are just fine for a 4.5Ghz boost. 

[MeesterJackson]

You will get more out of the FX 8320 when it comes to live streaming, rendering, and editing. Depending on how much you render may want to get a GTX 780, but if cuda cores it's a need then 7950/270x will work fine in 1080p.

I just made a full AMD build, can play any game I want with NP. IMO both your builds will satisfy, but the 8 core FX will benift you more then just gaming.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

I have 850 dollars, and 500 dollars is going into the main build. There is NO way I can afford the 780. Also even If I had the money, I'd go for the R9 290 as it would be 100 dollars cheaper for the same performance. 

[Ddm5]

Go for the 8350, overclock it and it will beat the 3930K in BF4.

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/61740-bf4-beta-benchmarks-released-amd-takes-cpu-performance-crown/

Please don't bring up crappy benchmarks, people have been over these over and over again.

[MeesterJackson]

Please don't bring up bullshit benchmarks, people have been over these over and over again.

I didn't really trust it in the first place, it was with BF4 which is a game still in development and the Beta is REALLY wonky. 

[Ddm5]

I didn't really trust it in the first place, it was with BF4 which is a game still in development and the Beta is REALLY wonky. 

Pretty much that and the fact that nothing was overclocked, as I've said in the main post surrounding the benchmarks, if you own a 3970x and you aren't overclocking it, son, you're doing it wrong.

[MeesterJackson]

Pretty much that and the fact that nothing was overclocked, as I've said in the main post surrounding the benchmarks, if you own a 3970x and you aren't overclocking it, son, you're doing it wrong.

LOL

[MeesterJackson]

I see, well the 8320 isn't bad compared to the xeon in any way, it does slack at a few things but not so much so that it would be considered a problem, however for streaming and pc game recordings the xeon will slack a lot more than the 8320 in cpu intensive games which I would find unacceptable.

Now that I think about it though, I just explained that I wont be doing TOO many PC game recordings, and with livestreaming I know a guy that always livestreams with an i5 and does perfectly fine (It lags sometimes, but its rare and remember its an i5 not an i7 like the Xeon would be) so actually if you think about it, the Xeon WOULD be better, but the AMD build comes with more (like for example A CASE, again I'd probably get one in the future, but i'm just saying opposed to right away).

[EmmaLong]

Please don't bring up bullshit benchmarks, people have been over these over and over again.

They're only bull**** because AMD wins... what a disturbing double standard.

These are bull**** benchmarks too I bet...

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-4-PC-238749/Tests/Battlefield-4-Beta-Test-Prozessor-Benchmarks-Cores-1091016/

[Ddm5]

They're only bull**** because AMD wins... what a disturbing double standard.

These are bull**** benchmarks too I bet...

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-4-PC-238749/Tests/Battlefield-4-Beta-Test-Prozessor-Benchmarks-Cores-1091016/

I'm all for both teams, what you're not seeing is that nothing is overclocked, at all, everything is running bone stock, with the included 9590 just being a higher binned and stock overclocked 8350 which to be quite frank, does and doesn't count as an actual CPU. I'll quote myself once again from what I've said, "If you own a 3970x and you aren't overclocking it, son, you're doing it wrong.", these benchmarks only tell half of the story in my eyes, with that being said, AMD does exceptionally well when games actually use the higher core count and start distributing the load amongst the cores being used, moreso, my first comment on the benchmark you posted was with a game that's currently in BETA which can be further optimised before the official release of the game.

[FellTheSky]

i have a biostar tk+z67 or somecrap like that. My gigabyte ud3 die for no apparent reason outside the warranty range and i was on a hurry$$

 

The biostar cost me like 40$ in a sale, and is running my 2500k at 4.6ghz for over a year now. Never 1 reboot, and on stock voltages. I would say even if it dies right now, it would be completely worth it. For that money i couldnt even buy an asus h61

[Katness Everdeen]

I'm all for both teams, what you're not seeing is that nothing is overclocked, at all, everything is running bone stock, with the included 9590 just being a higher binned and stock overclocked 8350 which to be quite frank, does and doesn't count as an actual CPU. I'll quote myself once again from what I've said, "If you own a 3970x and you aren't overclocking it, son, you're doing it wrong.", these benchmarks only tell half of the story in my eyes, with that being said, AMD does exceptionally well when games actually use the higher core count and start distributing the load amongst the cores being used, moreso, my first comment on the benchmark you posted was with a game that's currently in BETA which can be further optimised before the official release of the game.

I posted the first benchmark, not Emma.

9590s cost 390$ & that's with a 90$ liquid cooler included, this puts it at half the price of a 3930K which doesn't even come with a CPU cooler by the way.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113351

We're certainly not to comparing a $300 part to a whopping 1K part like the i7 3970X are we?

[fuse]

If you are going to be doing all the stuff you listed, then the FX 8350 is the best option for a low cost but mid-performance workstation. I personally would go for the FX 8350 unless you were comparing it to the X79 platform from Intel. The architecture for the FX chips actually make them really good for pro-apps, bot as good for gaming (AMD should advertise this more). 

[Ddm5]

I posted the first benchmark, not Emma.

9590s cost 390$ & that's with a 90$ liquid cooler included, this puts it at half the price of a 3930K which doesn't even come with a CPU cooler by the way.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113351

We're certainly not to comparing a $300 part to a whopping 1K part like the i7 3970X are we?

I knew you were going to bring this up, benchmarks show basic numbers, that's it, dependant on the situation or whoever is buying what then you can factor in which is better for the cash, absolutely no doubt a 8320 with a Hyper 212 is exceptionally good for the price in games that use the cores well, it's on par with the i5's as we all know, what I was throwing in was the fact that it's a benchmark, pretty much as simple as it can be read, different CPU's work better or worse in different situations as we all know, that's all I was saying. 

[Memphaestus]

Dude the 8320 can do 4.8Ghz easily the 50 does 5.0Ghz (what everyone generally aims for) better than the 20. I'm not aiming for 5.0Ghz so there's no issue here, I want 4.5 Ghz which is what a lot of people usually do to their 20, or they max it to 4.8 like I just said. I'm pretty confident my parts are just fine for a 4.5Ghz boost. 

Sorry, but I have yet to see an 8320 hit 4.8Ghz anywhere.  4.6 is possible with water cooling, but it is far from easy to hit that.  5.0Ghz on the 8350 is a great overclock but should not be expected from them either.  Many 8350's have trouble maintaining a 4.5Ghz overclock even on the Crosshair V Formula Z.  I couldn't get my 8350 stable above 4.3Ghz on my Gigabyte UD3 board, but as soon as I switched to the CVFZ board, I got right up to 4.8Ghz. Remember that overclocking isn't 100% guaranteed. 

 

You should look at some benchmarks and reviews of the Xigmatek Dark Knight II before you purchase, as it is a very mid level cooler.  Just looking at the rest of the parts you have selected, you are going to use a bottom tier Bronze PSU with a mid level motherboard, and a mid level cpu cooler and you are expecting cutting edge, top end overclocks.  I'm just letting you know that your expectations aren't very realistic.  An 8320 is a downclocked 8350 for a reason.  That reason is generally because of heat issues, or voltage issues at the higher 8350 clocks.  While I would expect the chip to hit 4.0 with that cooler, I wouldn't expect much higher clocks simply due to excessive heat.  The Dark Knight II is a decent cooler, but it ain't no Noctua and it definitely ain't water cooling.

[MeesterJackson]

Sorry, but I have yet to see an 8320 hit 4.8Ghz anywhere.  4.6 is possible with water cooling, but it is far from easy to hit that.  5.0Ghz on the 8350 is a great overclock but should not be expected from them either.  Many 8350's have trouble maintaining a 4.5Ghz overclock even on the Crosshair V Formula Z.  I couldn't get my 8350 stable above 4.3Ghz on my Gigabyte UD3 board, but as soon as I switched to the CVFZ board, I got right up to 4.8Ghz. Remember that overclocking isn't 100% guaranteed. 

 

You should look at some benchmarks and reviews of the Xigmatek Dark Knight II before you purchase, as it is a very mid level cooler.  Just looking at the rest of the parts you have selected, you are going to use a bottom tier Bronze PSU with a mid level motherboard, and a mid level cpu cooler and you are expecting cutting edge, top end overclocks.  I'm just letting you know that your expectations aren't very realistic.  An 8320 is a downclocked 8350 for a reason.  That reason is generally because of heat issues, or voltage issues at the higher 8350 clocks.  While I would expect the chip to hit 4.0 with that cooler, I wouldn't expect much higher clocks simply due to excessive heat.  The Dark Knight II is a decent cooler, but it ain't no Noctua and it definitely ain't water cooling.

I'm interested in OC'ing, but I don't mind the standard 4Ghz that it comes with, in that case, should I ditch the cooler and get a Sabertoorth motherboard then?