AMD and Intel comparison

[Faa]

A lot more than simply the cost of a CPU goes into the thought process of budget option.

Using cheapest boards for both solutions:

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

 

CPU:  Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($180.49 @ Amazon) 

Motherboard:  Gigabyte GA-H81M-H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.99 @ Newegg) 

Total: $220.48

(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-16 19:28 EDT-0400)

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

 

CPU:  AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($149.99 @ NCIX US) 

Motherboard:  Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($64.99 @ Newegg) 

Total: $214.98

(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-16 19:29 EDT-0400)

Youre not really saving money by going AMD at all, more of a delusion. People are comparing 8320's only to i5 4670K's, like it's K version or gtfo on Intels side.

Overclocking gear:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

 

CPU:  AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($149.99 @ NCIX US) 

CPU Cooler:  Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.98 @ OutletPC) 

Motherboard:  Asus M5A99X EVO R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($107.99 @ NCIX US) 

Total: $287.96

(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-16 19:32 EDT-0400)

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

 

CPU:  Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($219.99 @ Newegg) 

CPU Cooler:  Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.98 @ OutletPC) 

Motherboard:  MSI Z87M-G43 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($80.97 @ OutletPC) 

Total: $330.94

(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-16 19:34 EDT-0400)

You kinda save 40$, is it really worth it to cheap 40$ to see an IPC gain of up to 100% in cpu bound lightthreaded games? No. If you'd be only playing singleplayer adventure games you shouldn't be looking at 150-200$ cpu's, get an i3 or a 6300 or even an APU (with a discrete card). You'd be wondering why I took a micro atx board, well the answer is simple the only advantage you get from a full atx board is SLI and you can't do sli on non z87 chipsets anyways and you don't need a 2nd card these days usually you're running into annoying issues games not supporting SLI or apparently the frame times bother you a lot or its just noisy as hell. Just to sum up if you're only gaming you'd the i5 will be a better value, if you do a lot of 3d modeling it would be the 8320 anytime

 

 

Clock for clock, intel's cores are much faster than AMD's (about 50% faster) where as you will generally get about 50% more cores with AMD (for the price)

 

Do your research better, dont need to link this http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/09/SC2HotS-pcgh.png again. Most benchmarks aren't showing a 100% gain anyways because the GPU start to hits its limit. Here we see a gpu bound benchmark sleeping dogs http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7189/56769.png practically no difference between a dual core 50$ APU and a 1000$ cpu until we make it more cpu bound till we get this http://assets.vr-zone.net/17494/sleepingdogs.jpg

Another example would be, a massive multiplayer game like WoW or PS2 or ESO, you barely would notice a difference when you're sitting somewhere forever alone most reviews benchmark them like that and people go buy AMD's and complain on the forums that their framerate is crappy in a very intensive fight where you're surrounded by thousands of players.

Reviewers barely use multiple gpu's, gpu bound or in other words meaningless cpu benchmarks dont cover fuck. I'm not really sure how the extra 4 cores compensate the crappy IPC, it's multithreading performance is at best 10% better than an i5.

 

People seem to be forgetting that Ivy bridge and Haswell made the gap bigger between AMD & Intel, have a look at the SC2 benchmark I linked, a 2500K is only doing 50% better where as the 4670k is doing twice as better.

 

At the end of the day, the GPU will make more of a difference than the CPU in games.

So we all should listen to you and go buy the cheapest cpu like a 50$ dual core from AMD and get 3 780 ti's? You're just wrong, singleplayer games are usually GPU limited you're hardly going to notice a 1% difference between a 3930K and a 50$ cpu but in massive multiplayer games meh you'd notice a bunch of difference between between the two. If you were right you wouldn't see me here sitting with a 3930K, I'd literally have a 50$ cpu orsomething like everyone would do and complety avoid Intel since theyre a waste of money following your logic.

If you can find me a massive multiplayer game (in combat with tons of actions) where both of my 780's will sit consistently at 99% you get both of my 780's.

[deathjester]

I like to think this forum is mature about this subject, then I see Faa...

 

Really though, your performance really depends on the type of workload.

 

AMD is pretty good at integer threads, only being slightly beat by intel (per core)

 

where as intel dominates the FPU world (again, per core), thanks to the bulldozer architect's shared FPUs.

 

 

Clock for clock, intel's cores are much faster than AMD's (about 50% faster) where as you will generally get about 50% more cores with AMD (for the price)

 

In a perfect world, this would equate to equal performance (it kinda does, but I'll talk about that later), but thanks to threading bottlenecks and the sheer difficulty that (was, it's alot easier now) multi-core programming, Intel consistently pulled forward.

 

This is only in CPU bound games, however. the vast majority of games today are GPU bound, and as long as you dont bottleneck the GPU, you will still get incredible performance out of either set up.

 

An i5-4670K is more than enough for modern games, as is the 8320, and even the 6300.

 

At the end of the day, the GPU will make more of a difference than the CPU in games.

 

Faa can be bullish but is correct. GPU matters in console ports, single player. CPU can be a big factor in pc exclusive multiplayer. All depends on what games you play, how big the GPU is. This is why when I point out AMD's flaws I also point out that it only occurs in some games or emulators and to make the choice based on what you intend to play or do.

 

The sad thing is you can't be honest without being called a fanboy half the time and we have completely bogus gpu benchmarks masquerading as cpu benchmarks from Tek Syndicate to thank for that. The problem isn't the fanboys, but the paid for astroturfing done by companies that the fanboys actually believe. Tech review sites (not this one thankfully) are getting as bad as IGN for game reviews. Many people are on Linustechtips because Linus is very fair.  

 

There isn't one benchmarker on earth who agrees with Tek Syndicate or RussianGPU, yet there benchmarks/videos are shared constantly on tech forums. Add to this we have astroturfers and outright liars on tech forums. For instance (I won't name names) we had a user on this forum that made up completely fabricated benchmarks of AMD 8350's demolishing I7's at rendering...When called out on this, he reported those people for harassment.

 

These ridiculous tactics get tiring when you are spending time on a forum just trying to help people and when you have to deal with the same people over and over again, who keep selling their product? You just might snap or come off as a rude person. The simple truth is AMD can be a good choice and it can be a not so good choice. Then you have to factor in the country where people are buying it. An AMD makes little to no sense for gaming in the United States when we have stores like Microcenter and silly deals that you can often pricematch online. In other countries? AMD makes A LOT of sense, because Intel is overpriced as hell there.

 

I know people who LOVE their AMD's because they could care less about Dolphin Emulator or MMO's. I also know people who have bought an AMD and are very upset with the performance in certain games. Optimization is at fault, but good optimization is still a while away. Letting people know the negatives along with the pluses is not being a "fanboy" or being "rude". I would recommend a 8320 over a I5 for someone who just wants to light game and render. That doesn't make the I5 a bad chip, it just means the 8320/50 can do it better. 

 

In addition? I also see people leaving out that a non K Intel chip can go on a VERY cheap motherboard. When you are looking at a 8350 you are looking at a minimum of 90-100 bucks on a 8+2 power phase Gigabyte non 990fx board. You may also need a 70 dollar PSU over a 55 dollar PSU. All this adds up and the choice isn't so cut and dry. For instance. A board that will run a decent OC on an AMD 8xxx, a decent aftermarket cooler (required) and a bigger PSU may cost MORE than the I5. 

 

I could care less if you buy Intel or AMD, I just care that you know everything involved so YOU can make the right decision based on what YOU like to play. If you absolutely love Nintendo games and find out that the AMD is bad at Dolphin Emulator? You might be really bummed if you didn't know that before hand. If you love MMO's? You may be really disappointed with half the fps in some mmo's. 

 

If I loved MMO's and I got a water cooled Sabretooth 8350? I would be pretty ticked off if I was at near 5ghz getting 15-20 FPS in a zerg in Guild Wars 2 while someone with a stock I5, with a stock fan on a cheap motherboard was getting 30 plus. These are things people should know. 

[Andster29]

Another aspect that not many people have hit is supply and demand. Intel is used alot more and they advertise alot more. Since the demand is higher they cost more.

[Jack.EXE]

Another wall of text (That I DID read)

 

I agree with this, and I'd probably be fine with Faa's word.

 

if he wasn't so hostile.

 

just like you, I wont recommend AMD nor intel EVERY time, there have been times where Intel makes much more sense, and the same for AMD. It's not all about price.

[Wheelieboy]

The I7 may have half the amount of cores, but not all cores are created equal. Despite how it may appear, the 4770k is a much faster chip than an 8350. That being said, the 8350 is still a very fast chip, and presents a tremendous value at it's price point. Especially when you consider it is much cheaper to buy a good 990fx board than a z87 board. The 8320 is an even better value as you can overclock it beyond stock 8350 levels quite easily, and it can be found as cheap as 135 dollars. Your choice in what chip you get is largely dependent on your specific situation and needs, but both chips have their place, and both are great choices depending on your use case. I hope this has clarified some things for you.

yeah what he said. . The AMD FX 8350 is on the sweet spot, ,got an AMD FX 8320 ,with the Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 Rev 4.0 and a PALIT GTX 760 Jetstream . i was gonna go for an i5 but I viewed some reviews regarding the FX 83xx and it was worth it , .originally have an i3 2120 and a GTX 650Ti Boost in a very small case, just to bring it to school . . 

[paulsterio]

Discussions on 8350 vs i5 or i7 should have died a long time ago. The 8350 was no match for Sandy Bridge.

Check out my article, in my signature. You will find no credible sources supporting the 8350.

Btw @Faa is probably only one of few who is talking sense here. Good on you

[TheGamingBarrel]

With AMD the on oars graphics are on the motherboard rather than the iGPU on Intel (Unless specified)

[Faa]

With AMD the on oars graphics are on the motherboard rather than the iGPU on Intel (Unless specified)

Onboard graphics on the motherboard is so 2008. Theyre calling some of their cpu's with a radeon gpu for a reason an APU..

[TheGamingBarrel]

Onboard graphics on the motherboard is so 2008. Theyre calling some of their cpu's with a radeon gpu for a reason an APU..

And the APU's are less for abut less power CPU side than the fx series but have a beefier "iGPU" These are based more at light gamers at a lower proce tag rather than mild editing and streaming

[-iSynthesis]

So why are AMD so much cheaper than Intel? Like AMD FX8350 Black Edition (8 Cores @ 4.2) is £132! For me that's cheap for a high end CPU. BUT Intel i7 4770K (4 Cores @ 3.50) is £236. Why such a big jump? Is it really worth all that for a not as fast CPU? Price to performance side.

 

Would be interesting to hear you views,

Fatal

AMD has poor single core performance compared to intel. Thats why intel is better for gaming most of the time. An 8350 will outperform any i5 in multi threaded applications though. 8350 is a good CPU for the money and i actually regret buying my xeon because i WANT TO OVERCLOCK SHIT lol