Intel vs amd

[i_build_nanosuits]

As someone who previously owned an FX 6100, and tried my own r9 290 on it (I gave it to my brother so I still toy with it from time to time) There is no way its going to cause that much of a performance drop.

My intel is more consistent but the average frame rate is not going to drop to the point where I would see 50 FPS on low settings. My old FX6100 is still able to play games at 5760*1920  on medium with a good frame rate (was on 2x 7850's at the time 45+fps). The only reasons I switched was because I was playing MMOs that required stronger single thread performance than an overclocked 6100 could provide; and I wanted to play on ultra settings when I got new cards.

 

If your chip will overclock to say 4.5Ghz and you don't need the single threaded power for a game that you have or want to play now I would sit on the FX6100 and save for an even better chip and board later.

+1, right on.

[Sintezza]

right on, the guy in the other thread is having a comon problem though...BF4 when it starts to sucks it can be anything, it's probably just game related or driver related...i know it for a fact my BF4 run flawlessly on my PC but BF3 (that i don't play anymore) run's like crap...30 to 50fps all the time it's really bad and in the past it was running at well over 65 FPS with my radeon 7950 and same CPU...i should probably just re-install it but like i say i won't play it anymore..

 

I think that his driver is the issue mainaly, still the new 14.4 driver is not issue free, if im right. im still on the old 13.12 drivers by the way. no problems yet, but i can maybe even gain up a few fps in performance if i jump in the new drivers with mantle support.

[i_build_nanosuits]

i doubt that a graphics card driver could be that bad and cost like half the frames...it has to be either the motherboard chipset driver of the game itself...OR the new graphics card driver won'T installed properly at all...

[GzeroD]

i doubt that a graphics card driver could be that bad and cost like half the frames...it has to be either the motherboard chipset driver of the game itself...OR the new graphics card driver won'T installed properly at all...

Oh a bad driver install can cripple a cards performance I recently had an issue where my 290's performed great when I used display port but when I unplugged the display port screen the performance went to hell. 

 

After I ran Display Driver Uninstaller and rebooted and installed 14.4 again and all is now well regardless of how I connect my screens.

[PillowSmoke]

-.- Here goes another war.

[Faa]

i find it sad that the page 3 came in so quickly, here i quote my post again just to make sure everybody realise how good my PC is compared to Faa

My settings at 0:41

Without having SLI enabled and same cards I'm already outperforming your system with twice as much fps. What would happen with 2 cards enabled? Your system won't even get any advantage of it.

[loccilucas]

I'll probably get torn apart for this, but with CPU's intel wins every time.

[Faceman]

I'll probably get torn apart for this, but with CPU's intel wins every time.

For gaming*

[loccilucas]

For gaming*

I am alittle bias but i would say for everything AMD should just put all their resources and money into making great cards.

[Faceman]

I am alittle bias but i would say for everything AMD should just put all their resources and money into making great cards.

Thats a little bit too biased.  AMD definitely has its strengths, gaming is just not one of them.

 

You aren't going to get unplayable results from an AMD CPU, but as to the question of which is better for gaming, the answer is Intel.

 

Edit* Not that gaming isnt a strength, it just gets beat out by Intel.

[GzeroD]

My settings at 0:41

Without having SLI enabled and same cards I'm already outperforming your system with twice as much fps. What would happen with 2 cards enabled? Your system won't even get any advantage of it.

@Faa

 

Have you used any tweaks on you settings files? your video look like it has a slightly lower image quality for items in the distance than his (I would like to replicate this if you know what settings or have a guide)

[Faa]

@Faa

 

Have you used any tweaks on you settings files? your video look like it has a slightly lower image quality for items in the distance than his (I would like to replicate this if you know what settings or have a guide)

Cuz I'm recording with lower quality probs. And no I dont even know where you can do that.

[GzeroD]

Cuz I'm recording with lower quality probs. And no I dont even know where you can do that.

I'm at a loss. I am trying to figure out why your card is beating 780 TI's and even 295x2's 

[Faceman]

I'm at a loss. I am trying to figure out why your card is beating 780 TI's and even 295x2's 

My i5-4670k + GTX 780 is getting 120fps+ in BF4.  My i5 is overclocked to 4.7Ghz

[nokturrduk84]

Of course you should upgrade to Intel. Your 6100 will bottleneck any high-end, even mid-end GPU.

[GzeroD]

My i5-4670k + GTX 780 is getting 120fps+ in BF4.  My i5 is overclocked to 4.7Ghz

I think I figured it out, most of these benchmarks sites are old and the info is from when the game was still broken

[Faceman]

I think I figured it out, most of these benchmarks sites are old and the info is from when the game was still broken

December 18th, 2013 is fairly recent.

http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/3/

[GzeroD]

December 18th, 2013 is fairly recent.

http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/3/

I was looking at reviews for the 780 trying to figure out when it started pushing such a high fps not cpu reviews, also I prefer cpu reviews where they overclock the chips at least a little, I would never recommend a gamer get an amd chip and just let it sit there at stock (I can hardly recommend the chips to begin with)

[Faa]

I think I figured it out, most of these benchmarks sites are old and the info is from when the game was still broken

Well.. 

This game got massive improvements lately compared to the release.

[Audacius]

@OP

I have a fx-6300 on 4ghz and a r9 280x and i'm using BF4 as a benchmark for bottlenecks...

 

While on Ultra on 1050p(not 1080p) i get about 85fps average(115max, 75min) while the CPU usage is 50-60% and the GPU is between 95-100% usage so i know that the CPU isn't bottlenecking my GPU (atleast for my setup).

You could upgrade to an i5/z97...but the improvement would be negligible considering the cost of the components...

A much better option is to buy a fx-8320(and OC it) or a fx-8350 and keep you motherboard. You will be fine and in that way you can save money for your next full rig in a few years.

P.S. I'm not an Intel/AMD fanboy, i own 2 rigs both different in brands(Intel/Nvidia and an AMD one)...i'm just telling you from my experience...

 

 

EDIT: I just re-tested BF4 with Mantle OFF(DX rendering) so i could stress the CPU alot more, but the only difference is that the GPU was used 100% all of the time, still giving avg of 85fps with 60% max on the CPU.

Just to note that i dont even play at Ultra all the time...i use a mix of Ultra-High settings because i really dont notice the difference much, and to lower the heat output, but even at Ultra the heat doesnt pass the 60c mark...

[GzeroD]

@OP

I have a fx-6300 and a r9 280x and i'm using BF4 as a benchmark for bottlenecks...

 

While on Ultra on 1050p(not 1080p) i get about 85fps average(100max, 75min) while the CPU usage is 50-60% and the GPU is between 95-100% usage so i know that the CPU isn't bottlenecking my GPU (atleast for my setup).

You could upgrade to an i5/z97...but the improvement would be negligible considering the cost of the components...

A much better option is to buy a fx-8320(and OC it) or a fx-8350 and keep you motherboard. You will be fine and in that way you can save money for your next full rig in a few years.

P.S. I'm not an Intel/AMD fanboy, i own 2 rigs both different in brands(Intel/Nvidia and an AMD one)...i'm just telling you from my experience...

This is a cheaper path to an upgrade but to be clear you shouldn't be overclocking a 8320 on an 970 board for most of them the power delivery is not strong enough.

 

Personally I would wait until your computer is actually preventing you from doing what you want in an enjoyable manner and then upgrade to the best thing in your budget at that time.

If money is a consideration upgrading for the sake of upgrading is bad business . 

[Audacius]

This is a cheaper path to an upgrade but to be clear you shouldn't be overclocking a 8320 on an 970 board for most of them the power delivery is not strong enough.

 

Personally I would wait until your computer is actually preventing you from doing what you want in an enjoyable manner and then upgrade to the best thing in your budget at that time.

If money is a consideration upgrading for the sake of upgrading is bad business . 

 

I'm sorry if i made some grammatical errors, but that is due to the fact that English is not my mother tongue, and i haven't been practicing lately

 

I believe that a 970 chipset can withstand a moderate overclock(i have a 970a). The only thing it lacks is more advanced power options, but it can easily overclock a 8320 to 4ghz...

[GzeroD]

I tried to move from my old fx 6100 to an 8320 I couldn't get the kind of overclocks I wanted out of it so I sold the chip to a friend and went intel with a new build.my friend was able to push it north of 4.6 with his Sabertooth but not his 970 then again neither of us had any trouble getting too 4 I just didn't want to lose the single threaded performance going from my 4.5 6100 to a 4.1 8320 (wouldn't go higher than and stay stable)

 

Thinking about it more, if his motherboard was using one of the non reference power designs (better than 4+1) he might be fine I just don't want to advise someone based on that kind of an unknown.

[Audacius]

I tried to move from my old fx 6100 to an 8320 I couldn't get the kind of overclocks I wanted out of it so I sold the chip to a friend and went intel with a new build.my friend was able to push it north of 4.6 with his Sabertooth but not his 970 then again neither of us had any trouble getting too 4 I just didn't want to lose the single threaded performance going from my 4.5 6100 to a 4.1 8320 (wouldn't go higher than and stay stable)

 

Thinking about it more, if his motherboard was using one of the non reference power designs (better than 4+1) he might be fine I just don't want to advise someone based on that kind of an unknown.

I agree that if he wanted to do a full blown OC on a 8-series FX he should get a proper Motherboard.

 

It depends on what he actually wants...i assumed that he doesn't "need" the extra power to fully utilize the r9 290x, so i figured he could run a 8350 on stock or OC a 8320 to 4ghz(amounts to the same cpu in practice).

 

Since he couldn't push the 8350 to its limits either way, i see it only as a money spender...

[kirashi]

Switching to an Intel based microprocessor is always an upgrade from AMD. It just boils down to can you afford it and is it worth it. You need to specify your other hardware and what you use your machine for. As an example for someone who only plays Minecraft I see no point in switching hardware. If you're compiling 100,000+ lines of code on a daily basis, then yes a i7 would make a world of difference. All you will get is a couple of replies, and then it will turn into a Intel vs AMD debate.

 

I disagree. Switching to a Celeron or Pentium chip is a downgrade from even an AMD A4 let alone the FX series of chips. Otherwise you're pretty much spot on; Intel generally has better performance in the same class as AMD for everyday computing, where as AMD generally has better gaming graphics with their APU chips if you can't afford a dedicated graphics card.