Intel or AMD CPU?

[GloriousPain]

Pretty sure the graphics in the 8350's are worse than the intel 4600 graphics that you can find on i7's-.

 

And if you are thinking of APU's, that's a 760k as the processor.......

There are no graphics on the 8350 >.> and I didn't say 8350 graphics I said AMD intergrated graphics without listing a specific chip >.> so your just an idiot

Linus comparing Haswell(current gen intel) to Trinity(2gens ago) and Richland(Last gen) AMD Guess who got wrecked? CPUs don't affect performance as much as you think.

[Faa]

There are no graphics on the 8350 >.> and I didn't say 8350 graphics I said AMD intergrated graphics without listing a specific chip >.> so your just an idiot

Linus comparing Haswell(current gen intel) to Trinity(2gens ago) and Richland(Last gen) AMD Guess who got wrecked? CPUs don't affect performance as much as you think.

Thats gpu bound; Intels IGP isn't as good as the ones from AMD. Put two 780's in there, the i5 would be much faster

[GloriousPain]

Thats gpu bound; Intels IGP isn't as good as the ones from AMD. Put two 780's in there, the i5 would be much faster

>.> MY ARGUMENT WAS THAT AMD iGPUs ARE BETTER so your saying if it were a different argument or you were to spend an extra $1500 I'm wrong

[Faa]

>.> MY ARGUMENT WAS THAT AMD iGPUs ARE BETTER so your saying if it were a different argument or you were to spend an extra $1500 I'm wrong

I replied mainly to:

 

 

 CPUs don't affect performance as much as you think.

Which is quite wrong

[GloriousPain]

I replied mainly to:

 

 

 

Which is quite wrong

Love you take quotes out of context I was arguing >.> w/ iGPUs in particular >.> I'd rather take an AMD apu over a Intel chip for gaming if I couldn't get an external graphics card cause who cares that the CPU is marginally stronger  when they bottleneck themselves in a hole. >.< 

[piggykid1]

Nvidia

[Erik4boss]

There are no graphics on the 8350 >.> and I didn't say 8350 graphics I said AMD intergrated graphics without listing a specific chip >.> so your just an idiot

Linus comparing Haswell(current gen intel) to Trinity(2gens ago) and Richland(Last gen) AMD Guess who got wrecked? CPUs don't affect performance as much as you think.

i7 get an AMD equivalent

 

 

You said it yourself, because the equivalent to the i7 is the 9370 which is pretty close to the 8350 and does not have an iGPU either, your argument is not valid.

[GloriousPain]

You said it yourself, because the equivalent to the i7 is the 9370 which is pretty close to the 8350 and does not have an iGPU either, your argument is not valid.

<.< you took two different quotes out of context.

[Erik4boss]

<.< you took two different quotes out of context.

that does not matter, I took the latest post from you since I updated. Anyway, I told you the truth. So it comes out like your the idiot.

[vm'N]

You said it yourself, because the equivalent to the i7 is the 9370 which is pretty close to the 8350 and does not have an iGPU either, your argument is not valid.

Which exact core I7 are we speaking of? It will all depend on the workload, in most cases the core I7 (or an newer core I5) would be superior.  

[Erik4boss]

Which exact core I7 are we speaking of? It will all depend on the workload, in most cases the core I7 (or an newer core I5) would be superior.  

I'm totally aware of that, but seeing how the 9370 is AMD's best processor I don't have much else to choose from.

[vm'N]

I'm totally aware of that, but seeing how the 9370 is AMD's best processor I don't have much else to choose from.

The FX 9590 is AMDs best consumer processor.

[Erik4boss]

The FX 9590 is AMDs best consumer processor.

forgot about that one. Yeah that is equivelent to a pretty good i7.

[BigChimp97]

AMD 8320

[Sintezza]

AMD 8320

 

+1 FX8320 is a great  cpu price to performance, good allrounder, performs great in gaming, and offcourse also in rendering and editing and stuf

[gundershot]

If you have the money for it I'd recommend an Intel CPU, they have stronger performance per core, which is important for games. I'd recommend the i5-4690K, or the 4670K if you can't get it.

[Lazmarr]

I'd say the fx 8320  It will perform great when you pair a good gpu with it  also if it's for a tight budget, like yours, its price performance is awesome

[luke_2bossly]

Lol no defiante answer.... I say intel nd nvidia but others will swear buy amd so...

.. pick your poison lols

[Faa]

+1 FX8320 is a great  cpu price to performance, good allrounder, performs great in gaming, and offcourse also in rendering and editing and stuf

Just no. No point getting an "octacore" when we only have one game taking fully advantage of it (crysis 3) thats still behind a nehalem from 2008 in terms of single core performance. Overclocking 5GHz or not, never touches the i5 except in BF4/WD. The i5 is a better all-rounder, 8320's would only make sense for a pure rendering machine. Quickly checked the price difference, well the i5 is just 10-20£ more so it's definitely a nobrainer here.

 

I'd say the fx 8320   It will perform great when you pair a good gpu with it   also if it's for a tight budget, like yours, its price performance is awesome 

Do you realize that multithreaded performance/price doesnt apply to gamers? They bottleneck high-end gpu's in any popular multiplayer games.

[Thetruecrow]

 

So im building a gaming PC, I've been reviewing alot, but most people say Intel. I'm looking between an Intel Core i5-4460 and a AMD FX 6350 or 8320.

Im know the AMD uses more power, but I'm here about performance of both. AMD has more Ghz, but I've heard intel is better. I'm building a gaming rig and want the best bang for buck. What would you reccomend? Also some motherboard recommendations would be handy, thanks.

 

If you're just gaming, get the FX-6350 and a good motherboard/chipset, GPU and PSU.

The difference in Performance per GHz between Intel and AMD is huge, with Intel in the lead, same with lower power consumption per performance.

 

For motherboards I would recommend Asus' M5A78L-M or Gigabyte's GA-78LMT for small form factor if you have a small case, otherwise it's mostly personal preference.

[LarsReviews]

I would say the i5 4440/4460 is better, since it is more powerful 90% of the time.

 

I have the i5 4430. With my gtx 770 even Watch Dogs at almost ultra is no problem.

[Lazmarr]

Do you realize that multithreaded performance/price doesnt apply to gamers? They bottleneck high-end gpu's in any popular multiplayer games.

Still, if you have loads of apps open and like doing loads of stuff; like me running firefox and its 2400+ tabs open, steam, itunes, skype, raidcall, Origin, Xbox Music, chrome and a game it works pretty well. With all that open I still manage to get 60fps steady with occasional drops to 40, I use a TV so it's locked at 60fps, with my 8350 @ stock

I still think it's a great CPU for its price and would recommend it to anyone.

[Faa]

Still, if you have loads of apps open and like doing loads of stuff; like me running firefox and its 2400+ tabs open, steam, itunes, skype, raidcall, Origin, Xbox Music, chrome and a game it works pretty well. With all that open I still manage to get 60fps steady with occasional drops to 40, I use a TV so it's locked at 60fps, with my 8350 @ stock

Nothing special, Q9550's handle that kind of tasks easily.

 

 

I still think it's a great CPU for its price and would recommend it to anyone.

It isn't because the i5 offers up to twice as much performance per core.

[Lazmarr]

 

Nothing special, Q9550's handle that kind of tasks easily.

 

AMD FX 8320 £103.70, Intel core 2 quad Q9550 £309.98, not bashing intel or anything as they make really good processors but I fail to see how the Q9550 is better if it costs £206.28 more; and the FX 8320 can handle those tasks just as well.

 

 

It isn't because the i5 offers up to twice as much performance per core.

 

I can't answer on the double performance as I don't know, but that were true wouldn't it come out as double the performance in all applications? (Which I don't think it does)

Both CPU's have their strengths and weakness', I5 are great CPU's and so are AMD's the performance differences between an I5 and an FX 8320 are negligible at best; what like 2-3 FPS, in games, if I go with an I5 even though my FX gets 60+ fps stable. An I5 4670k costs £164.89 and the AMD costs much less, price performance, I say, is better with AMD when it gets the same or sometimes better FPS than intels offerings.

When I choose the CPU to go with I choose the one that is going to give me the performance I want at the most reasonable price, for me, that was the FX. (I also wanted to try another company, since I have always used Intel in the past).

[Faa]

AMD FX 8320 £103.70, Intel core 2 quad Q9550 £309.98, not bashing intel or anything as they make really good processors but I fail to see how the Q9550 is better if it costs £206.28 more; and the FX 8320 can handle those tasks just as well.

 

Why would you buy a Q9550? Was just stating a Q9550 would handle the tasks you do easily.

 

I can't answer on the double performance as I don't know, but that were true wouldn't it come out as double the performance in all applications? (Which I don't think it does)

Both CPU's have their strengths and weakness', I5 are great CPU's and so are AMD's the performance differences between an I5 and an FX 8320 are negligible at best; what like 2-3 FPS, in games, if I go with an I5 even though my FX gets 60+ fps stable. An I5 4670k costs £164.89 and the AMD costs much less, price performance, I say, is better with AMD when it gets the same or sometimes better FPS than intels offerings.

When I choose the CPU to go with I choose the one that is going to give me the performance I want at the most reasonable price, for me, that was the FX. (I also wanted to try another company, since I have always used Intel in the past).

The 4460 is 120£, clearly a better value. And no 2 fps difference is complety a gpu bound scenario.