AMD hated?

[shadow196]

In my other post in the graphics card part of this forum, everyone who suggested said that i should not go for an AMD cpu.

 

1. Is an AMD cpu that disadvantageous over an intel?

2. I am planning to use the fx-8350 but im being suggested that i get a 4670k or a 4690k. to put this into perspective, where i live I will get an fx-8350 for Rs. 11,500 while a 4670k is 15,500 and a 4690k is 17,000+ which i simply cant afford. on looking at review sites, the 8350 was a little behind the 4670k but the price difference isnt worth it. so the question is that will the fx suffice if im gaming at 900p on a single monitor using a r9 285? i will overclock the processor after like 2-3 years so I need this build to be as future proof as possible. is an intel that absolutely nececary?

 

[TheUnknown]

Quick reply:

 

If you only use the cpu for gaming amd is the cpu you want to buy.

[brownninja97]

mostly the old chipset is a problem as its a lot older then intels current platforms.

[FatalityDiablo]

Quick reply:

 

If you only use the cpu for gaming amd is the cpu you want to buy.

why?

[gundershot]

Quick reply:

 

If you only use the cpu for gaming amd is the cpu you want to buy.

 

Gaming is one of the areas AMD doesn't perform well in. AMD lacks good single core performance, and not many games can effectively utilise multiple cores.

[Interfectorem]

The AMD choice is not a bad one at all. You will be able to run games fine.

[The Crazed Child]

While I do think a large amount of people are more biased towards Intel on here, most would agree with me that Bulldozer was a flop.

[TheUnknown]

Gaming is one of the areas AMD doesn't perform well in. AMD lacks good single core performance, and not many games can effectively utilise multiple cores.

 

 

why?

 

Money,Money,Money Intel processors are good both for gaming and editing...If you are gaming only I think you can sacrifice a couple of frames for money

[gundershot]

Money,Money,Money Intel processors are good both for gaming and editing...If you are gaming only I think you can sacrifice a couple of frames for money

 

AMD is actually pretty good for editing and other multi core tasks, it's not too great for gaming IMO. I guess a few frames isn't too bad though.

[xQubeZx]

I've got the AMD Fx 8350 and its working great, I'm maxing all my games at 60+ frames with it at stock with a 760. I recomend it if your on a budget. Also its a multitasking monster and is powerful for editing with all them cores. 

 

The games is Crysis 3 (Okey this im not maxing..but its close too) BF4 and BF3 Skyrim Titanfall Assasins Creed Black Flag and lots of others.

[OriginalPromise]

AMD CPUs have a disadvantage over intel CPUs since AMD CPUs are less efficient than AMDs. Intel haswell CPUs score higher on single threaded benchmarks for a reason. You can OC your AMD cpu if you want more performance, but performance wise, AMD is not a way to go. Most games can't utilize all 8 cores therefore an i5 might be better depending on the games you play. I've read that AMD is "not bad" and is great for budget systems. I'll say go for it.

[Lotus]

Until you get to i5 territory, AMD processors are usually the better buy for pretty much any use over their intel counterparts, except for the Pentium G3258. Why? Well, Intel has way better single-core performance. However, even with the inferior single-core performance of an AMD processor, at the lower price points it will not bottleneck your gaming experience much since you wont be pairing it with a GTX 770 anyway, and you get way better multi-threaded performance for productivity. It's a tiny tradeoff of a few FPS for way better productivity and even better FPS in more modern games that better support multiple cores. Plus, Intel CPUs all have locked multipliers preventing overclocking (except for the G3258) until you get to a K series processor, which can first be found for ~$230 (when not on sale) in their i5 lineup. It's just that most users here are willing to spend the money on high-end intel processors which definitely crush AMD processors.

 

TLDR: superficial tiny losses in FPS for major gains in total power when multithreaded plus cheaper puts AMD processors ahead of the more expensive Intel counterparts until you get to the core i5 k-series processors (the Intel G3258 is the one exception).

[kmo_9000]

I've built lots of AMD rigs and they perform just fine, Intel performs better but it's also more expensive. 

But think about it, if you have a 1080p monitor @60hz, you need to run games at 60FPS with v-sync on. Can a 8350 with a good video card do that? The answer is yes it can, and so can an Intel CPU with the same GPU (but then you have to justify paying more). And you are comparing this to a 4670k or a 4690k which are in the $250 to $265 price range going from NCIX's pricing. The 8350 is $200 with free shipping on NCIX right now. If you have a 120hz monitor then maybe you have more money to spend and want to go Intel, but I still think AMD CPU's can hold their own paired with the right video card.

 

And the thing about games not using 8 cores, well people have been saying that for years. I know BF3 and BF4 use more than 4 cores. More games are starting to become multithreaded. Galactic Civilizations 3 will be 64 bit and multithreaded. So at least some developers are coding games to use more than only 4 cores.

With the recent price drops I think you will be able to see FX-8350 CPU's drop to around $150. And that's really an unbeatable deal, then all you need is a GA-990FXA-UD3 motherboard for $120 and you are set. 

[nokturrduk84]

AMD got old architecture, & in games can't compete with Intel. If you're going to have high-end GPU, I recommend Intel CPUs, as AMD gonna bottleneck it. For only gaming i5s are perfect, if you want top notch CPU which can both be good in gaming & video/editing & other stuff you should go for i7. But it's little pricey CPU, but crashes anything AMD can offer. So, yes, I don't recommend AMD CPU which is on an old architecture & can't compete at all with their rival.

P.S. Also AMD got horrible memory controller.

[Vaub]

I had an FX-8350 (@4,8Ghz) and it didn't feel slow at all. Yes, my 4770k is faster, but not a 150$ faster... If the FX-8350 is that cheaper, I don't think you can go wrong.

Also, with a hefty overclock, they're not that bad and will heat your room in the winter. Intel has a better uarch, but "hating" AMD seems ridiculous; they offer good cpus at great price.

 

Game that were "slower" with my FX-8350 : Civ V and CoH2, both of which were perfectly playable, just not 100% of the time @ 60fps.

 

The only problem with Vishera is the platform age, but there's still some good board, just don't skimp on the VRM cooling. FXs are fun to OC and play with and, if you use VMs, they are a great cheap solutions.

[FatalityDiablo]

Money,Money,Money Intel processors are good both for gaming and editing...If you are gaming only I think you can sacrifice a couple of frames for money

well okay I guess that's true, but the fact is that the intel platform gives you more features on the mainstream platform 1055 and 1050 - unfortunately

[ATI-Sucks]

I've got the AMD Fx 8350 and its working great, I'm maxing all my games at 60+ frames with it at stock with a 760. I recomend it if your on a budget. Also its a multitasking monster and is powerful for editing with all them cores. 

 

The games is Crysis 3 (Okey this im not maxing..but its close too) BF4 and BF3 Skyrim Titanfall Assasins Creed Black Flag and lots of others.

60FPS isn't maxing anything. 60FPS isn't even usable.

[Redpalmtree]

I think that in OP's case, an AMD is the better choice, especially with the recent price drops. 

 

If you really want to be future proof, or at least settled until the next AMD-series comes out, buy a FX-9590 with a GOOD (I cannot stress this enough) water cooler. This way you can keep it cool on stock clock and have some room to play with overclocking. 

 

If you go for the 9590 you will encounter a GPU bottleneck at some point, so keep that in mind.

 

In my opinion, the 8350 and the r9-285 are a balanced combination.

 

Also, keep in mind mantle is rolling out and will increase you performance.

[Raxzer]

Intel-processors are good all-round CPUs, something which is definitely reflected in the price. 

 

For productivity, I'd say that the FX-8350 is a rather good option. It does get rather hot, so proper cooling is a huge advantage. The FX-8320 is also one of the best value processors out there, just keep that in mind.

I would not recommend the super-clocked FX-processors. I've had a few hours with one, and it consumes a pretty massive amount of power while producing way more heat than I anticipated. It didn't really feel like it was worth it.

 

If you don't rely heavily on single-threaded performance, I'd give AMD a shot. Though in games utilizing fewer cores, it's maybe not the best idea. Games like Guild Wars 2 and Skyrim may take a heavy hit when it comes to performance while running FX-processors.

 

 

 

 

So yes, I'd definitely recommend value-oriented users to look at the high-end FX-processors.