Why choose AMD

[CoolaxGaming]

Hello,

 

I have been going around questions a long time, and whenever someone asks a question about comparisons about AMD FX 8xxx and FX 9xxx, the first reply they will get is "Go with Intel it is a lot better". While I do not disagree that Intel cpu's are A LOT faster, and AMD FX is getting outdated. But then why does AMD even exist? Why do people even buy this over Intel? The answer, simple: Budget.

 

Let me explain this by telling my story, -

I was 11 years old and was given a $1500 budget for a gaming PC that could run games on ulta at 1366x768. I was going with a i7 3770k plus a AMD GPU. I was originally going for a FX 8120, but I heard Intel was "Better". But when I actually calculated the numbers, I was A LOT over budget, and other parts were pretty low end. Then I looked back at AMD, it cost me $150 and the Intel cost me $379.99. So I thought, why go with Intel when I could invest in a high-end GPU, so I actually went with AMD, with high-end addons.

So what does my story explain, if you didnt figure it I bought AMD because - I DONT HAVE A FRKN $2500 Budget.......

$1500 For a computer running games at ultra and saving a $1000 bucks but sacrificing some performence that does not show in games right now? A 980 and 290x perform same under a FX 8350 and a i7 4960x. You want to do hardcore gaming and have a overwhelming budget, buy Intel, you have a normal budget get AMD.

 

EDIT: To everyone saying that it has already been stated, people still admit get it.... 

[Interfectorem]

I thought we all already knew this.

[Clyne]

I still regret buying my 8320. But we have to sometimes live and learn with what we got. 

[Fate]

3770k isn't on the same level as a 8120 at all. Not even close. A 3570k was much better than a 8120 at the time (and still is better than an 8320 in games, pretty close in things like rendering) and was $50 more (or the same price @ Microcenter). 

 

The problem is people think you need an i7 to compete with an 8320, which is not true.

 

Locked i5 + cheap motherboard is the same price as an 8320 + decent motherboard that won't overheat and kill itself

 

You also have upgradeability with Intel, what are you going to upgrade to with AMD? Nothing. There is nothing.

[TheKDub]

Hello,

 

I have been going around questions a long time, and whenever someone asks a question about comparisons about AMD FX 8xxx and FX 9xxx, the first reply they will get is "Go with Intel it is a lot better". While I do not disagree that Intel cpu's are A LOT faster, and AMD FX is getting outdated. But then why does AMD even exist? Why do people even buy this over Intel? The answer, simple: Budget.

 

Let me explain this by telling my story, -

I was 11 years old and was given a $1500 budget for a gaming PC that could run games on ulta at 1366x768. I was going with a i7 3770k plus a AMD GPU. I was originally going for a FX 8120, but I heard Intel was "Better". But when I actually calculated the numbers, I was A LOT over budget, and other parts were pretty low end. Then I looked back at AMD, it cost me $150 and the Intel cost me $379.99. So I thought, why go with Intel when I could invest in a high-end GPU, so I actually went with AMD, with high-end addons.

So what does my story explain, if you didnt figure it I bought AMD because - I DONT HAVE A FRKN $2500 Budget.......

$1500 For a computer running games at ultra and saving a $1000 bucks but sacrificing some performence that does not show in games right now? A 980 and 290x perform same under a FX 8350 and a i7 4960x. You want to do hardcore gaming and have a overwhelming budget, buy Intel, you have a normal budget get AMD.

 

I could have easily built a gaming pc that used an intel cpu and a high end NVidia or AMD GPU for $1500.

And that would be with decent/high quality parts, not low end shitty stuff.

[Guest Kloaked]

I thought we all already knew this.

 

Right. Shouldn't be a secret to anyone. Even Intel-only users have to recognize all of that is true.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Intel = Better Minimums in a range of games.

^This is MY primary reason, and should be the most important factor for GAMING, there are many 'each to his own' reasons for either CPU, but this is mine. Framedrops - less of an issue.

 

 

AMD isn't even better on the wallet these days because...when you realize it's slower and have shockingly bad MINIMUMS, you'll overclock to get past this, problem being, your gunna want a better motherboard with better power delivery, better cooler and maybe even better airflow in your case to pull that off, costing even more money.  The money you spend on trying to catch up (for Gamings sake) should have gone into a better platform to begin with.

AMD has it's uses in a range of applications thats for sure, but for Gaming only systems, I wouldn't bother. Even if you do some light video editing, wouldn't bother.

 

Again  - EACH TO HIS OWN

[lx_srs]

Way to state the obvious.

[CoolaxGaming]

I thought we all already knew this.

People still argue about it......

 

 

 

3770k isn't on the same level as a 8120 at all. Not even close. A 3570k was much better than a 8120 at the time (and still is better than an 8320 in games, pretty close in things like rendering) and was $50 more (or the same price @ Microcenter). 

 

The problem is people think you need an i7 to compete with an 8320, which is not true.

 

Locked i5 + cheap motherboard is the same price as an 8320 + decent motherboard that won't overheat and kill itself

 

You also have upgradeability with Intel, what are you going to upgrade to with AMD? Nothing. There is nothing.

The benchmarks show Intels better but with same GPU's the FPS isint even about 10 apart.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Another one who says Intel is better then AMD

Don't give me that 'another one' bullshit

There is a reason for that... it's common enough to be a thing!

 

It's based off experience with a range of CPU/Motherboard combinations I've had to build at work, AMD & Intel

Minimum FPS, READ UP ON WHY IT'S IMPORTANT

I see this shit all the time, people just can't accept the truth, Framedrops are Real, And it's Shithouse to experience, yet IS absolutely MORE COMMON on AMD CPUs.

 

I've owned many AMD/Intel CPU's in my time, just like MANY people on this forum who can no doubt attest to what I said.

Just because you've maybe have not experienced something to that degree doesn't make it not happen, it's common enough.

 

AGAIN - It's not about the AVERAGE FPS BEING 10 APART or so.

 

it's about the MINIMUMS!!!

MINIMUMS!!!!!!!!!

[Cwazywazy]

I'm happy with my FX 8320. Overclocks pretty damn well. (Highest I've had is 5GHz. Not that stable, but usable.)

 

I would like an Intel, but I would not like to pay for one.

[CoolaxGaming]

Don't give me that 'another one' bullshit please.

It's based off experience with a range of CPU/Motherboard combinations I've had to build at work, AMD & Intel

 

I see this shit all the time, people just can't accept the truth.

Sorry sir, but to telll you I have used a i5 before and let me tell you, it sucks for price to performence.

I always knew Intel is faster but it does not deliever for a tight budget

 

 

I'm happy with my FX 8320. Overclocks pretty damn well. (Highest I've had is 5GHz. Not that stable, but usable.)

 

I would like an Intel, but I would not like to pay for one.

 

Exactly Intel just doesent give that good performence for a small budget

[Fate]

The benchmarks show Intels better but with same GPU's the FPS isint even about 10 apart.

What about the games like Dayz/Arma/SC2/MMO's where AMD CPU platforms do horrible in? 

I don't want to start this argument again because it's pointless but basically here's what I think:

AMD would be a better value if games were optimized correctly, but they're not. Since a locked i5 is the around the same price (usually about 5-10$ more), there's no excuse to not go Intel other than you literally play 0 games and you never plan to upgrade. 

 

I know it sounds like I'm a huge Intel/nvidia fanboy, but take a look at my sig; I'm not, I love AMD it's just that I can't recommend a product that is inferior for gaming. 

[CoolaxGaming]

What about the games like Dayz/Arma/SC2/MMO's where AMD CPU platforms do horrible in? 

I don't want to start this argument again because it's pointless but basically here's what I think:

AMD would be a better value if games were optimized correctly, but they're not. Since a locked i5 is the around the same price (usually about 5-10$ more), there's no excuse to not go Intel other than you literally play 0 games and you never plan to upgrade. 

 

I know it sounds like I'm a huge Intel/nvidia fanboy, but take a look at my sig; I'm not, I love AMD it's just that I can't recommend a product that is inferior for gaming. 

Huh, I get good FPS on ARMA 3 and Dayz.....

[Dylan lol]

the question is why are u using a 150 dollar amd cpu in a 1500 budget computer? lol

[CoolaxGaming]

the question is why are u using a 150 dollar amd cpu in a 1500 budget computer? lol

Well, It was $250 when I got it....

[Dylan lol]

Well, It was $250 when I got it....

"Then I looked back at AMD, it cost me $150 and the Intel cost me $379.99". If you are buying an AMD cpu for a 1500 dollar computer you're doing it wrong.

[CoolaxGaming]

"Then I looked back at AMD, it cost me $150 and the Intel cost me $379.99". If you are buying an AMD cpu for a 1500 dollar computer you're doing it wrong.

Actually, now its 150, before it was more expensive. 

[cae]

I went with AMD until I had disposable income. That was back when AMD CPUs were legit good, though. The only things that really keep me from going back are motherboard selection and TDP.

 

I was 11 years old and was given a $1500 budget for a gaming PC

 

:mellow: wut

[Yoinkerman]

I currently have this gen AMD and Intel CPUs, they're both fine for gaming.  I was willing to spend more money on my primary gaming computer so I went with intel.  A couple of my other gaming computers I went with AMD.  There's no tangible difference between my 4670K and my a8 5600k, and no difference between my 4670k and my g3258.  There is difference between those and my wifes older x4 2.4(it might be 3)ghz.

 

EDIT:  It comes down to money.  The fps per dollar is better with AMD.  It's not a debate.  If you have to choose between an AMD chip and a better gfx card, or a better intel chip and a less powerful gpu, go amd if you want to play games.

[UnMonk]

AMD is better price to performance. Intel will get you better lower core performance, but you cant beat the price/performance on current AMD chips.

[Speedbird]

AMD is more than FX. Their APUs are very good for budget builds. And the Athlon X4 860K is a very good entry-level quad-core.

[Sandvich]

Stop this Blue vs Red war

 

It isn't about intel or amd it is about what gives the best performance for the money you are paying.

[Recon97]

AMD is incompetent.

[SkilledRebuilds]

 

Sorry sir, but to telll you I have used a i5 before and let me tell you, it sucks for price to performence.

I always knew Intel is faster but it does not deliever for a tight budget

 

 

But that's not what my point was about at all.

I'm all about the framedrops being an issue mate, and am happy to pay more for a processor that has less framedrops when I'm gaming.

And the 'another one who says intel is better than amd'

Substantially proven in a range of games they do perform less and have BIG issues at times with framedrops.

I bought my 2600K before this 4690 not because I was blinded to Intel, I love me some AMD, always have who doesn't wanna support the underdogs... but because my aging 955/1100T wasn't holding up against what I threw at it, and when I saw results from these newer CPU's, I jumped.

Regardless of the price to performance ratio points you've made, it also can cost you more (maybe not a lot) to enhance your AMD situation (after the fact of buying it and experiencing framedrops, then needing to OC, requiring better gear to do so in some cases) which to some,..is negating the bigger upfront cost for going the Intel route. <-- I went through all this with my 1100T trying to get more out of it, seeing the new FX's being not happy with such a miniscule jump in performance.

Maybe my timing was just right, with Sandy bridge being a whole new beast and getting that 2600K just after launch, I had a great chip too, but until AMD pull something magic out of their behinds on their next CPU release, only then will I consider it for myself.