AMD vs Intel

[iswedishleafs]

I'm currently building a new PC and I'm not sure which CPU to chose. I've chosen an intel 4670k at the moment. I know the current AMD piledriver series is very inefficient so i don't want to get any of those. But maybe an older AMD would be better foe me because I'm looking to save some money. I'm going to be using this PC for gaming and plan on overclocking also.

 

Any suggestions would help 

[Godlygamer23]

Stay with the 4670K

[Simmytu]

Well with the power consumption AMD performs 'bad', it depends with the electricity prices. But in performance they is good enough for gaming and those kind of things.

(See Tek Syndicate video for the power consumption and performance comparison)

 

Well my advice is that you should stick the the 4670k. (If you find a cheap one)

But you can get the FX 8350 without any problems but keep in mind that they consume a bit more power than the Intel one. 

[Guest GRRigger]

Intel. Just because low consumption and core for core performance.

Not sure about games using 8 cores... we will see... maybe 8 core is better choice for future games.

[tedjani]

amd is good for budget gaming buileds but really bad at power consumption

but since you want the inefficient then go fo 4670k

[AraSarkisyan]

IF you are going to stream, get the 8350. 

this is the best video on the subject. 

[AraSarkisyan]

amd is good for budget gaming buileds but really bad at power consumption

but since you want the inefficient then go fo 4670k

if you want the inefficient get the 4670k? You need to revise that, brother. 

[tedjani]

if you want the inefficient get the 4670k? You need to revise that, brother. 

oh my bad sorry

if you want the inefficient get the 4670k

[AraSarkisyan]

oh my bad sorry

if you want the inefficient get the 4670k

lol. NONONONO. If you want the energy effevient processor, you get the intel. IF energy isnt that expensive where you live, under 15c per kwh then get the AMD.

[Godlygamer23]

oh my bad sorry

if you want the inefficient get the 4670k

Inefficient means it's not efficient.

[TorguL]

If you looking to save money as you said then AMD would be the best route to take.

If you can spend a little extra, then Intel.

[Skanic]

Why not choose the fx 8350 and then spend the rest of the money on a good GPU.

[CarlosRex]

Why do you want an efficient processor specifically ? if you're worried about power costs then don't be, with an overclocked FX 8350 compared to an overclocked 3570K (which consumes less power than a 4670K) for 15 cents/KW you pay approximately 8$ more per year if you game everyday for 4 hours.

That means for you to make back the money you paid extra over the 8350 for the 3570K's you will need to run your intel 3570K system for 4 years & 5 years for a 4670K, so the efficiency argument is really ridiculous unless you live in Japan or somewhere where electricity is EXTREMELY expensive.

[CarlosRex]

Why not choose the fx 8350 and then spend the rest of the money on a good GPU.

Actually an 8320 is an even better choice, for 150$ you pay $80-$70 less compared to a 4670K, which means the difference between a 7870 & a 7950, that's a HUGE difference.

[KneesWeak]

for gaming you cant go wrong with a modest 970 or 990fx board and something like an 8320 or 50. you also cant go wrong with a 4670k and a decent z87 board. Like everyone else will tell you for gaming the gpu will help you the most, either way you'll probably be happy. buy an aftermarket cooler too 

[fracking4oil]

Why not try to find a deal on a 3570K?

 

Edited: With the Newegg promo you can get it for less than the 8350: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115233&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID= But it ends today...

[JoshM]

The FX8350 may be better in the future as programs and games may utilize more cores...

[I'm Batman]

IF you are going to stream, get the 8350. 

this is the best video on the subject. 

THAT VİDEO İS THE..answer

[iswedishleafs]

THAT VİDEO İS THE..answer

well i don't plan on streaming or recording so i don't know about that. But should i jump down to a 6 core fx series because that price difference is kind of attractive or is the performance loss too much. Or is there even a performance loss?

[tedjani]

Inefficient means it's not efficien

sorry i hade a long day

[James89]

Basically what everyone else is saying. If your going to steam get a AMD more useful with more cores. If not that intel i5 4670k will do you great. If your worried about furtune proof your fine. I dont believe games will be utilizing more then 4 cores any time soon. But im not sure. Its technically not possible to furtune proof. If you plan on using more then one monitor you can consider more cores or and i7 added with a nice gpu. And what it comes down to if you want to go cheaper with more performance then i believe AMD is the way to go. <---- dont quote me on that. ;)

[AraSarkisyan]

well i don't plan on streaming or recording so i don't know about that. But should i jump down to a 6 core fx series because that price difference is kind of attractive or is the performance loss too much. Or is there even a performance loss?

You will only see a 3 FPS performance drop in games, and a bit slower computer. However if I was you I would get that 6 core and get a better GPU. 

[TechFan@ic]

well i don't plan on streaming or recording so i don't know about that. But should i jump down to a 6 core fx series because that price difference is kind of attractive or is the performance loss too much. Or is there even a performance loss?

You can get an FX 8320 for $150 which is identical to the FX 8350 but only slightly underclocked from the factory, the FX 8320 tends to overclock only 100-200mhz less than the FX 8350 but it's quite a bit cheaper.

The performance difference from 6 to 8 cores can range from very small to significant & considering the price difference is very small I tend to recommend the 8 core FX 8320 more often & because of the 8 core CPU design of both the PS4 & the XBOX1 .

 

[tabuburn]

You can get an FX 8320 for $150 which is identical to the FX 8350 but only slightly underclocked from the factory, the FX 8320 tends to overclock only 100-200mhz less than the FX 8350 but it's quite a bit cheaper.

The performance difference from 6 to 8 cores can range from very small to significant & considering the price difference is very small I tend to recommend the 8 core FX 8320 more often & because of the 8 core CPU design of both the PS4 & the XBOX1 .

 

From what I've read about how the CPU's on the PS4 and XBone work is that a couple of their cores are allocated to run their respective OS so in-effect, you're left with about 6 of the original 8 cores to used for gaming. It's also important to take note that the cores on the Jaguar CPU's they will have are not equivalent to their desktop counterparts.

 

Not sure how that will translate to gaming since Intel's core quality might balance out their lack of quantity. It's still up in the air as to whether AMD desktop CPU's will really benefit from AMD console CPU's since publishers will be starting to code for PC then trickle it down to the console because of how PC-like they've become.

[TechFan@ic]

From what I've read about how the CPU's on the PS4 and XBone work is that a couple of their cores are allocated to run their respective OS so in-effect, you're left with about 6 of the original 8 cores to used for gaming. It's also important to take note that the cores on the Jaguar CPU's they will have are not equivalent to their desktop counterparts.

Not sure how that will translate to gaming since Intel's core quality might balance out their lack of quantity. It's still up in the air as to whether AMD desktop CPU's will really benefit from AMD console CPU's since publishers will be starting to code for PC then trickle it down to the console because of how PC-like they've become.

It's only the XBOX that reserves 2 cores for the OS, the PS4 doesn't do that, which is frankly another incentive to avoid the XBOX.

I've tried explaining threading to PCBudgetSolutions yesterday, that's not how it works, core efficiency/performance doesn't counter balance threading, it doesn't work like that in games, only in number crunching programs where you see that to an extent.

If a game engine is designed to go wide (more threads) it will require those set amount of threads to work properly, if you run that engine on 2 CPUs with identical performance, one with 4 cores & the other with 8, it'll run faster on the 8 core, because threading isn't variable in an engine (except in very few circumstances) it's a constant, so it expects those threads to be available, if they're not it loses efficiency which in turn affects performance.