The Age Old Debate

[Daltanian]

Okay first off, let me just say the last thing I am trying to do is start any sort of argument. (Though I 'm aware there is a thin line in this case) The reason I am posting this all came from where many others have been before and I now am once again at this crossroad. I ask everyone to keep this on topic and play nice. I would like to see hard factual evidence and not hear say.

 

Long story short, My new graphics card was too big to fit my current case. So, I decided to buy a new case, and in turn this led me to decide to replace my motherboard and essentially start plans to build my next tower and replace everything. Well, that's where I'm at. The motherboard. And as we all know, if you pick your motherboard, you better know what CPU you plan on having which leads me right back to where many have debated, argued, fought, scratched, kicked, cried, and sworn to bare arms over.

 

AMD vs Intel     (In alphabetical order because I am married to neither and I hold no bias)

 

This PC will most definitely be used for gaming. I will not mention what games I play currently because this really has no baring on what I want in this future PC that I dream about in my sleep that still has question marks throughout it and the writing is blurred because I don't quite know what it will be. For this situation lets pretend this PC will be used for hardcore gaming. I want to run 3 monitors and play in 4k.

 

Also I plan doing multiple YouTube channels at some point in the future (topic is not important), so I am going to be doing a good deal of video rendering and editing as well.

 

Things to know. I am not concerned about price too much. I am not going to buy one or the other strictly because one cost more or less than the other. I truly would like cost to be left out of this discussion. (Unless for some reason I ask specifically which I doubt I will.)

 

Finally if you make a claim please back it up. Leave a link to back your claim up. And please don't make claims to your personal experience when it was second hand knowledge.

 

Ps. If you stand for one or the other, I wouldn't mind a motherboard recommendation to go with the CPU. (definitely capable of SLI or Crossfire)

 

___

Okay everyone, put your gloves on, grease them up, and lets have a nice clean, friendly nerdy, intelligent conversation on the eternal debate that will never end. 

 

Remember--- Nothing below the belt.

 

[Sauron]

I suggest intel - a 5820k would be worth the investment if you'll do rendering, if you can't afford it a 4790k will be just fine. I don't see a reason to recommend an fx cpu unless you're on a tight budget and need dat rendering bad.

[blackadder]

You want intel currently if not doing a budget build and gpu is up to you amd or nvidia, 4k is pretty pricey you want over 500 usd gpu/gpus for 4k and high settings.

[Avalen]

Since you're not concerned about price(and even if you were), Intel. 5820K is a great bang-for-buck rendering/gaming CPU.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

The words "gaming" and "price doesn't really need to be considered" means Intel. There is no two ways about it.

/thread

[Guest]

Intel hands down is dominating the market share.

NO ONE is recommended to use AMD these days UNLESS its a APU OR your on an EXTREME budget Anything  $500 or less will get you an i3.

4790k/6700k is the best CPU currently for gaming right now.

Intel gives you the edge in absolutely everything.

The CPU's are extremely efficient and they keep up extremely well for the time.

and since you want to play 4k, definately go for a 980Ti or Fury X

but all 3 monitors running 4k is a huge nope.

[Nena Trinity]

Best AMD options are 860K and FX-6300 but I think you want something a bit more expensive right?

[Daltanian]

Best AMD options are 860K and FX-6300 but I think you want something a bit more expensive right?

 

I am not concerned about price only performance.

[Nena Trinity]

I am not concerned about price only performance.

Well the two is good for their price range but if you can get a i5 or i7 that is great to!

[typographie]

Finally if you make a claim please back it up. Leave a link to back your claim up. And please don't make claims to your personal experience when it was second hand knowledge.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/8

Bear in mind that this is AMD's current best effort for gaming. It runs at 5 GHz, carries an absolutely inexcusable TDP, and is priced to compete with Core i5's. Realistically it is trading blows with the $150, 54 Watt Core i3-4360 in most of the games they're using to test.

 

http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake-processor-reviewed/6 (I'm linking page 6, but gaming results are on 6-9)

Project CARS in particular is the most CPU-bound game they tested. Using the same video card, a Core i7-5775C is coming dangerously close to doubling the average framerate of the FX-8370. And make sure to note the frame time latency data they show throughout their benchmark suite, as that often tells us more about a CPU than average framerates do.

 

The conclusion I draw from these is that AMD cannot compete right now at the high-end, or really even the middle, and I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Intel is the only name in $200+ CPUs right now, and I'd argue it may even go a bit lower than that.

 

To AMD's credit, they're having little trouble reaching at least 60 FPS in most of the game benchmarks I've shown here, but what you'll inevitably keep coming back to is why you'd go the AMD route when you're objectively getting less to some degree. Even if it's just less potential, it's still less.

[incarnate]

I am not concerned about price only performance.

Then an i7 5820k or 5960x would be best.

[Daltanian]

Intel hands down is dominating the market share.

NO ONE is recommended to use AMD these days UNLESS its a APU OR your on an EXTREME budget Anything  $500 or less will get you an i3.

4790k/6700k is the best CPU currently for gaming right now.

Intel gives you the edge in absolutely everything.

The CPU's are extremely efficient and they keep up extremely well for the time.

and since you want to play 4k, definately go for a 980Ti or Fury X

but all 3 monitors running 4k is a huge nope.

 

I'm just playing devils advocate because like I said I have no bias.

 

But in what situations would an AMD CPU be more proficient because it has more cores? I'm aware the cores are indeed smaller. However, I have read that regardless of having smaller cores than Intel the extra cores would be better for certain games. Which games? I'm not sure. But I honestly thought that was one of the biggest reasons that this debate ( far prior to this thread) has gone on and on. 

[Daltanian]

The words "gaming" and "price doesn't really need to be considered" means Intel. There is no two ways about it.

/thread

 

What factual evidence is there of this? This is in the form of an opinionated statement. I appreciate your input, however what is the basis for such a statement?

[incarnate]

What factual evidence is there of this? This is in the form of an opinionated statement. I appreciate your input, however what is the basis for such a statement?

Look up the countless gaming benchmarks online showing amd's ridiculous 220w fx9590 competing with a core i....3.

Yep the best amd has to offer competes with Intel's 130.00 i3 in gaming performance. Amd hasn't released anything new performance minded cpus since the 8350, the fx9s being 8350s that Overclocked very well. And the 8350 is old. Until they come out with zen, nothing is going to change, and is been that way for going on 3 years. It once had a place, but not any more

[Daltanian]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/8

Bear in mind that this is AMD's current best effort for gaming. It runs at 5 GHz, carries an absolutely inexcusable TDP, and is priced to compete with Core i5's. Realistically it is trading blows with the $150, 54 Watt Core i3-4360 in most of the games they're using to test.

 

http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake-processor-reviewed/6 (I'm linking page 6, but gaming results are on 6-9)

Project CARS in particular is the most CPU-bound game they tested. Using the same video card, a Core i7-5775C is coming dangerously close to doubling the average framerate of the FX-8370. And make sure to note the frame time latency data they show throughout their benchmark suite, as that often tells us more about a CPU than average framerates do.

 

The conclusion I draw from these is that AMD cannot compete right now at the high-end, or really even the middle, and I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Intel is the only name in $200+ CPUs right now, and I'd argue it may even go a bit lower than that.

 

To AMD's credit, they're having little trouble reaching at least 60 FPS in most of the game benchmarks I've shown here, but what you'll inevitably keep coming back to is why you'd go the AMD route when you're objectively getting less to some degree. Even if it's just less potential, it's still less.

 

Thanks a lot for your response. My question is what is important in a GPU? Does processing speed and cores mean nothing? 

 

For instance, on one hand you have a fx-8350 Viscera 4.0 ghz 8 cores ( which I currently have, which is irrelevant), and on the other hand you have the

i7-5960x. They have the same amount of cores and one is $900 more with 1.0 ghz less processing speed?! Do what? See my confusion. I obviously see there is a reason for this and that there are more forces in play. But what are they? I suspect some of this is branding which I understand. But is this strictly because of the architecture of the CPUs or is there something else I don't know?

[Daltanian]

Intel hands down is dominating the market share.

NO ONE is recommended to use AMD these days UNLESS its a APU OR your on an EXTREME budget Anything  $500 or less will get you an i3.

4790k/6700k is the best CPU currently for gaming right now.

Intel gives you the edge in absolutely everything.

The CPU's are extremely efficient and they keep up extremely well for the time.

and since you want to play 4k, definately go for a 980Ti or Fury X

but all 3 monitors running 4k is a huge nope.

 

I am really only concerned about my middle monitor being in 4k. I will probably the 2 1080p monitors I have now on either side of my 4k monitor. 3 4k monitors really isn't necessary, however for my primary gaming monitor I would like it to of the best quality. Plus most for most YouTube content that I watch or provide is perfectly fine in only 720p. I would be willing to bet that it is prolly preferred to many because of Isp limitations. 

[incarnate]

Thanks a lot for your response. My question is what is important in a GPU? Does processing speed and cores mean nothing?

For instance, on one hand you have a fx-8350 Viscera 4.0 ghz 8 cores ( which I currently have, which is irrelevant), and on the other hand you have the

i7-5960x. They have the same amount of cores and one is $900 more with 1.0 ghz less processing speed?! Do what? See my confusion. I obviously see there is a reason for this and that there are more forces in play. But what are they? I suspect some of this is branding which I understand. But is this strictly because of the architecture of the CPUs or is there something else I don't know?

First core count is misleading on fx cpus. There are no 8 cores, that's all marketing bs. The fx architecture is based around modules, not cores. Key distinction to make here is that a core should never ever have to wait for resources to be free to do it's work. On an fx if both threads on the module need the fpu, one had to wait.

Next, that 1.0ghz advantage means nothing. There were Pentium 4s running at 3.8 ghz, and those won't hold a candle to even the single core performance of a baytail atom cpu at 1.4ghz. This is because instructions per clock has increased over the years. This is the amount of work a cpu can do per hz. Amd is way behind on this.

[Inchun]

I'd say go with an i7 and fury x combo. Fury seems to scale and perform better at 4k than the 980 ti

[Guest]

I'm just playing devils advocate because like I said I have no bias.

 

But in what situations would an AMD CPU be more proficient because it has more cores? I'm aware the cores are indeed smaller. However, I have read that regardless of having smaller cores than Intel the extra cores would be better for certain games. Which games? I'm not sure. But I honestly thought that was one of the biggest reasons that this debate ( far prior to this thread) has gone on and on. 

they're cores don't physcially count as 8.

they technically have 4. 

Its like Hyperthreading but with Cores

they have 4 physical 

a PC recognizes them as 8, however that does not make it better

[Guest trucker2]

Allot depends on where you are and what stores are having what sale. For me having a Mirocenter offer an A10-7850k with A68h MB for 109 is the absolute best bang for the buck. Intel has higher IPC and AMD has more cores. Most games were/are single threaded due to console gaming dominance and consoles using VLIW chips. That and programing for multiple threads is extremely difficult. For most intel is the preferred choice, it is what they want and what is best for them.

   Gaming is going through allot of changes, PC gaming is once again on the rise and that's a good thing. For many people AMD is the better choice especially on budget builds. You can check out any retailer and check the reviews, AMD and intel both get 5 stars for the most part and most consumers are glad. 99 percent of the time unhappiness comes from a bad board or driver issues. Smack talk is to be expected and maybe a few flames because people are passionate about their choices.

Oh yea the A10-7850k kills the I5 chip to chip:)

[typographie]

Thanks a lot for your response. My question is what is important in a GPU? Does processing speed and cores mean nothing? 

 

For instance, on one hand you have a fx-8350 Viscera 4.0 ghz 8 cores ( which I currently have, which is irrelevant), and on the other hand you have the

i7-5960x. They have the same amount of cores and one is $900 more with 1.0 ghz less processing speed?! Do what? See my confusion. I obviously see there is a reason for this and that there are more forces in play. But what are they? I suspect some of this is branding which I understand. But is this strictly because of the architecture of the CPUs or is there something else I don't know?

 

The simplest way to put it is that it's the architecture. A CPU is more than just a collection of cores that run at a given frequency in Hz. Basically an Intel Haswell core gets a lot more done within a clock cycle than an AMD Piledriver module does. The reasons why get pretty engineering-heavy, and I probably don't know enough to explain it further anyway. But what you need to know is that you cannot compare clock speeds between different architectures to figure out what's faster. The only effective way to compare the two is to look at the performance levels they achieve in a real application, like the benchmarks I linked earlier.

 

The core count doesn't really matter beyond a certain point. In a program that only scales up to about four cores (which includes the majority of games), any beyond that won't really do much to help performance, and so per-core performance makes a bigger difference. On the other hand, AMD's FX CPUs can do a lot better in programs that can more easily divide up their workload between as many processors as are present. An FX-8350 is generally a faster CPU than a Core i5 for multi-core video rendering, for example, whereas it's quite far behind in most games.

 

i7's feature Hyperthreading, which allows each physical core to run two processing threads. Meaning a quad-core i7-4790K actually has eight logical cores, and an eight-core i7-5960X has 16 logical cores.

[Daltanian]

This thread has been continued with the same premise to>>> http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/451788-choosing-my-intel-cpu/