Is there any reason to get a AMD CPU?

[PCPartPickerPro9171787]

Is there any reason to get a AMD CPU? Particularly gaming 

[byalexandr]

No.

[Juanse]

No, unless you are in a real budget

Edited October 9, 2015 by Godlygamer23

[Amazingasian]

If you're video editing on a tight budget and you absolutely cannot afford a high end intel socket.

[Knaj]

Nope. 

[TheKDub]

The only reason I could possibly think of is trying to make an extremely cheap compact APU based rig.

 

 

Or perhaps for building a toaster

[VTF5252]

If I were I would go with Intel.

[Weak1ings]

Get it if you like to see 8 cores in Task manager.

One reason

[Ao_]

No??

[thekeemo]

Rendering.

For the money in rendering AMD as of now cannot be beat.

[PCPartPickerPro9171787]

Rendering.

For the money in rendering AMD as of now cannot be beat.

So one person thinks that there exists a possibility were AMD is comparable to intel. 

[JebKerman]

Anthon 860K, better than Pentium G3258 at the same price (though that's the super budget end) but, also like the Pentium, the cooler and OCable motherboard starts to push it dangerously close to i3 territory.

[Coombzy]

So one person thinks that there exists a possibility were AMD is comparable to intel. 

Next year that might be a possibility with AMD's Zen.

[Rocko]

Anthon 860K, better than Pentium G3258 at the same price (though that's the super budget end) but, also like the Pentium, the cooler and OCable motherboard starts to push it dangerously close to i3 territory.

 

[Fulgrim]

[Juanse]

Next year that might be a possibility with AMD's Zen.

If you want to believe in miracles....

[Rolling Potatoe]

The 860k and fx 6300 can be quite nice for budged gaming builds (+ a cheap overclocking plattform)

A 8320 or 8350 maybe for game streaming.

[Coombzy]

If you want to believe in miracles....

We don't know, you can't say that. They have been developing it for a LONG time now and it is in fact a possibility. You're basically being Intel elitist in saying that.

[manikyath]

i'd say either on extreme budget, or for other precise causes.

 

(if you want to learn overclocking, it'd be stupid to waste $300 on an i5)

[STRMfrmXMN]

If you're gaming you can still make intel builds for less money so throw that out the window.

For lots of virtual machines though, "All dem cores can be very nice" says my i3. 

[MageTank]

Is there any reason to get a AMD CPU? Particularly gaming 

For gaming, i would say no, unless your budget requires a really cheap quad core, with no good platform features. Gaming is mostly based on IPC and FPU performance, both of which the FX series is bad at. The later AMD APU's, and the Athlon 860k improved slightly in IPC, but still not enough to catch up any closer to Intel. Most games do not take advantage of extra cores. Assassin's Creed Unity does, and RAGE does too, but very few do. 

 

As others have stated, more cores helps when it comes to raw compression and video encoding. That being said, if you can spring for an i7, it would probably be better. You might even find cheaper Xeons that will do just nicely for that specific task. However, you listed gaming, so i will remain within that context.

 

For MMO's, core count does not really matter. You want the fastest single threaded performance possible. In other words, the G3258 is king here. Unlike the i3, it can be overclocked (quite easily to 4.2 ghz  on the stock cooler, and even on H81 boards.) As long as MMO's and MOBA's are your only gaming preference, it will suffice.

 

For any AAA title, you will need 4 cores, or at the very least, 4 threads. Some games simply will not run at all on the G3258. The games that do, run poorly due to both cores being taxed too heavily, causing stuttering at 100% core loads. The i3 series will work fine for medium settings when paired with a sub $200 GPU. Going beyond $200 on the GPU, you might want to consider bumping up to an i5. Going beyond a $400 GPU, going with an unlocked i5 is probably your best bet. The extra performance you can squeeze out of the i5 will be worth it.

 

I cannot really recommend an i7 for gaming, simply because those extra 4 threads won't do much for you. At least not worth that extra $100 price tag. You might notice a 10% increase in FPS going from an unlocked i5, to an unlocked i7, in best case scenarios. Contrary to what people might think, an Unlocked i5 is plenty enough to drive even a Titan X. 

 

Simply put, most of AMD's CPU offerings are too old to be recommended to people. The AM3 platform is dead, and they lack many new features that are going to come in handy for the future. M.2, NVME, USB 3.1, etc. Invest in a platform that has a longer staying power. At the end of the day, its always your choice, but just be sure you won't have any regrets in the end.

[tp95112]

If you already have a am3+ mother board and you can use the 8 core yeah it is

[MadyTehWolfie]

We don't know, you can't say that. They have been developing it for a LONG time now and it is in fact a possibility. You're basically being Intel elitist in saying that.

Being in development means that it already had a set performance in mind. For example if they started designing the chip a few years ago to beat a certain intel cpu...Intel already made cpus better then that old cpu by the time the amd cpu gets released. Its kind of like when the consoles came out. It was already to late to make major changes. Now think of it where they already have a desing thought up then have to constantly change it to keep up with the competition. Not sure if I explained my thoughts correctly, but that's how I feel about it anyway.

[Grrizz]

When AMD use Intel in their builds its probably a sign to steer clear

[reapersivan]

Get it if you like to see 8 cores in Task manager.

One reason

seeing 6 looks great for some reason