6700 Skylake Vs. AMD 8350 or 9590

[Fallenangel130]

okay so i posted on here earlier about a graphics card but now im inquiring about parts companies.

 

AMD vs INTEL

 

 

ive been looking to build my own pc for a long time.

now like any consumer i have questions. looking into intel its extremely expensive, is it worth the cost been considering 6700 skylake cpu and higher end mobo?

now on the cheap side AMD im looking into the 8350 or 9590 black edition, both systems i planned to liquid cool.

 

gonna have 32 gigs of ram

980 ti

ssd with regular HDD for storage

 

i need the pros and cons between the two choices.

and ultimately i need to know if its worth the extra 250+ dollars to go the intel route.

 

 

thanks for the help 

[Dzzope]

Intel all the way with current available products.

 

 

Basically AMD are about 3-4 years behind.. It's an old platform, doesn't support PCI-e 3, slower single threadded performance, hotter, more power consumption... Just go Intel for anythin mid to high end... AMD only comes into it for media boxes and APU based systems (integrated graphics)

[Fallenangel130]

okay but why?

[alpenwasser]

Note: I've renamed the topic to better reflect the actual question. General "AMD vs. Intel" threads don't tend to go that well.

Be nice to each other.

[don_svetlio]

5820K + X99

[Dzzope]

okay but why?

Updated.

 

Basically look at any review and see why.

 

The platform is too old and the processors are not competitive

 

THAT SAID... if on a TIGHT budget (your not with 32 GB ram and a 980ti ) the 8350 is potent for it's price in editing and rendering... still not as good as Intel though

[Fallenangel130]

5820K + X99

okay again why? im willing to learn. what about the intel CPU's makes them better than amd CPU's?

[ZetZet]

okay again why? im willing to learn. what about the intel CPU's makes them better than amd CPU's?

they are faster and more energy efficient, that's about it.

[Sir Asvald]

 

Not another Intel vs AMD thread. inb4 lock and flame-war between fanboys. 

 

I'm going to tell straight away, Everyone is going to tell you to go with Intel. 

 

Intel's new CPU lineup.

 

Intel's Skylake/Haswell, is better than AMD's 9590/8350. In terms of performance, produces less heat and is more efficient. Also, Haswell is still more than enough for gaming and it's cheap-ish.

 

AMD is old. No new architecture has been released since 2011-2012? (unless you count APUs, which in fact are rubbish for high end gaming)

[Fallenangel130]

Not another Intel vs AMD thread. inb4 lock and flame-war between fanboys. 

 

I'm going to tell straight away, Everyone is going to tell you to go with Intel. 

 

Intel's new CPU lineup.

 

Intel's Skylake/Haswell, is better than AMD's 9590/8350. In terms of performance, produces less heat and is more efficient. Also, Haswell is still more than enough for gaming and it's cheap-ish.

 

AMD is old. No new architecture has been released since 2011-2012? (unless you count APUs, which in fact are rubbish for high end gaming)

i didnt mean to start a war lol i was just genuinely curious because ive been on the fence for a while.

[Sir Asvald]

i didnt mean to start a war lol i was just genuinely curious because ive been on the fence for a while.

I'm sorry. This usually happens a lot. People argue. Nothing to worry about. Like I said and the others. Intel is the better option. Also why do you need 32GB of ram?

[Arwanell]

okay but why?

AMD cpus have very bad single core performance which is very very important for gaming

(I assume you will be gaming with a card like that)

Intel's i3 have same performance in games as FX

 

i5 isa ton better 

and i7, well, it destroys FX

[ZetZet]

i didnt mean to start a war lol i was just genuinely curious because ive been on the fence for a while.

Why were you on the fence? What lead you to believe FX cpu's were a viable option?

 

8350 or 9590 would actually bottleneck 980ti on 1080p and probably 1440p. Less so on 4K since it's so gpu intensive.

[Dzzope]

Read any review of processors the last few years.. they are all basically the same gist.. This is a 9590 review by HWC: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html

 

It summs up whats wrong with AMD (And thats a 2.5 year old review and AMD havn't done anything since... They are 3 gens behind at least on this tier of processors

 

 Just as an example, games are very different results depending on their needs.

 

 

 

The FX-9590 is a hot running processor and we don’t mean hot in any conventional meaning of the word either. This thing is like having a miniature nuclear reactor strapped to your motherboard; it will thoroughly overwhelm mid-tier heatsinks and AIO water coolers alike. Since it doesn’t come with an included heatsink we’re told that retailers will endeavor to bundle the FX-9590 with high end Corsair, Cooler Master or NZXT water cooling units in an effort to ensure customers won’t damage their new processors with sub-par cooling solutions. 

[Jahramika]

Okay you can read all the AMD haters if you want but from my experience this is what I think. I had a ASUS Formula V with the AMD 8350. When the new X99 came out I went in for Intel because of the M.2 PCIE x4 support which AMD did not have. Then 8 months later I went for the Skylake for 3 PCIE m.2 x4 slot to do a RAID which constantly lost data and got corrupted. So as of a week ago I went back to AMD with a 9590 using a new Gigabyte motherboard that had PCIE Gen 2 x4 M.2 support. I play every game and do everything I did on my 8350 AMD, X99 Intel, Z170 Intel and now my 9590 AMD and of course for less on AMD. AMD M.2 is slower because of PCIE 2.0 vs 3.0 so my reads are 1500 vs 2500 and writes are 1500 vs 1500 AMD/Intel respectively using a 950 Pro Samsung. I think gaming video is a little smoother using Intel along with my Fury X. Other than that my boot ups and play I love using all 4 of those CPUs. For the money  and a good level of performance I would and use AMD. Over all top tech I think Skylake had the best performance/future connections and best speeds. OH ya got mine Overclocked to 5.4 without effort then again I have 2 triple 120 rads. And mine does not run hot! matter fact it runs at the same temps as my Skylake did overclocked at 4.4

 

 

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5655#ov

[Fallenangel130]

Read any review of processors the last few years.. they are all basically the same gist.. This is a 9590 review by HWC: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html

 

It summs up whats wrong with AMD (And thats a 2.5 year old review and AMD havn't done anything since... They are 3 gens behind at least on this tier of processors

 

 Just as an example, games are very different results depending on their needs.

thank you for the graphs it makes things easier to understand lol Edited January 28, 2016 by alpenwasser
quotes, images, spoilers :)

[Fallenangel130]

Okay you can read all the AMD haters if you want but from my experience this is what I think. I had a ASUS Formula V with the AMD 8350. When the new X99 came out I went in for Intel because of the M.2 PCIE x4 support which AMD did not have. Then 8 months later I went for the Skylake for 3 PCIE m.2 x4 slot to do a RAID which constantly lost data and got corrupted. So as of a week ago I went back to AMD with a 9590 using a new Gigabyte motherboard that had PCIE Gen 2 x4 M.2 support. I play every game and do everything I did on my 8350 AMD, X99 Intel, Z170 Intel and now my 9590 AMD and of course for less on AMD. AMD M.2 is slower because of PCIE 2.0 vs 3.0 so my reads are 1500 vs 2500 and writes are 1500 vs 1500 AMD/Intel respectively using a 950 Pro Samsung. I think gaming video is a little smoother using Intel along with my Fury X. Other than that my boot ups and play I love using all 4 of those CPUs. For the money  and a good level of performance I would and use AMD. Over all top tech I think Skylake had the best performance/future connections and best speeds. OH ya got mine Overclocked to 5.4 without effort then again I have 2 triple 120 rads. And mine does not run hot! matter fact it runs at the same temps as my Skylake did overclocked at 4.4

 

 

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5655#ov

the link was actually the motherboard i was considering with the 8350 lol great minds think alike lol

 

i guess it just depends on how much i really want to invest on this rig.

as i said before in this post i will be having 32 gigs of ram so thats 300+ dollars already lol

i wont however be using m.2 i dont really see the pros outweighing the cons in my personal preference i would much rather run 120 gb SSD for os and steam programs and have like 2-3 Tb slave for storage.

[Dzzope]

Snip

 

My only hate on AMD is their lack of action.... It's swings and roundabouts... AMD can give you a capible system.. yes absolutely.. If your stuck on budget but need dem cores.. great... But as a whole package, no. Very hopeful they will resolve the situation with the next round... see if they can make some in-roads on Intel... They need to.

[Jahramika]

Just got to remember that all of those CPU's will do your gaming and desktop needs the performance difference in what you see on the screen is not a issue in my view. The power well ya its more on AMD but overclock a 980TI by 40% and there power goes up to. In the end price vs performance vs you overall wants/needs.

 

I like AMD more because tehy boards are more upgradable from generation to generation which means you switch just the CPU.With Intel you have to always change CPU and Motherboard. AMD is more upgradable where Intel is not. 

[Dzzope]

BTW, what is the system being used for? I hope it's heavy rendering / graphics / video work with 32GB ram.. cos otherwise thats just plain silly.

[Fallenangel130]

BTW, what is the system being used for? I hope it's heavy rendering / graphics / video work with 32GB ram.. cos otherwise thats just plain silly.

well abit of  everything, video rendering, streaming such as twitch, heavy gaming. i can not do anything on my current rig lol

[Dzzope]

Whats your current rig?

 

If you want I'll spec you something amaze-balls for your usage / budget...

[Jahramika]

the link was actually the motherboard i was considering with the 8350 lol great minds think alike lol

 

i guess it just depends on how much i really want to invest on this rig.

as i said before in this post i will be having 32 gigs of ram so thats 300+ dollars already lol

i wont however be using m.2 i dont really see the pros outweighing the cons in my personal preference i would much rather run 120 gb SSD for os and steam programs and have like 2-3 Tb slave for storage.

I was gonna get the new ASUS but I decided to give Gigabyte a try had a bad experience with them long ago but board works flawless! Happy

[Fallenangel130]

Why were you on the fence? What lead you to believe FX cpu's were a viable option?

 

8350 or 9590 would actually bottleneck 980ti on 1080p and probably 1440p. Less so on 4K since it's so gpu intensive.

ive been using amd products for a while.

my current system is running an amd cpu

prebuilt(gross) but it gets the job done for now

[FruitBasketSilex]

Okay you can read all the AMD haters if you want but from my experience this is what I think. I had a ASUS Formula V with the AMD 8350. When the new X99 came out I went in for Intel because of the M.2 PCIE x4 support which AMD did not have. Then 8 months later I went for the Skylake for 3 PCIE m.2 x4 slot to do a RAID which constantly lost data and got corrupted. So as of a week ago I went back to AMD with a 9590 using a new Gigabyte motherboard that had PCIE Gen 2 x4 M.2 support. I play every game and do everything I did on my 8350 AMD, X99 Intel, Z170 Intel and now my 9590 AMD and of course for less on AMD. AMD M.2 is slower because of PCIE 2.0 vs 3.0 so my reads are 1500 vs 2500 and writes are 1500 vs 1500 AMD/Intel respectively using a 950 Pro Samsung. I think gaming video is a little smoother using Intel along with my Fury X. Other than that my boot ups and play I love using all 4 of those CPUs. For the money and a good level of performance I would and use AMD. Over all top tech I think Skylake had the best performance/future connections and best speeds. OH ya got mine Overclocked to 5.4 without effort then again I have 2 triple 120 rads. And mine does not run hot! matter fact it runs at the same temps as my Skylake did overclocked at 4.4

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5655#ov

That's cute. Very cute.

Also, your chip does run hot, it runs hot as fucking shit, seeing as you're actively pumping about 270w out of it if you've got it overclocked to 5.4.