What combination is better? AMD with AMD, AMD with Nvidia, Intel with AMD or Intel with Nvidia???

[MTdagar]

Linus! I've always had this question while choosing a CPU and GPU.

Should I go with an AMD CPU with an AMD GPU(as said by AMD, "pair this CPU with an AMD card to get maximum performance") or should I go with an AMD + Nvidia or an Intel CPU+ Nvidia/AMD GPU???

Can you please make a video showing actual performance difference with different CPU/GPU benchmark programs and while playing games?

 

  

[Atmos]

depends entirely on budget, brand compatability makes no difference.

For most budgets, the best combo is intel + amd (i5 + 390/380)

[lopj245]

It doesn't really matter that much of any at all, depends on budget and personal needs. 

[Bhav]

Intel with Nvida.

[comicsansms]

AMD + Nvidia

AMD + AMD

Intel + AMD

Intel + Nvidia 

Will preform exactly the same if they are all equally speced.

 

It will depend on your budget/

 

[Bhav]

Since when does an AMD CPU perform the same as an Intel CPU?

[Admiral Naismith]

Extreme budgets : AMD APU

Budgets : Intel Pentium/I3 w/ AMD GPU

Lower mid range : Intel I5 w/ AMD GPU

*Mid/upper mid range Intel I5 w/ AMD/Nvidia GPU

High end: Intel I7+ w/ Nvidia GPU

 

*Since this is a popular price point, the best config for price changes daily depending on deals and releases.

 

It all *really* comes down to personal preference. How do you want your build to be balanced? Intel CPU *probably* is what you're going to want, but the GPU is entirely up to you. Just look at their features and the complaints people have.

[MTdagar]

Bhav...AMD has been performing better than Intel since 1999 if you are going for a budget build.

[Bhav]

Not really because I3s outperform AMDs entire lineup.

[Citadelen]

2 hours ago, Bhav said:

Not really because I3s outperform AMDs entire lineup.

Unless you want a cheap rendering machine.

[Bhav]

OP specifically specifies 'maximum performance'.

 

AMD CPUs =/= maximum performance, but rather minimum performance.

 

1 minute ago, Citadelen said:

Unless you want a cheap rendering machine.

 

[Citadelen]

Just now, Bhav said:

OP specifically specifies 'maximum performance'.

 

AMD CPUs =/= maximum performance, but rather minimum performance.

 

 

I was not making a suggestion to the OP, but was taking issue with your blanket assumption.

[Bhav]

Just now, Citadelen said:

I was not making a suggestion to the OP, but was taking issue with your blanket assumption.

My posts specifically addressed what the OP asked, why do you have an issue with that?

[arnavvr]

For most people right now, it's Intel+AMD (i5 6400+AMD R9 380)

[Citadelen]

Just now, Bhav said:

My posts specifically addressed what the OP asked, why do you have an issue with that?

You said i3's outperform AMD's entire line-up, which they don't, I was just correcting that.

[Prysin]

9 hours ago, Atmos said:

depends entirely on budget, brand compatability makes no difference.

For most budgets, the best combo is intel + amd (i5 + 390/380)

380 + i5 is a bloody waste. You are better off with a i3 or Athlon + fast RAM then....

 

Athlon 845/880k + GTX 960/380

FX 6300/FX6350/i3 41xx + R9 380X

i3 6100 + R9 290/GTX780

i3 6300/i5 4460/FX 83xx + GTX 970/R9 390/R9 Nano

i5 6500/6600k + GTX 980/R9 390X/R9 Fury/R9 Nano

i7 4790k/6700k/5820k + 980Ti/980SLI/390X CF/FuryX

 

 

[Atmos]

1 hour ago, Prysin said:

380 + i5 is a bloody waste. You are better off with a i3 or Athlon + fast RAM then....

 

Athlon 845/880k + GTX 960/380

FX 6300/FX6350/i3 41xx + R9 380X

i3 6100 + R9 290/GTX780

i3 6300/i5 4460/FX 83xx + GTX 970/R9 390/R9 Nano

i5 6500/6600k + GTX 980/R9 390X/R9 Fury/R9 Nano

i7 4790k/6700k/5820k + 980Ti/980SLI/390X CF/FuryX

 

 

You know that unless you have an apu "fast ram" makse 0 difference, right?

There is literally no gain going from 1600mhz to 3200mhz in games unless you're running an apu

 

And an i5 + 380 is still a perfectly fine combo, you won't need to upgrade the cpu any time soon, unlike an i3 which after a year or so will begin to bottleneck. You'll get more longevity from an i5+380 than you will from an i3+390, especially considering there's a major push to get away from dual core cpus. (Yes, I am fully aware that i3s have hyperthreading most times, which means that computers see it as a quad core, but it's still just a dual core and the performance starts to choke up especially once games hit 3 or more threads in use.

[Prysin]

Just now, Atmos said:

You know that unless you have an apu "fast ram" makse 0 difference, right?

There is literally no gain going from 1600mhz to 3200mhz in games unless you're running an apu

 

And an i5 + 380 is still a perfectly fine combo, you won't need to upgrade the cpu any time soon, unlike an i3 which after a year or so will begin to bottleneck. You'll get more longevity from an i5+380 than you will from an i3+390, especially considering there's a major push to get away from dual core cpus. (Yes, I am fully aware that i3s have hyperthreading most times, which means that computers see it as a quad core, but it's still just a dual core and the performance starts to choke up especially once games hit 3 or more threads in use.

really, seriously????

Have you been paying attention to reviews and tests lately?

 

 

 

 

 

 

if you want to refer to Linus's video, then know this. His conclusion was outdated within 5 months. But why? because of the drop in price of higher speed DDR3 and now also higher speed DDR4....

Faster RAM matters, and it matters in case of minimums, the slower/weaker the CPU, the better effect you should see. If there is ONE thing you do notice, it is the minimum FPS. THe higher the minimums, the better the gaming experience...

 

 

[Atmos]

9 minutes ago, Prysin said:

really, seriously????

Have you been paying attention to reviews and tests lately?

 

 

 

 

 

 

if you want to refer to Linus's video, then know this. His conclusion was outdated within 5 months. But why? because of the drop in price of higher speed DDR3 and now also higher speed DDR4....

Faster RAM matters, and it matters in case of minimums, the slower/weaker the CPU, the better effect you should see. If there is ONE thing you do notice, it is the minimum FPS. THe higher the minimums, the better the gaming experience...

 

 

 

I never said i3's don't game well, my brother whom I built a new gaming rig only last week for is running a 4150, what I said was that in a year or so that dual core will start to bottleneck.

 

The user test by magetank while showing interesting results I can't rely on at all aside from concept, until he removes that cpu bottleneck from his testing rig (which is running a pentium) then of course he's going to see significant performance increases. Faster ram will help significantly in performance when cpu bound tasks come up, and when you're running a dual core w/o hypthreading these days in demanding games... yea, that's a pretty damn cpu bound test. I could just as easily go into my bios and disable hyperthreading, and cores 3/4, then dumb down my ram to 1333mhz and run arma 3, then go back and bump up my ram to 1600mhz and get better fps, because in that situation my cpu was severely bottlenecking my gpu, thus increasing ram speed of course is going to increase fps since the cpu relies so heavily on that ram.

EDIT:: Even in the video you linked they say that faster ram helps with cpu-bound operation, and even in their testing they get virtually the exact same fps on the 4130 running 1600mhz and 2133mhz

[MEC-777]

Actually, I would say: 

 

AMD CPUs + Nvidia GPUs and Intel CPUs + AMD GPUs or Nvidia GPUs. There's a bit more driver overhead with AMD GPUs so if you have a weaker CPU, it's better to pair it with an Nvidia GPU, IMO.

[Prysin]

7 minutes ago, Atmos said:

 

I never said i3's don't game well, my brother whom I built a new gaming rig only last week for is running a 4150, what I said was that in a year or so that dual core will start to bottleneck.

 

The user test by magetank while showing interesting results I can't rely on at all aside from concept, until he removes that cpu bottleneck from his testing rig (which is running a pentium) then of course he's going to see significant performance increases. Faster ram will help significantly in performance when cpu bound tasks come up, and when you're running a dual core w/o hypthreading these days in demanding games... yea, that's a pretty damn cpu bound test. I could just as easily go into my bios and disable hyperthreading, and cores 3/4, then dumb down my ram to 1333mhz and run arma 3, then go back and bump up my ram to 1600mhz and get better fps, because in that situation my cpu was severely bottlenecking my gpu, thus increasing ram speed of course is going to increase fps since the cpu relies so heavily on that ram.

EDIT:: Even in the video you linked they say that faster ram helps with cpu-bound operation, and even in their testing they get virtually the exact same fps on the 4130 running 1600mhz and 2133mhz

and even i5s will see a boost, if you introduce them to a situation where the CPU is the bottleneck. SUch as in dual GPU setups in modern titles. Or hell, even in huge MMO battles, due to the MMO itself using only 4 cores, so any boost you can give said cores will be a pure, raw performance increase.

 

In the case of DDR3, the cost to go from 1600MHz to 2400MHz (2x4GB) on AMD boards are JUST 10 bucks.

On intel side (because you need a "Z" board), the price CAN be higher, upwards of 25 bucks more, due to motherboard needed. On the other hand, the Z boards offer better motherboard features.

 

do not misunderstand, i understand where you're coming from, and what you mean. But on the other hand, the price of faster RAM is worth it. Especially so considering that there is NO caveats other then cost. Zero.

 

Also, an i3, especially skylake i3, is so fast that you wont need to upgrade it in a year unless you plan to run VR or AAA games at 100Hz+ monitors. Why is this? Because newer games are very well optimized, sure they benefit from more cores, which is exactly why i even mention FX CPUs (atm, i am running my old FX 8320 instead of my i7 4790k. The more i use it, even at 6 cores, the more i realize that it is perfectly fine for casual to "average gamer" with 60Hz monitors in modern titles).... Even at 80% slower cores, vs skylake, a FX 6 or FX8 can hold its ground PURELY on CPU optimizations. Yet a i3 6100 is equal OR FASTER, with better frametimes (less stutter) even in big AAA titles like GTA V, Witcher 3 and the likes.

 

One cannot ONLY measure FPS, one must also measure frametimes. And if you do, you will see that even a Core i3, whilst it wont produce super high FPS, it WILL produce a smooth gaming experience if paired with an appropriate GPU.

 

Buying an i5 and pairing it with a 200 USD GPU, TODAY, is stupid, because soon Polaris and Pascal hits, and then the GPU performance will increase around 20-30% flat (as it have done in nearly every die shrink to this date). Thus your R9 380 or GTX 960 is equal to a R9 460/ GTX 1050 or whatever.... meaning your resale value on the used market drops, because the performance increase makes it more sensible to grab a new GPU with more features and equal performance, at the same price you would sell your used R9 380/GTX 960.

 

Buying a overkill CPU with the intent to upgrade the GPU later, is THE most expensive way to do it. SImply due to how much GPUs cost, vs their resale values. Remember, not every market has as good a "used" market as the North American one....

[Lotus]

Extreme Low end budget: AMD + AMD (x4 860k + R7 370)

Mid tier: Intel + AMD

Reasonably high tier: Intel + AMD

Ridiculous High tier (DX11): Intel + 980ti

Ridiculous high tier (DX12 if Ashes benchmark is to be believed) Intel + R9 Fury X

[Atmos]

13 minutes ago, Prysin said:

and even i5s will see a boost, if you introduce them to a situation where the CPU is the bottleneck. SUch as in dual GPU setups in modern titles. Or hell, even in huge MMO battles, due to the MMO itself using only 4 cores, so any boost you can give said cores will be a pure, raw performance increase.

 

In the case of DDR3, the cost to go from 1600MHz to 2400MHz (2x4GB) on AMD boards are JUST 10 bucks.

On intel side (because you need a "Z" board), the price CAN be higher, upwards of 25 bucks more, due to motherboard needed. On the other hand, the Z boards offer better motherboard features.

 

do not misunderstand, i understand where you're coming from, and what you mean. But on the other hand, the price of faster RAM is worth it. Especially so considering that there is NO caveats other then cost. Zero.

 

Also, an i3, especially skylake i3, is so fast that you wont need to upgrade it in a year unless you plan to run VR or AAA games at 100Hz+ monitors. Why is this? Because newer games are very well optimized, sure they benefit from more cores, which is exactly why i even mention FX CPUs (atm, i am running my old FX 8320 instead of my i7 4790k. The more i use it, even at 6 cores, the more i realize that it is perfectly fine for casual to "average gamer" with 60Hz monitors in modern titles).... Even at 80% slower cores, vs skylake, a FX 6 or FX8 can hold its ground PURELY on CPU optimizations. Yet a i3 6100 is equal OR FASTER, with better frametimes (less stutter) even in big AAA titles like GTA V, Witcher 3 and the likes.

 

One cannot ONLY measure FPS, one must also measure frametimes. And if you do, you will see that even a Core i3, whilst it wont produce super high FPS, it WILL produce a smooth gaming experience if paired with an appropriate GPU.

 

Buying an i5 and pairing it with a 200 USD GPU, TODAY, is stupid, because soon Polaris and Pascal hits, and then the GPU performance will increase around 20-30% flat (as it have done in nearly every die shrink to this date). Thus your R9 380 or GTX 960 is equal to a R9 460/ GTX 1050 or whatever.... meaning your resale value on the used market drops, because the performance increase makes it more sensible to grab a new GPU with more features and equal performance, at the same price you would sell your used R9 380/GTX 960.

 

Buying a overkill CPU with the intent to upgrade the GPU later, is THE most expensive way to do it. SImply due to how much GPUs cost, vs their resale values. Remember, not every market has as good a "used" market as the North American one....

I can agree with most everything you've said, except about the 20-30% increase with pascal. We can expect that kind of improvement at resolutions like ultra-wide 1440p and 4k, but not in 1080p. HBM makes little to no difference for programs running at 1080p, since it only begins to step fully into it's stride when it gets hit with many, many texture draws and outputs at once, which is why you see cards like the fury x, fury, and fury nano perform proportionally better the higher you crank the resolution and are the only gpus out there that do so. 

 

For the majority of people, who are still on 1080p I'll note, pascal and polaris will be nothing more than a generational improvement, 10-20% at best on the higher end. It's only going to be significant for those of us at 4k and much higher than 1080p res, and even then for people like me who already have an hbm card the improvement won't be as grandeur as we'd like. Don't get me wrong, I'm still excited for the new launch, but people have been over-hyping the performance increase that's going to take place, just like when nvidia first released that the pascal series was "3000% faster than the maxwell cards" without any sort of context. Just like with the 970 and 980, and the fury x both companies are going to over-hype performance to get everyone cranked up and foaming at the mouth for the new cards.

[Prysin]

3 hours ago, Atmos said:

I can agree with most everything you've said, except about the 20-30% increase with pascal. We can expect that kind of improvement at resolutions like ultra-wide 1440p and 4k, but not in 1080p. HBM makes little to no difference for programs running at 1080p, since it only begins to step fully into it's stride when it gets hit with many, many texture draws and outputs at once, which is why you see cards like the fury x, fury, and fury nano perform proportionally better the higher you crank the resolution and are the only gpus out there that do so. 

 

For the majority of people, who are still on 1080p I'll note, pascal and polaris will be nothing more than a generational improvement, 10-20% at best on the higher end. It's only going to be significant for those of us at 4k and much higher than 1080p res, and even then for people like me who already have an hbm card the improvement won't be as grandeur as we'd like. Don't get me wrong, I'm still excited for the new launch, but people have been over-hyping the performance increase that's going to take place, just like when nvidia first released that the pascal series was "3000% faster than the maxwell cards" without any sort of context. Just like with the 970 and 980, and the fury x both companies are going to over-hype performance to get everyone cranked up and foaming at the mouth for the new cards.

honestly though, 20-30% has been the general improvement for every card tier during old die shrinks too...

 

4870 vs 5870 (55nm to 40nm)

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/513?vs=511

 

6850 vs 7850 (40nm to 28nm)

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1077?vs=1076

 

6970 vs 7970 (40nm to 28nm)

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1061?vs=1032

 

GTX 550TI vs GTX 650TI (40nm to 28nm)

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1133?vs=1129

 

GTX 580 vs GTX 680 (40nm to 28nm)

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1350?vs=1348

 

Generational improvement on equal nodes:

HD 7970 (28nm) vs R9 390X (28nm)

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1495?vs=1559

 

GTX 780 TI (28nm) vs GTX 980TI (28nm)

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1441?vs=1496

 

 

Again, we see a 20-30% or higher performance increase from a die shrink, and around 15-25%+ on a generational basis. Refinements of the node also DO play a vital part, however you must ask, if driver optimizations were kept at max, how would kepler fare vs maxwell? Assuming equal amount of optimization??

One can only imagine what 4.5 YEARS of refining a single process node has done to AMD and Nvidia's ability to refine a product.

 

Sadly, we have no such clear comparisons when it comes to CPUs, as they generally ONLY change "family" during a node shrink. and due to clock speed, cache and generations of DDR RAM, we have very few comparisons we can make (Haswell vs Broadwell springs to mind, as Sandy vs Ivy was in the middle of DDR2 to DDR3 was it not?. So even if process node is equal, the differences in system performance due to RAM speeds and latencies would make an apples to apples comparison hard without owning these parts and testing oneself)

 

Either way. we are getting off track, and i think that at some points we can agree to disagree.

I will still argue, in light of evidence, that faster RAM is worth it. Although, with my recent tests with the FX CPU, i can assure you there is more then what meets the eye.

Also, once i get my GTX 950 + Athlon X4 845, i can test how much RAM speed affects not only APUs in CPU bound scenarios, but also excavator (ill be the proud owner of Piledriver, Steamroller AND Excavator products )

 

[Bhav]

9 hours ago, Atmos said:

You know that unless you have an apu "fast ram" makse 0 difference, right?

There is literally no gain going from 1600mhz to 3200mhz in games unless you're running an apu

100% incorrect:

 

 

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/corsair-vengeance-lpx-16gb-ddr4-3200,review-33415.html

 

10 FPS difference in grid 2 between 2400 AMD 3000 Mhz ram. Some games benefit a lot, some don't, depends on where the bottleneck is. I'm sure that with SLI / Xfire, faster ram would make even more difference.