CPU Pricing

[Wolther]

So I've always leaned toward Intel when it came to picking a CPU because of it's stronger cores. Are there any advantages that AMD has over Intel? Taking for example in the same price range, how would a same price AMD CPU stand up against an Intel CPU? 

 

Like a https://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80662i36100 ($123 USD) and a https://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd8320frhkbox ($128 USD)

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Wolther said:

So I've always leaned toward Intel when it came to picking a CPU because of it's stronger cores. Are there any advantages that AMD has over Intel? Taking for example in the same price range, how would a same price AMD CPU stand up against an Intel CPU? 

Budget....the Athlon X4 860K is good for a budget gaming pc.

AMD A series are generally good for media centres.

The FX 6300 and the FX 8320 are really great for budget content creation

If it came down to pentium vs athlon, it would probably be the athlon because it has 4 cores.

 

Intel are generally better for hardcore gaming due to their better single thread performance

Their higher end i7s are great for hardcore content creation

Xeons are best for servers....except for the E3 1231 v3...thats good for what the 4770 is good for

[Wolther]

4 minutes ago, jkeasley said:

Budget....the Athlon X4 860K is good for a budget gaming pc.

AMD A series are generally good for media centres.

The FX 6300 and the FX 8320 are really great for budget content creation

If it came down to pentium vs athlon, it would probably be the athlon because it has 4 cores.

 

Intel are generally better for hardcore gaming due to their better single thread performance

Their higher end i7s are great for hardcore content creation

Xeons are best for servers....except for the E3 1231 v3...thats good for what the 4770 is good for

So for gaming would a i3 6100 or a AMD fx- 8320 be better (both have same price range really). Cause I'm just seeing 8 cores arent necessary used all the time in many games, at least not yet. and, I'm just thinking into upgradability in the future too

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, Wolther said:

So for gaming would a i3 6100 or a AMD fx- 8320 be better. Cause I'm just seeing 8 cores arent necessary used all the time in many games, at least not yet. and, I'm just thinking into upgradability in the future too

Generally the i3, although looking towards the future the FX8 may be better due to the extra cores (an i5 is better than both). Generally an i5 is about the same cost as an FX8 considering the FX8 needs a decent motherboard and a cooler. 

[Guest]

Just now, Wolther said:

So for gaming would a i3 6100 or a AMD fx- 8320 be better. Cause I'm just seeing 8 cores arent necessary used all the time in many games, at least not yet. and, I'm just thinking into upgradability in the future too

Probably the i3. If you're going for light gaming (csgo, etc), go with the athlon x4 860k with the 750 Ti. Best budget build evar

[Wolther]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Generally the i3, although looking towards the future the FX8 may be better due to the extra cores (an i5 is better than both). Generally an i5 is about the same cost as an FX8 considering the FX8 needs a decent motherboard and a cooler. 

 

1 minute ago, jkeasley said:

Probably the i3. If you're going for light gaming (csgo, etc), go with the athlon x4 860k with the 750 Ti. Best budget build evar

Okay, thanks

[MarcWolfe]

For a same price  performance comparison, not considering anything else (like power consumption, or possible used intel options) AMD is better.

[79wjd]

4 hours ago, MarcWolfe said:

For a same price  performance comparison, not considering anything else (like power consumption, or possible used intel options) AMD is better.

Ummm no? An i5 is better than an Fx8 in gaming and will end up costing about the same (+/- a few dollars). Hell, in many games an i3 is better than an FX8. 

[Frame Drops]

It totally depend on your budget and for what purpose you are going to use that PC. If you are going to use your PC for normal daily work like surfing internet, watching video, playing games like CS GO etc. Than i3 is best choice over Fx 8320 cores because this kind of work don't use more than 2-4 cores and  Intel has much better per core performance over AMD. But if your going to play AAA games than my choice is Fx 8320 ( OR Fx6350 ) because some games are locked for 2 cores & if game is optimized to use all core than Fx 8320 will perform slightly better.

[MarcWolfe]

8 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Ummm no? An i5 is better than an Fx8 in gaming and will end up costing about the same (+/- a few dollars). Hell, in many games an i3 is better than an FX8. 

You don't know what you're talking about. Pure performance, meaning capability. Or to use a term you may jave heard before, teraflops. Not talking about specific programs like games, not talking about bench marks that purposely sand bag AMD CPUs either. Cinebench is known to do thay, which makes AMD look worse than they are, and people like you believe it. AMD motherboards are typically cheaper too, which keeps over all cost down. The only reason i would go with intel, is for the LGA 2011 socket CPUs, but they and their motherboards are ridiculously priced.

[79wjd]

17 minutes ago, MarcWolfe said:

You don't know what you're talking about. Pure performance, meaning capability. Or to use a term you may jave heard before, teraflops. Not talking about specific programs like games, not talking about bench marks that purposely sand bag AMD CPUs either. Cinebench is known to do thay, which makes AMD look worse than they are, and people like you believe it. AMD motherboards are typically cheaper too, which keeps over all cost down. The only reason i would go with intel, is for the LGA 2011 socket CPUs, but they and their motherboards are ridiculously priced.

A motherboard capable of handling an FX8 properly is about $70-100+ whereas any cheap $50 motherboard can easily handle a locked i5. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about if you think the FX series makes any sense in all but a few budget scenarios. 

 

In rendering in terms of pure performance: i7 > 6600k > FX8 > locked i5 > FX6 > i3. 

In gaming, i7/i5 > FX8/FX6/i3. 

 

Ask literally anyone who has owned both an Intel CPU as well as an FX cpu, they'll all tell you the exact same thing. @i_build_nanosuits @Faceman

 

But you're more than welcome to go find some gaming benchmarks to prove me wrong. I'll wait, I've got all day. 

[MarcWolfe]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

A motherboard capable of handling an FX8 properly is about $70-100+ whereas any cheap $50 motherboard can easily handle a locked i5. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about if you think the FX series makes any sense in all but a few budget scenarios. 

 

In rendering in terms of pure performance: i7 > 6600k > FX8 > locked i5 > FX6 > i3. 

In gaming, i7/i5 > FX8/FX6/i3. 

 

Ask literally anyone who has owned both an Intel CPU as well as an FX cpu, they'll all tell you the exact same thing. @i_build_nanosuits 

 

But you're more than welcome to go find some gaming benchmarks to prove me wrong. I'll wait, I've got all day. 

And a 6600k is expensive as shit in comparison.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, MarcWolfe said:

And a 6600k is expensive as shit in comparison.

And performs quite a bit better. Even a locked i5 will outperform the FX8 in gaming while costing about the same. In rendering, an FX8 has the advantage of being a solid budget option if you can't afford a Xeon E3 1231v3, but that's a very small window (at least in the US) as a proper FX8 setup will only run you about $50 less than a Xeon E3 setup but yield significantly worse rendering (and gaming) performance. 

[Guest Kloaked]

5 minutes ago, MarcWolfe said:

And a 6600k is expensive as shit in comparison.

A locked 6500 will be better than anything AMD has. Like djdwosk already said, even i3's will outperform AMD's chips in gaming a lot of the time. Intel is just better.

 

I'm not a shill for Intel either, as I don't even like them as a company for other reasons. 

[VagabondWraith]

17 hours ago, Wolther said:

So I've always leaned toward Intel when it came to picking a CPU because of it's stronger cores. Are there any advantages that AMD has over Intel? Taking for example in the same price range, how would a same price AMD CPU stand up against an Intel CPU? 

 

Like a https://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80662i36100 ($123 USD) and a https://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd8320frhkbox ($128 USD)

If go i3. You have a great upgrade path for the future. If you need more horsepower you can get an i5, or i7 if you need. The FX is a dead platform and with AMD coming out with Zen, it'd be pointless to invest in AMD right now.

[DragonTamer1]

Usually the price can be considered representative of the CPUs performance. The exception to this rule is high end Intel CPUs since AMD doesn't really have anything that can compete with them. When they are in competition they will be about the same price (big reason I'm looking forward to Zen).

 

The 8320 will likely be able to trade blows with the i3 but the right one for you depends largely on your needs. Keep in mind that the FX doesn't have much for upgrade and it tends to use more power. It's advantage though is that some games are locking out dual cores (this includes i3s) and a lot of games are able to leverage more cores. Some of the newer games can also take advantage of the i3s hyper-threading but having the physical cores would be a game changer.

 

Anything that tries to use more than 4 cores and the FX will start to bottle neck because every other core is forced to share a floating point integer unit (one core is likely to have to wait for a chance to use it).

[MarcWolfe]

On 3/1/2016 at 7:38 PM, DragonTamer1 said:

Usually the price can be considered representative of the CPUs performance. The exception to this rule is high end Intel CPUs since AMD doesn't really have anything that can compete with them. When they are in competition they will be about the same price (big reason I'm looking forward to Zen).

 

The 8320 will likely be able to trade blows with the i3 but the right one for you depends largely on your needs. Keep in mind that the FX doesn't have much for upgrade and it tends to use more power. It's advantage though is that some games are locking out dual cores (this includes i3s) and a lot of games are able to leverage more cores. Some of the newer games can also take advantage of the i3s hyper-threading but having the physical cores would be a game changer.

 

Anything that tries to use more than 4 cores and the FX will start to bottle neck because every other core is forced to share a floating point integer unit (one core is likely to have to wait for a chance to use it).

Oh god don't get me started on highe end. High end pricing is fucking rediculous. CPUs and GPUs .... and plenty of people pay it.... whatever, their money not mine.

[K0MP4CT]

13 minutes ago, MarcWolfe said:

Oh god don't get me started on highe end. High end pricing is fucking rediculous. CPUs and GPUs .... and plenty of people pay it.... whatever, their money not mine.

Because they want that high end experience and are willing to pay for it. Don't act like if you had the money to build any computer you want you'd build an AMD one lol.

[MarcWolfe]

16 minutes ago, K0MP4CT said:

Because they want that high end experience and are willing to pay for it. Don't act like if you had the money to build any computer you want you'd build an AMD one lol.

It should be more accessible, and fairly priced. Thats my main point. But yes i would get something with the LGA 2011 socket, or two sockets. Then i know i would have plenty of high bandwidth PCIe lanes and i could mess with some virtual machines and what not. Maybe even set up a web server and run a LAN party or something. I would consider AMDs Opteron CPU, but i can hardly find any information about it. Thats one thing Intel does much better, an extensive list of specs for every CPU. Intel ARK, which has an app that can be used off line, and updated when on line.

[79wjd]

5 hours ago, MarcWolfe said:

It should be more accessible, and fairly priced. Thats my main point. 

Except the top tier model of literally anything -- not just computer parts -- is also priced worse than the more mainstream version. Flagships whether it be phones, cameras, TVs, cars, speakers, restaurants, shipping speeds, etc.... always carry a premium that's disproportionate to the time/cost it takes.

[ApolloX75]

On 01/03/2016 at 7:38 PM, DragonTamer1 said:

Keep in mind that the FX doesn't have much for upgrade and it tends to use more power. It's advantage though is that some games are locking out dual cores (this includes i3s) and a lot of games are able to leverage more cores. 

The rest of your post is good. This is false. Only the dual core pentiums are causing issues with games like Far Cry 4 and Dragon Age Inquisition that look for extra cpu cores. The i3's hyperthreading makes it work just fine in these rare cases.

[Godlygamer23]

On 2/29/2016 at 11:50 PM, Wolther said:

Okay, thanks

That all being said, AMD is going to be releasing Zen soon as well. 

[K0MP4CT]

7 hours ago, MarcWolfe said:

It should be more accessible, and fairly priced. Thats my main point. But yes i would get something with the LGA 2011 socket, or two sockets. Then i know i would have plenty of high bandwidth PCIe lanes and i could mess with some virtual machines and what not. Maybe even set up a web server and run a LAN party or something. I would consider AMDs Opteron CPU, but i can hardly find any information about it. Thats one thing Intel does much better, an extensive list of specs for every CPU. Intel ARK, which has an app that can be used off line, and updated when on line.

The reason the prices are so high is because people pay it. If they set it that high and they hardly sold, the price would plummet. People want performance and are willing to pay for it.