Need a Gaming CPU

[Skullsniper]

Post which CPU is better for gaming

[aisle9]

AMtel

 

Or was it IntMD?

[N_Bot]

Just now, aisle9 said:

AMtel

 

Or was it IntMD?

I mean AMD makes both CPU's and GPU's while Intel focuses on CPU's.

[Imakuni]

1 minute ago, bambam47 said:

Post which CPU, and or brand is better for gaming

Please understand: brands do NOT matter. What matters is the products they have.

 

AMD has some value in the APU market, while Intel has a clear lead with discrete GPU gaming.

[Skullsniper]

Sorry I didn't mean to put  brand in there

[Skullsniper]

I meant what brand the CPU was as in wanting to find it

[TheKDub]

7 minutes ago, bambam47 said:

Post which CPU is better for gaming

 

From a budget standpoint, if you need something really low cost, or an APU, AMD.

Otherwise, Intel.

[Skullsniper]

My standpoint is that Intel makes quality 4 core CPU's. While AMD makes "great 6 and 8 core" CPU's but with a little high heat output.

[Moonzy]

for gaming

intel on all price range `-`

 

but story might change after amd zen comes out

[Imakuni]

4 minutes ago, bambam47 said:

My standpoint is that Intel makes quality 4 core CPU's. While AMD makes great 6 and 8 core CPU's but with a little high heat output.

"Great 6 and 8" that are arguably 3 / 4 actual cores for most task, with fake AVX support and a dated design.

[SnowyMus]

If I was going to spend more than $200 on a CPU, I'd get Intel without any second thought. Anything less, and it really depends.

 

Many people will proudly say that AMD is the better choice on the cheap, and I'm sure in many cases, this is true. AMD does make cheaper unlocked processors with more cores. On paper, more cores for cheap sounds better, but it still very much depends. When I was planning the computer I'm using right now, I was looking everywhere online for benchmarks and was on the fence between AMD and Intel. What I saw was quite often the case was that the multi-core performance of 6-core FX-6300 and 8-core FX-8300 just was not all that much better than the dual-core i3-6100. In fact, in some cases, it was worse. Their single-core performance otherwise got creamed by the newer Skylake architecture. Also, DDR4 support may actually make a difference for some games when the CPU is the bottleneck, especially when every last bit of FPS counts with low-end games, and DDR4 is now almost always the same price as DDR3 gigabyte-for-gigabyte.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that overclocking doesn't always mean free performance. You may have to pay for the better cooling, extra power consumption, and a better power supply, so the overall savings is diminished. You may be able to make up for some of the cost with the extra CPU performance, but it's still a thing to watch out. I still think that AMD is "good enough" in many cases. For instance, AMD APUs might also be attractive to those not planning on getting a discrete GPU for additional savings.

 

I want AMD to do well, but all-in-all, I'm just going to go with Intel for now. Hopefully Zen will come out strong and be worth every last ounce of hype.

[DGB]

1 hour ago, Imakuni said:

"Great 6 and 8" that are arguably 3 / 4 actual cores for most task, with fake AVX support and a dated design.

It is actually the bulldozer technology from amd. There actually are 6 or 8 cores, it is just that This technology makes so that each core acts like a half-core