AMD vs Intel - The Ultimate Question and Final Answer (NCIX TechTips #82)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h14-9aeDyn4
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's simple. AMD is a good choice up to maximum of ~150$ USD (price of AMD FX-8300), everything above this price range should always favor Intel. Intel CPUs in general produce less heat and have more power, AMD is a good alternative for less demanding users who want to get more bang for the buck in that low-price range.
In general though, if you're building gaming rig for total of ~800$ USD or more, you almost always want to stick with Intel. Of course that price is not static, as prices as well as components vary from country to country and shop to shop, but anything from Nvidia GTX 960+ should stick with Intel. So if you want to get GTX 970, you should get intel for sure, and there is even no place for debate.
Comment has been collapsed.
i bought 8350 instead of an i5 just saying go for intel u can hook it up with a cheap mobo
the same does not go with amd also it heats up alot if u live in desert like me
Comment has been collapsed.
atm no questions asked get an Intel, AMD processors are good for their price, but Intel hands down beats them on everything.
its all down to single core performance, Intel is just better at it, an AMD's Bulldozer is old, power hungry and not very efficient, thats all supposed to change with Zen, but only time will tell, they are coming early 2017 they a long way to come still.
AMD Graphics cards that a hole different story.
I think the best budget build atm is an i5 6400 with a B150 motherboard and a RX470 or might even strech for a RX480, the hole PC should be around 500$, and that PC will run everything on max. Offcourse prices might change on your region.
Comment has been collapsed.
that is made by AMD? xd
Appart from that, its almost on par with the 970 in performance, being the RX470 around 5% or less slower, its newer tech so i would expect to gain more performance as time comes, for example on Vulkan the RX470 destroys the 970 getting more that 20FPS over the 970, costs 170$ so its really good for the price. and at 1080p with current games, gets 60FPS on almost all games.
the 1060 is a different beast, it costs around 280$ so its a lot more expensive, the competitor of the 1060 is the RX480 which should be a bit cheaper too, between 200 and 260$, but they are very rare, performance wise the RX480 loses a bit to the GTX1060 on DX11 games, but is a lot more closer on DX12 and even beats the 1060 on some games like Hitman, but the performance is over 60FPS on both cards so unless you have a 144Hz monitor, any of them would play games at max settings fine and even at 1440p
Comment has been collapsed.
rx470 970and 1060 are videocards
and with 1060 as the most powerful of the three,
970 is much more expensive or equal to 1060(better performance), so go with 1060
stay away from 970 unless you know what you are doing. (now a bad choice after the release of 10 series)
r470 if you really dont have enough money, and it's cheap, though if i were you, i'd save more, since theres almost little difference with prices for 1060 or rx480
Comment has been collapsed.
rx470 is not supposed to compete with that, you should consider a rx 480
Comment has been collapsed.
AMD is a great bang for your buck CPU brand, but will only give you so much. Intel costs more, but generally gives you better overall performance.
To put simply, if you want a good budget PC that will run games reasonably, go AMD.
If you want a computer that will last you 5-7 years before you need to upgrade the CPU to stay ontop of the max qulaity 60+fps train, then go Intel.
I prefer Intel myself as I make my computers to last for a long time (not saying AMD won't, but it will only be able to do so much for so long and Intel generally does it longer and better) and so that they can work with my content creation needs (video/audio rendering and scrubbing).
If you tell us a budget, we can generally give you a best you can get, bang for your buck, and budget builds~
Comment has been collapsed.
my amd build is 3 years old know and still going strong, but I also had an intel laptop for 7 years that is still running before I went to my amd build. All depends what type of games you play and how much stress you put on the system. Only reason I built an amd because my laptop couldn't handle gtav.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you're into AAA games, then I'll gander maybe 3-4 years if you get the quality AMD CPU at the time of purchase, you might be able to squeeze it to 6 years if you're lucky, but I'm guessing you'll have to turn most settings down alot. But this could all change with their new Zen CPUs, I'm waiting for official benchmarks on them myself~
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm still using a terribly old Phenom II X4 (955 or 975, or something alike, got it back in 2009 or so) and equally old AMD Radeon 5850, I've been playing a lot of games with medium-high settings. I've started struggling lately with some very demanding (and probably poorly optimized) games though, Raibow Six Siege (and generally any game with Anvil Engine), GTA V and such, but that's mostly due to low VRAM (1GB) rather than a CPU issue.
Top tier AMD CPUs will carry you for a long time AND save you money. Top tier Intel CPUs will destroy any AMD CPUs (along with your wallet) though, so it mostly depends on how much you want to spend.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you find a decent cooler for it—since their maximum temperature is a lot lower than Intel's, usually around 60-70 °C opposed to Intel's 100-105 °C—then it can go for 3-6 years easily. CPU's don't really tend to fall off in terms of gaming. My old rig's AMD Phenom II X4 965 even downclocked to 3.0 GHz had zero problems with games (the RadeOn HD 6850 card did though after 4.5 years).
Comment has been collapsed.
AMD if you are looking for cheap core
INTEL for performance
although if you're into gaming, and not in a field of needing a good core for rendering object, like 3d or movies. amd is the most recommendable cpu for u. however, otherwise you can use intel. also intel are the best for overclocking
Comment has been collapsed.
depends, sometimes prebuilds can be cheaper than building your own PC, especially if they come with Windows.
but 9 times out of 10 building the PC will be cheaper.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is only true with clearance sales or flash deals to be honest.
Also, second hand market.
Comment has been collapsed.
Generally, it is cheaper to build your own PC. It is easy, but it can be fucked up to the point where you ruin a component if you don't know what you are doing.
The main problem with pre-builts is usually not the price though, but how they always put at least 1-2 cheap and weak parts in it, because they couldn't sell those otherwise. Those can be serious bottlenecks, dragging the entire PC down.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or they use a HDD as system drive, use a weak GPU, don't give enough RAM (using little memory was one of the signatures of Alienware for a time, before they started adding needlessly overpriced overclocked sticks that do nothing but show large numbers of the plebs to awe at), use the simplest motherboards with simple chipsets… the list is long.
Comment has been collapsed.
I usually look for a semi-prebuilt (tower+CPU+Mobo, and maybe RAM), then I add video card and salvage basic stuff from my older PC (HDDs, optical drives, case fans etc.)
It's cheaper than full prebuild, you get to keep stuff you don't need to change (i.e. I wouldn't need a new HDD or an optical drive, so why pay for it?) and buy your favorite video card, but you still have the most delicate components already in place (I know how to put a CPU in place and I have done it several times, but I avoid doing it if I can, one wrong move and you can turn a perfectly good CPU and MoBo in a pile of useless garbage, because you need to apply a lot of pressure to lock the CPU in place, or at least this was the case 4-5 years ago when I did it last time).
Comment has been collapsed.
My quad-core AMD CPU was great value and still has plenty of power for all of my software and gaming needs. I owned a string of AMD CPUs before that and they all did me proud.
I had a bunch of NVIDIA graphics cards that were great and then I bought an AMD Radeon graphics card because it seemed like the best value and I had a bunch of driver and software conflicts and then it just plain died way before I was ready to replace it. I currently have another AMD Radeon card that I got cheap as a temporary replacement because it was the best I could afford at the time and it has been a bag of crap.
I can only speak from my personal experiences and that is them.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh man, the Athlon 64 were spanking Intels P4 little asses back in the day.
Comment has been collapsed.
As it stands currently. AMD is good on the cheap end for processors but have been out of it for a while so below about $180 they tend to be better but above that they can't compete really at which point you see the prices explode on the processors because Intel has nothing to compete against.
Pretty soon though that my change as AMD is finally going to start releasing newer CPU's around the end of this year or so that evidently can compete with Intel's $1,000 CPUs I have read. But time will tell when we get our hands on something above engineering samples. If it lives up to the claims or even close to it, things can change pretty soon at the end of this year and you will see the price in the faster processors drop dramatically compared to now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Power consume vs Money consume
In the end power consume means money too
Comment has been collapsed.
It all depends how you buy. Generally, I've find it cheaper to buy pre-built and upgrade as necessary, but you have to wait for a big sale (like in November around Black Friday). My current computer is a few years old, but there was no way I could have built it for the price at the time. The system was heavily discounted (almost half off) because the 4790k just came out (had a 4770k); has a R9 290 (when the 290X just came out) and came with water-cooling.
As to performance, I checked benchmark sites like Passmark. It gives you a decent idea how the various components rank vs. each other. I used some of the money I saved for some half off low latency overclockable RAM as that was the weak point of the system. I'm a fan of extra memory as it's such a speed saver if nothing gets cached.
As such, I stay out of the AMD/Intel wars. I look for sales, compare the benchmarks, figure out what it takes to build from scratch and compare it to packages and find the best deal I can get. Actual price vs. benchmarks, as a package, on sale. That's my answer.
I love buying a new computer in November as the manufacturers premiere new technology for X-Mas and the previous generation goes on discount. And if you are lucky, whole systems get slashed in price saving you on every component.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you don't know the difference get Intel. AMD is only for people that know the difference.
AMD is the worst for gaming. It's only good for multitasking, overclocking and baking bacon on it. Those 1.5x more GHz are just empty numbers. Each core is like an Intel's half core. So if the game uses 4 cores it's like you had 2-core Intel.
Source: I own AMD.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bullshit. It's totally opposite. How can AMD be recommended for gaming if games uses 2-4 cores and they are twice less effective than Intel. I have 8-core AMD FX8350 + GTX780 and what? Source Engine can use only 3 cores max. So I'm like playing on 1.5 cores. It doesn't matter what graphics settings I use and how many programs I run at the same time (I usually run 2 idle games and Chrome with some Youtube video or Twitch stream on the second screen) I always get 80-220 FPS. People with worse graphics cards gets stable 300 on i3. Only people doing weird stuff like I do will benefit from AMD. Intel would choke on that and suck at everything equally. It's only good at doing 1 thing at the time.
Comment has been collapsed.
You do realise you are contradicting yourself? AMD's focus has been multi-core performance and their CPUs constantly outperform Intel in multi-core calculations in the same price range. They have more weaker cores, whereas Intel focuses on few stronger cores.
Games usually utilise 2-4 cores, depending on how much calculations the engine can spread across. Usually they are in the 2-core range. But they also have an interesting tendency to not really care about the CPU; games like GTA V can run on 7-9-year-old CPUs without ever getting even close to 100% loads
And I really have no idea how Source engine, something that is more like multi-core in name only got into all of this. The engine that has more guides on "How to increase my terrible frame rate" thanks to CS:GO than any other game ever made. Even today. Why not also include Bethesda's old Gamebryo engine they used from Morrowind to Fallout 3 (and, in extension, New Vegas)? That at least runs terribly in AMD since it is a single-core engine. Or Crystal engine, since it runs so bad on AMD that it is almost advised to not buy any games on it for AMD owners.
Comment has been collapsed.
You said games are usually limited to 2-4 cores and AMD's cores are weaker. Exactly what I said and that makes AMD worse for gaming. High-end software that costs thousands usually can use all cores (because it costs thousands so you know) and AMD does better there (even according to you).
/EOT
Btw. You are trying to convince everyone that AMD is better even if they say from their own experience it's not. And I laughted when you said GTA V can run on 1.6GHz dual core CPU.
Comment has been collapsed.
games like GTA V can run on 7-9-year-old CPUs without ever getting even close to 100% loads
Edit: Oh, wait, it gets better!
How about an AMD FX-6300 almost matching a nearly thrice as expensive Intel Core i5 in produced frame rates in Witcher 3, one of the most demanding games of recent times? Is it magic? Is it witchcraft? Is it possible that a cheap AMD processor can run an incredibly demanding game over 60 fps, because games rely on GPU and not CPU, and somebody above me has no idea what he is speaking?
Comment has been collapsed.
Find me a game and a setup that is limited by CPU.
Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Final Fantasy XIII and XIII-2, most any Source games. FFXIII is infamous for being nearly unplayable on anything under the FX-8000 line.
They are the known and more widespread games of the past 5-8 years or so that use engines which can only utilise one core properly or use the first core for most of the calculations, with maybe a second doing some small tasks like handling Havok physics.
Comment has been collapsed.
not released yet + no benchmarks ...
but should certainly be worth taking a look at once they are
Comment has been collapsed.
The ultimate debate which one is better AMD or Intel? Well i have used both and i will focus here on real world performance rather than benchmarks,
Although i dont use AMD and more because i divorced heavy desktops for laptops but AMD in my opinion are best bang for bucks cpus
Comment has been collapsed.
intel, when you pay the electricity bill yourself:
Intel Core i7 6700K 73.94W vs AMD FX 9590 178.75W
2.4 x times the Intel Wattage ... lol
Intel Core i7 6700 52.81W vs AMD FX 8350 159.66W
3 x times the Intel Wattage ... just gtfo
and finally a matching comparison:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/444/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-3570K.html
even so it depends on what you're usage is going to be + what you have to pay for electricity/contract ...
Comment has been collapsed.
1,452 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by ekees
21 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Warriot
1,169 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by IDoKnowJack
6 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by canis39
72 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by DeliberateTaco
11 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Foxhack
323 Comments - Last post 13 hours ago by hallak65
38 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by AKSH
26,665 Comments - Last post 41 minutes ago by Neljer
41 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Mhol1071
57 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by ImpartialJuices
723 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by someonequeer
163 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by someonequeer
16,238 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by GeoSol
I have been looking for a lot of time and cant found really nothing about it.
I see a lot of pc gamers have amd instead intel and i would like to know for example : i5 6400 is like AMD model X XXXX
I hope you understand me thx
Also im searching for the cheapest option for a pc gaming D:? things like 970 to 1060 and i5
Comment has been collapsed.