AMD vs Intel - or - How I got my first build (+little what's what on PC parts)

[Keith Wallace]

Re: AMD vs Intel

The best way to find out what is right for you is first identify your budget. Next, what are you planning on doing? You have chosen gaming, great! Now we can proceed to the next step. Do you want medium, high or ultra graphics? Do you want to play at 720p 30FPS, 720p 60FPS, 1080p 30FPS or 1080p 60FPS or are you planning on going higher like 2160p @ 120 FPS. Ok I must say there is a lot of debate on wether120p is worth it or not considering a lot of studies say after 87FPS we as a human cannot see the rest but if you're all about boasting your specs you can go to 120FPS.

Once you have Identified which one of these routes you are going to take you can pretty much decide on Intel or AMD. Good luck.

Just so you know I play Skyrim on 1440p @ 60FPS on High grapics. Ultra will put be at about 20 ish FPS but can play on 1080p @ 60 FPS on Ultra and I have a $500 computer using AMD Chipset and AMD GPU. The reason I use Skyrim is because its my most demanding PC game at the moment. I do not play Battle Rising Duty or whatever that popular game is.

He's already mentioned this stuff in the thread.

Budget: 400-500 Euros
Resolution: 1680x1050 (no mention of FPS, but I imagine 30 FPS is acceptable, 60 FPS is ideal)
Graphics: Diablo 3 at highest settings, low-to-medium settings for games over the next 3-4 years

But the main thing here is that it's a very rare occurrence that AMD is the answer nowadays. Games won't use more than 2 cores in a lot of cases, with 4 being the absolute most. That can make the 6- and 8-module FX processors from AMD a bit of a waste, because not all of the modules will be utilized fully. On a per-core basis, Intel's Haswell stuff will take the AMD stuff to school anyway. At the low end, where you'd probably find the FX-6300, the i3-4130 should beat it almost every time. One you get to the i5 stuff, it's game over for AMD. Even if you were to go with a Sandy Bridge 2500K, you'd probably beat an FX-8350.

The only time you'd maybe recommend AMD is if the person wants to do an extremely-cheap build for the next couple of years, at which point a Kaveri APU can probably get recommended. Since the OP is talking about 3-4 years down the road, an APU probably won't keep up.

 

[Awhispersecho]

Re: AMD vs Intel

I still have that laptop, but I bought an alienware beast to step up my gaming a bit. Having said that, for the price, the AMD laptop was and still is a very good performing laptop. In fact between it and my new alienware, I notice no difference in general performance as far as surfing, playing movies, opening programs etc. Gaming is a different story obviously.

 

[etad putta]

Re: AMD vs Intel

Why would you even bother with OSX, really?

Also, Gigabyte's iffy for me. They seem to be the motherboard manufacturer that is most hit-and-miss, from what I read from others. Plenty of folks wear by them, but plenty say they've had nothing but bad times. ASUS and ASRock seem like the two with the fewest complaints, in my experience. MSI's a bit iffy, but I'm biased against them because my dad talks about how he won't buy from them because they screwed him (and a bunch of other folks) a decade ago, haha.

Because it's an excellent alternative to windows 7 and much better than win 8 imo. Gigabyte is still on top of the pile. asus and their lowline spinoff asrock are ok.

 

[SAM 77]

Re: AMD vs Intel

DCS will crush your system. Skyrim is for kids

 

[Jan Tomsic]

Re: AMD vs Intel

Few remarks:
- don't but prebuilt PCs. They are expensive, and the cheap ones are crap.
- building your own PC is like assembling LEGOs, if it doesn't go easily, it'd not the right port/slot, and there's instructions everywhere.
- 4GB RAM is enough, it's stupid spending 100€ for 16GB on such low budget, and it's also the part that's the easiest to upgrade, so you can always do that later (just make sure you get 1 stick so you don't fill up the slots)
- If you want to save money, go for AMD A6, if you want to get A8, get Intel Core i3-4130 instead. If you get intel, make sure it's the new one, so 4xxx. Don't go for AMD A10 (5800K), get i3-4130 instead.
- get any motherboard for 50~60€. In this price range, everything is good. Asus, Asrock (which is just cheap Asus), gigabyte, anything really.
- 500W PSU is overkill for such configuration, but get one if you can get it cheap, otherwise get like 450 or something. Don't get the cheapest one though, 40~50€ will do.
- GPU is integrated in the processor and should do just fine, and you can always upgrade later if necessary.
- Skip the DVD drive and install OS from USB stick (it's ridiculously simple). If you can't live without it, get the cheapest DVD-RW you can fine, or buy a used one. Any SATA (1, 2, 3...) will do.
- Get the cheapest case (if there are any fans inside great, otherwise buy 2 cheap ones, one for front, one for back, should be <20€ for two or even three)
- HDD: Get WD blue or something. Or get WD green and a small SSD (greens are super slow, fine for data, but you might want something snappier for OS and programs)


Something like this. It's in Slovene, but you understand euros and model numbers And prices should be cheaper in Austria. I got my PC from Germany (1200€) and it I saved about 100~200€ compared to our prices.
If you want to save money, go for 500GB WD blue (costs the same as 1TB WD green) and no SSD.

I don't really see why you'd need BR drive, you get buy/rent/stream movies online.

This is not a gaming rig, no PC for 400€ is. If you want to game, got for i5, dedicated GPU (150~250€), 8GB RAM. About 700€ would get you a great gaming rig. If you want to game and watch blurays for 400€, get a PlayStation 3/4.

 

[Jarip]

Re: AMD vs Intel

Dual channel does not work with 1 memory stick, but honestly, I am not sure does it really matter ...

Here is some comparison of different CPU: Intel Pentium G3420 vs AMD A10 6800K

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,review-32885.html

For integrated graphics, AMD has an advantage, but gamers usually use dedicated graphic card sooner or later (so they do not use integrated graphics) ...

Best Graphics Cards For The Money: February 2014 - Best Graphics Cards For The Money, February Updates

 

[Jaskys]

Re: AMD vs Intel

Want computer for heavy work such as gaming/rendering? Then get intel
If you want computer for web browsing then any AMD apu will work fine and it's cheap

But at gaming intel is simply dominant

 

[falconrap]

Re: AMD vs Intel

OK, I have to chime in here. I have a venerable Phenom II X4 955 with a 5850 and I can run most games at the highest resolution of my monitor (1680x1050 - 16:10 FTW!!! Screw 16:9!!). The simple FACT is that unless you are running a game that is extremely CPU dependent, buying Intel is just 1) wasting money, and 2) giving money to a highly unscrupulous company who bribed companies to stay away from AMD when AMD was kicking Intel's rear end in. The simple fact is my home PC, which is on Windows 8 with single channel memory (bad mem slot on MB - haven't replaced yet) and DDR2 no-less, with a standard Seagate HDD runs as faster or faster for daily tasks as my very high end i7 laptop at work. Intel is way ahead in benchmarks, mostly single threaded ones, but in real life, there isn't much of a difference. Games will run just fine on an AMD processor.

The real difference maker is the GPU. My 5850 is still capable and that makes my system able to handle almost every new game out there without an issue. If you want to do ultra-high def graphics (4K) or you're going eye-finity, then an Intel processor is a better bet for you. Most people have no use for that power. Only top end gamers, high end geeks, and people doing stuff that requires high IPC single threaded power need them. The other nice thing with a an AMD APU is that you can always buy a low end GPU down the road to go with it and crossfire it to get even better results. Or, save up your money to get an RX290 and not worry about it but that's outside your current budget and likely won't fall in for a long time.

I've used i3's before and when you do a lot of multi-tasking, they do a lot of stuttering compared to similar AMD systems. Single threaded, they are a little better, but not as much as this thread seems to indicate.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Re: AMD vs Intel

Games don't multi-thread heavily. That's the main reason Intel win, because their per-core quality is superior to AMD's, and most games don't get threaded heavily to hurt an i3. I have a 5850 as well myself, not sure why you even mentioned a 290X when it costs $700, or more than his whole budget. Even a 270X would serve him well for a few years, given he isn't doing 1080p, maxing games out, and isn't aiming for games like Battlefield 4 or The Division, where the graphics get crazy.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Re: AMD vs Intel

Few remarks:
- don't but prebuilt PCs. They are expensive, and the cheap ones are crap.
- building your own PC is like assembling LEGOs, if it doesn't go easily, it'd not the right port/slot, and there's instructions everywhere.
- 4GB RAM is enough, it's stupid spending 100€ for 16GB on such low budget, and it's also the part that's the easiest to upgrade, so you can always do that later (just make sure you get 1 stick so you don't fill up the slots)
- If you want to save money, go for AMD A6, if you want to get A8, get Intel Core i3-4130 instead. If you get intel, make sure it's the new one, so 4xxx. Don't go for AMD A10 (5800K), get i3-4130 instead.
- get any motherboard for 50~60€. In this price range, everything is good. Asus, Asrock (which is just cheap Asus), gigabyte, anything really.
- 500W PSU is overkill for such configuration, but get one if you can get it cheap, otherwise get like 450 or something. Don't get the cheapest one though, 40~50€ will do.
- GPU is integrated in the processor and should do just fine, and you can always upgrade later if necessary.
- Skip the DVD drive and install OS from USB stick (it's ridiculously simple). If you can't live without it, get the cheapest DVD-RW you can fine, or buy a used one. Any SATA (1, 2, 3...) will do.
- Get the cheapest case (if there are any fans inside great, otherwise buy 2 cheap ones, one for front, one for back, should be <20€ for two or even three)
- HDD: Get WD blue or something. Or get WD green and a small SSD (greens are super slow, fine for data, but you might want something snappier for OS and programs)

View attachment 58144
Something like this. It's in Slovene, but you understand euros and model numbers And prices should be cheaper in Austria. I got my PC from Germany (1200€) and it I saved about 100~200€ compared to our prices.
If you want to save money, go for 500GB WD blue (costs the same as 1TB WD green) and no SSD.

I don't really see why you'd need BR drive, you get buy/rent/stream movies online.

This is not a gaming rig, no PC for 400€ is. If you want to game, got for i5, dedicated GPU (150~250€), 8GB RAM. About 700€ would get you a great gaming rig. If you want to game and watch blurays for 400€, get a PlayStation 3/4.

Why would you even consider a green drive in the first place? The blues are faster, more reliable, and cheaper, so why get the green? Also, 4 GB is fine for some, but it's definitely not fine for all. I upgraded my RAM in 2012 because I was hitting the 4-GB ceiling on my desktop. RAM's cheap, so going with 8 GB usually doesn't cost much. Oh, and 1333 RAM is bottom-of-the-barrel, not sure why you would waste your time with it.

Beyond that, I can't read the list because it's in another language and isn't appearing to have the brands on the parts every time. I have no idea what the case or PSU brands/models are, so I can't say if they're worth a darn.

Oh, and when we're talking about nearly-max graphics and a longevity of 3-4 years, Intel's graphics aren't going to cut it. Maybe on the lowest settings, but it's sketchy for more than a short-term fix.

 

[05Paris]

Re: AMD vs Intel

I think your first question was Intel vs AMD...I had been a big AMD guy for 15-20 yrs but the last few years Intel closed the gap with three things you can't get with AMD: i3-i5-i7 processors. I could care less about the i3 but the technology built in the i5 and i7 processors are game changers:
1) Quick Sync Video with increased speed of downloads, create, edit and sharing
2) Hyper Threading technology which allows simultaneously performing multi-tasks within the core
3) Turbo Boost technology allows power only when you need it
4) WiDi, Wireless Display, allows wirelessly streaming content from your PC to your TV in full 1080p while continuing to consume content or creating content of your own.

 

[Jarip]

Re: AMD vs Intel

Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: February 2014 - Best Gaming CPUs For The Money, February Updates

At around ?90, AMD's A10-5700 isn't a particularly compelling gaming processor. But imagine if it was ?35 cheaper and included an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. That isn't a dream any longer. At last, the Athlon X4 750K is available. Selling for roughly ?55, this is the cheapest enthusiast-friendly CPU you'll find. And while its lack of L3 cache hurts in games, we at least like knowing that its 100 W thermal ceiling isn't divided between x86 cores and graphics.

The FX-6300 fares well in gaming tests, presumably thanks to better multi-core utilization and optimization for AMD's architecture over time. While Intel's Core i3-4130 offers more potential, you won't be able to tell the difference most of the time. On the other hand, the FX-6300 costs less, sports an unlocked clock multiplier, and features six integer cores that unquestionably benefit performance in threaded desktop applications.

 

[abhishyam2007]

Re: AMD vs Intel

I just saw this post and thought to ask.
I have a 5yo laptop, amd turion x2 + ati radeon hd32xx. I am gonna buy a new laptop in a month or 2. I have options of an amd a10+8GB RAM +1GB amd radeon hd 7670 /OR/ Intel i3 haswell + 4GB ram + 1gb hd 7670.
Which of the two should be better? I am gonna use it for another 4-5 years. And I am a student, so less of typing and more of gaming. Medium settings are good for me. And i am gonna start with games like cod mw2/3, BF3, which my current laptop wont play. Help pls! Thanks.

 

[Angry_Mushroom]

Re: AMD vs Intel

Go for an Intel i3 or i5 processor. Their energy usage is really quite low, and their performance tends to slam anything AMD can come up with. I'd say well worth the price for the future proofing. As for the graphics... The new Nvidia 750/Ti cards are beastly. Maxwell has truly pulled something unique in the electronics world.

If you do go for AMD... go for their A-series processors. From what I've been able to see AMD has no future road map for their FX series.

 

[Jarip]

Re: AMD vs Intel

I just saw this post and thought to ask.
I have a 5yo laptop, amd turion x2 + ati radeon hd32xx. I am gonna buy a new laptop in a month or 2. I have options of an amd a10+8GB RAM +1GB amd radeon hd 7670 /OR/ Intel i3 haswell + 4GB ram + 1gb hd 7670.
Which of the two should be better? I am gonna use it for another 4-5 years. And I am a student, so less of typing and more of gaming. Medium settings are good for me. And i am gonna start with games like cod mw2/3, BF3, which my current laptop wont play. Help pls! Thanks.

You did not mention which A10 (exact model) ? - is it the latest one (kaveri) ? - but I would go for Intel i3 Haswell + 4 Gb + AMD Radeo HD7670 in any case ...

 

[csd_images]

Re: AMD vs Intel

I'll throw in this, AMD has a better longevity when it comes to motherboards. Intel tends to shift sockets with every generation but AMD you can generally drop in a new processor if the old one doesn't meet your requirements.

Also there is another elephant in the room. AMD's Mantle and TrueAudio technology is designed to relieve the stress off of the CPU when gaming, and this has been borne out by the benchmarks. Considering that most of the major game engines have or will have Mantle in the coming months AMD will become a more compelling choice. Overall AMD tends to be better in multi-tasking and GPGPU work, whilst Intel is better for IPC and single-threaded tasks.

Win 7/8 have been optimised for the 'strange' architecture that AMD introduced which helps matters but Intel still dominate high end and mostly in the mid-range if you want pure performance.

Minimum RAM I'd say for any computer is 8Gb these days especially if you use memory hog apps like Chrome and there is games coming onto the market that will take advantage of the RAM (64Bit aware).

 

[Keith Wallace]

Re: AMD vs Intel

The problem with bothering with Mantle right now is that not a lot actually supports it. I think that Thief and Battlefield 4 do, but I don't know what (if anything) else does. The games the OP (and subsequent laptop-seeker) posted are not Mantle games, so Mantle won't be there to help them, at least in the short-term.

As for board longevity, ehh. We're talking about keeping a desktop for 3-4 years. Neither AMD nor Intel will likely be on the same socket then. Even if AMD's next APU DID support the board the OP got now, it would likely be a sub-optimal backwards compatibility. As it stands, AMD is still playing with FM2+ for their APUs, I think, and I imagine it won't be the current socket in 3-4 years. Plus, AMD's not really messing with the FX line at all right now, and the AM3+ socket it uses is in need of an upgrade for the next FX release (if we ever see one), so AMD's current socket state isn't really any better than Intel's.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Re: AMD vs Intel

Go for an Intel i3 or i5 processor. Their energy usage is really quite low, and their performance tends to slam anything AMD can come up with. I'd say well worth the price for the future proofing. As for the graphics... The new Nvidia 750/Ti cards are beastly. Maxwell has truly pulled something unique in the electronics world.

If you do go for AMD... go for their A-series processors. From what I've been able to see AMD has no future road map for their FX series.

I don't see what you consider the big deal about the 750 Ti to be. It's a $160-170 GPU that competes with the AMD R7 GPUs, and it doesn't even beat them. The good Maxwell stuff is the GTX 800 line, and we don't know when that's coming. The 750 and 750 Ti are low-end cards that are in no way more-special than an R7 260X or R7 265, so I'm just lost as to what the "something unique" Nvidia is bringing would be.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Re: AMD vs Intel

Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: February 2014 - Best Gaming CPUs For The Money, February Updates

At around ?90, AMD's A10-5700 isn't a particularly compelling gaming processor. But imagine if it was ?35 cheaper and included an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. That isn't a dream any longer. At last, the Athlon X4 750K is available. Selling for roughly ?55, this is the cheapest enthusiast-friendly CPU you'll find. And while its lack of L3 cache hurts in games, we at least like knowing that its 100 W thermal ceiling isn't divided between x86 cores and graphics.

The FX-6300 fares well in gaming tests, presumably thanks to better multi-core utilization and optimization for AMD's architecture over time. While Intel's Core i3-4130 offers more potential, you won't be able to tell the difference most of the time. On the other hand, the FX-6300 costs less, sports an unlocked clock multiplier, and features six integer cores that unquestionably benefit performance in threaded desktop applications.

1. The Athlons are APUs without the GPUs. The GPUs are what the APUs are desirable for; the CPUs are basically junk. On top of that, these are the Piledriver CPUs, so the Athlon's a year old, and it was crap when it was new.
2. The i3 is $5/5 Euros more. However, it will basically win every test against the FX-6300. Legitimate gains for no legitimate price hike.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Re: AMD vs Intel

I just saw this post and thought to ask.
I have a 5yo laptop, amd turion x2 + ati radeon hd32xx. I am gonna buy a new laptop in a month or 2. I have options of an amd a10+8GB RAM +1GB amd radeon hd 7670 /OR/ Intel i3 haswell + 4GB ram + 1gb hd 7670.
Which of the two should be better? I am gonna use it for another 4-5 years. And I am a student, so less of typing and more of gaming. Medium settings are good for me. And i am gonna start with games like cod mw2/3, BF3, which my current laptop wont play. Help pls! Thanks.

You should link the actual laptops you are considering. I'd say it's a 90% likelihood you'd want the Intel one, since it has a dedicated GPU (not relying on the junk Intel graphics for gaming). however, I'll offer a word of warning: Never EXPECT 5 years out of a laptop. Expect 2, then be thankful for anything more. I've owned one laptop in my life, and it lasted just over a year, and I never want to own another one as a result. It seems I can't go 6 months without someone I know having a laptop issue (bad charger pin, bad battery, bad WiFi card, bad HDD have all occurred). That's just a heads-up with laptops, expect problems.