Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

AMD vs Intel


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Brony2012

Brony2012

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:45 PM

Posted 18 September 2014 - 05:13 PM

I am wanting to upgrade my processor and am using my computer for high end gaming only. No photoshop or anything fancy like that. So I feel like AMD would be the better choice seeing as how I could get AMD FX-8350 for $179.99 with 4.0GHz, while Intel has a bigger more expensive selection that I feel like I wouldn't use all the bells and whistles for it. 



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 TsVk!

TsVk!

    penguin farmer


  • Members
  • 6,233 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Antipodes
  • Local time:09:45 AM

Posted 18 September 2014 - 06:32 PM

That pretty much sums it up.

 

AMD processors have long been the choice for gamers. Years ago they were unreliable with overheating issues (the competing Intel Pentium chips were hot as the sun also) but the manufacturer as a whole has lifted their game significantly. I think in the reliability VS performance equation they are now on par with Intel. There's other considerations with graphics and overclocking too, which are nicely summed up in this article.



#3 jonuk76

jonuk76

  • Members
  • 2,178 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, UK
  • Local time:12:45 AM

Posted 19 September 2014 - 09:56 AM

AMD vs. Intel is always going to be a hot topic, but it's best to try to look at facts rather than hype.

 

I guess the natural 'opponent' to the FX-8350 is the i5-4690K.  I think there are pluses and minuses for both.   This is my view but:

 

AMD FX 8350

 

+ Cheaper

+ 8 cores vs. 4

+ Higher performance on highly multithreaded applications (that can use all cores)

+ Overclocks pretty well

- Platform (FX990 etc) lacks PCIe 3.0, SATA Express, M2

- Higher power consumption

- Disappointing single threaded performance

- Getting a bit dated as it was released in 2012

 

Intel i5-4690K

 

+ Higher real world performance in majority of games and applications* Link

+ Higher per core performance

+ Better power efficiency

+ More advanced 22nm manufacturing process with tri-gate transistors

+ Newer Z97 platform offers PCIe 3.0, M2, SATA Express

+ Possible to use in small form factor (Mini-ITX system)

- Half as many cores/threads as the FX-8350

- More expensive

- Hot running when overclocked

- Doesn't always overclock as well as expected (no "5 Ghz on air" likely as Intel reps initially claimed) but still some potential

 

Bottom line IMO is the mid to high end Intel chips (including the i5-4690K) offers better real world performance in most games and most applications while using less power.  The AMD total system build cost is going to be roughly $50-100 less, either saving money or allowing you to invest elsewhere like a more powerful GPU.  Both could make a very capable gaming system, but the choice is up to you.


Edited by jonuk76, 19 September 2014 - 09:59 AM.

7sbvuf-6.png


#4 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:45 PM

Posted 22 September 2014 - 07:12 AM

There's even more nuance to this.  AMD's processors are usually less expensive with decent real world performance, however, they tend to run hot and take lots of power.  Intel's processors are more expensive with higher top-end performance and they tend to use less power.  Both do well in mid-range gaming rigs and standard home PC's, differences start to become obvious when you are trying to overclock or squeeze every FPS out of a game.  AMD's also not exactly coming out with many newer CPU's for their flagship performance CPU socket, the AM3+.

 

As an aside, do not be taken in by the number of cores AMD's FX processors have.  Their FX CPU architecture is unusual so it isn't an exact one-to-one ratio when comparing them to Intel.  One core shares some resources with another core.  Two "Cores" form a module, inside that module, there are two independent integer cores sharing L2 cache and a floating point unit.


3939.png

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users