build help: Approx. $750...AMD or Intel? Two builds linked inside.
17 replies, posted
Title pretty much sums up my dilemma...Any guidance?
Intel build: [url]http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1Sew0[/url]
AMD build: [url]http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1SeNO[/url]
Both of these are pretty much pushing my budget, so I can't really get any more expensive. I don't really plan on SLI/crossfire or overclocking anything too much. want to stick with stock cooling.
Thanks in advance.
Edit: forgot to mention, storage space is not a huge concern for me. My main concern here is if the AMD CPU will suffice with CPU intensive games and/or programming or if it's worth it to go with the more expensive Intel build, perhaps at the expense of the GPU.
I would go for the AMD build because although the i5 more powerful than the 8350 but not by as much as you think, and you will see a very noticeable difference with the 7850 compared to the r9 270X look at this benchmark: [URL]http://anandtech.com/bench/product/778?vs=857[/URL] Also keep in mind the 270X is like a 7870 GHz edition and is close to a 7950 so it will do a little better that what is shown here. But I would go for either the MSI Twin Frozr one or the Gigabyte Windforce edition one (which is the same price).
And down the road you could spend $30 on a Hyper 212 Evo cooler and overclock if you wanted to which would more than likely give you more performance than the i5 listed above.
You could also change the PSU to like a Corsair CX500M that is well known with great reviews.
[QUOTE=Npc_Hydra3;42623551]I would go for the AMD build because although the i5 more powerful than the 8350 but not by as much as you think, and you will see a very noticeable difference with the 7850 compared to the r9 270X look at this benchmark: [URL]http://anandtech.com/bench/product/778?vs=857[/URL] Also keep in mind the 270X is like a 7870 GHz edition and is close to a 7950 so it will do a little better that what is shown here. But I would go for either the MSI Twin Frozr one or the Gigabyte Windforce edition one (which is the same price).
And down the road you could spend $30 on a Hyper 212 Evo cooler and overclock if you wanted to which would more than likely give you more performance than the i5 listed above.
You could also change the PSU to like a Corsair CX500M that is well known with great reviews.[/QUOTE]
The i5 looses in multicolre performance but kicks it's ass in single core. As for the GPU a 7950 is a better option. It will play most games on max settings and they're dirt cheap right now for only $200.
[QUOTE=Npc_Hydra3;42623551]I would go for the AMD build because although the i5 more powerful than the 8350 but not by as much as you think, and you will see a very noticeable difference with the 7850 compared to the r9 270X look at this benchmark: [URL]http://anandtech.com/bench/product/778?vs=857[/URL] Also keep in mind the 270X is like a 7870 GHz edition and is close to a 7950 so it will do a little better that what is shown here. But I would go for either the MSI Twin Frozr one or the Gigabyte Windforce edition one (which is the same price).
And down the road you could spend $30 on a Hyper 212 Evo cooler and overclock if you wanted to which would more than likely give you more performance than the i5 listed above.
You could also change the PSU to like a Corsair CX500M that is well known with great reviews.[/QUOTE]
You will not get more performance from an overclocked 8350 except in games with ridiculous amounts of threads (as in less than 1% of them). i3s outperform them quite often. The best solution is to go with a 4670k, and use integrated graphics until you can buy the video card. In other words get this: [url]http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1SrxX[/url] only buy the video card later on. I do not think the R9 270X outperforms this 7870 since it only outperforms the standard 7870 by ~2 FPS, but I could be wrong.
I would go with the 8350 and 7950. The 8350 is just as good as the i5 right now. I think in the future we'll see more games that actually take advantage of the extra cores since the PS4 and Xbone have 8 cores. BF4 is already confirmed to. If you want to go for the i5, go for it, I just think the 8350 will last you longer.
[QUOTE=Fat White Lump;42634048]I would go with the 8350 and 7950. The 8350 is just as good as the i5 right now. I think in the future we'll see more games that actually take advantage of the extra cores since the PS4 and Xbone have 8 cores. BF4 is already confirmed to. If you want to go for the i5, go for it, I just think the 8350 will last you longer.[/QUOTE]
Please don't do this OP. You'll be shooting yourself in the foot in the long run.
[QUOTE=GreenDolphin;42634991]Please don't do this OP. You'll be shooting yourself in the foot in the long run.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say that. They'd both do fine. But the 8350 just allows for similar performance for less money.
[QUOTE=StonedPenguin;42635089]I wouldn't say that. They'd both do fine. But the 8350 just allows for similar performance for less money.[/QUOTE]
The 8350 does not offer similar performance for less money. I'm not sure where this whole AMD is better for your value thing comes from, because for gaming they are not (they are for multithreaded applications, but due to the architecture single core performance is lacking at best). Even if you have to go for a less expensive Intel processor to match the price, you will still get more performance (prime example: 3350P + B85 motherboard will probably cost about the same, but will offer much better performance). Getting an Ivy bridge or Haswell CPU also gives you a much better upgrade path. The next step up from an 8350 has a TDP of 220W and comes with a water cooler because it runs at such high temperatures. Not only that, it still doesn't beat a 4670k at gaming and cost $100 more.
Just to make sure no one thinks I'm talking out of my ass or from some unreasonable fandom for Intel, here's some benchmarks: [url]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/702?vs=697[/url]
Notice that half of the games see an increase of around 20 FPS in the second processor (the last generation version of the the 4570 which is 15% slower). The only exception is Diablo 3 (you'll get the odd multithreaded games but they are by far a minority).
Also the R7 and R9 series are newer so they don't have the driver support the 7000 series have yet, when you've got some video drivers boasting 15-20% performance improvement in select games it might just make the difference. And there's also AMD MANTLE, depending on how successful that is you'll have support for it with R7-9.
The R9/R7 series(except the 290X) are rebranded cards from older series, i wouldn't hold my breath about driver improvements making them any better
[sp]They're better price/performance than the nvidia equivalent anyway, so it doesn't matter[/sp]
Thanks for the input, guys. I'm seeing a lot of mixed opinions; not only here, but all over the web. I think I'm going to go with AMD for the pricing advantages. The budget is pretty strict. I also think I'm going to go with a 7950 instead of the R series. I plan on just using a single 1080 monitor, nothing crazy. The only thing that concerns me is being able to play starcraft, which is single-thread CPU intensive. But I can tolerate sub-par fps I think. I may overclock depending on how the temps look at normal speeds.
Is it too late to convince you that you're much, much better off getting an intel if you're going to be gaming?
[url]http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5[/url]
[url]http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus[/url]
Even a cheap dual-core pentium outperforms the FX processors in single-threaded games, and both processors are on par in well multithreaded games(compared to last generation intel processors, not haswell with a slight performance increase). You're going to have higher FPS counts buying the intel and running off of the integrated GPU and then buying a decent GPU when you've gotten enough money by that, than the difference between the 7850 and 7870(the same as the 270X if i'm not mistaken?)
I won't be buying for another month or two. If I can set up an intel build that I like as much as the AMD one for under 800 by then, I might. I really don't think the intels are as far ahead of the AMDs as you think. The 8350 seems to be just barely behind an i5 on most benchmarks.
[QUOTE=ballzach;42657927]The 8350 seems to be just barely behind an i5 on most benchmarks.[/QUOTE]
Which I5 (be more specific when specifying a processor please)?
[url]http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html[/url]
[url]http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/444/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-3570K.html[/url]
Intel's CPUs generally perform much better for programs that use a single thread.
[QUOTE=ballzach;42657927]I won't be buying for another month or two. If I can set up an intel build that I like as much as the AMD one for under 800 by then, I might. I really don't think the intels are as far ahead of the AMDs as you think. The 8350 seems to be just barely behind an i5 on most benchmarks.[/QUOTE]
You define 20 frames per second as barely behind? When you pay equal amounts for a processor and motherboard, you are going to get better gaming performance with an Intel processor and motherboard.
I'm almost convinced. What about an intel build like this? [url]http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1THpq[/url]
[QUOTE=ballzach;42659853]I'm almost convinced. What about an intel build like this? [url]http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1THpq[/url][/QUOTE]
Swap out the RAM for this: [url]http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gskill-memory-f31600c9d8gab[/url] since it's cheaper.
Swap out the PSU for this: [url]http://pcpartpicker.com/part/evga-power-supply-100b10500kr[/url] because cooler master isn't known for making reputable PSUs, and you don't want to get something that will fry your computer.
Thanks for the input. I still have two builds, almost identical in price. I'm going to wait a month or two and see how the prices trend, then decide.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.