I'm planning to upgrade my PC (CPU, Motherboard, and RAM) but what I'm wondering is the performance difference between AMD and Intel's top tier processors and this is for gaming. I've noticed on the market that the AMD FX-8350 runs at 4GHz at a really good price, but is the processor speed the most important factor? Is there anything I should watch for? Intel's i7 speeds seem to be slower but much more expensive. I just don't know to do since I'm new to computers and I would like to upgrade it sometime soon. I also don't plan on overclocking as well since it may require intense cooling and I don't want to worry about that for now. :P
This might help.
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/80170680/facepunch/AMD%20vs.%20intel.PNG[/IMG]
I'd stick with AMD because I really need more cores.
Clockspeed is a bad indicator of overall performance, unless you're comparing two CPUs based on the same architecture. But give us a budget and the specifications of your current system ([I]including[/I] the PSU [B]model[/B]), and we'll work something out for you.
[editline]21st March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Plaster;39990040]This might help.
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/80170680/facepunch/AMD%20vs.%20intel.PNG[/IMG]
I'd stick with AMD because I really need more cores.[/QUOTE]
Please refrain from using that kind of stuff in the future. It's not completely inaccurate, but it's definitely up there.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39990049]Clockspeed is a bad indicator of overall performance, unless you're comparing two CPUs based on the same architecture. But give us a budget and the specifications of your current system ([I]including[/I] the PSU [B]model[/B]), and we'll work something out for you.
[/QUOTE]
This, just to clear it up, clock speed is a factor, but the IPC (instructions per clock) is more important, a 3ghz quad core AMD will perform much worse than a 3ghz quad core Intel, and the price would reflect that, AMD are very much a value brand, I would say to buy Intel where possible.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39990049]Clockspeed is a bad indicator of overall performance, unless you're comparing two CPUs based on the same architecture. But give us a budget and the specifications of your current system ([I]including[/I] the PSU [B]model[/B]), and we'll work something out for you.
[editline]21st March 2013[/editline]
Please refrain from using that kind of stuff in the future. It's not completely inaccurate, but it's definitely up there.[/QUOTE]
Recently just bought a Corsair AX-650, my budget is ~$500.00 but the thing is I might be getting a hook up from one of my teachers. I was just curious about the difference, I thought core clock was the main factor in a CPU haha.
[QUOTE=Cwizzy;39991789]Recently just bought a Corsair AX-650, my budget is ~$500.00 but the thing is I might be getting a hook up from one of my teachers. I was just curious about the difference, I thought core clock was the main factor in a CPU haha.[/QUOTE]
Nah this really isnt true. Single core performance is way more important than the ammount of cores or even GHz.
Also an i7 doesnt perform better in games than an i5 (unless you count in the 500$+ 2011 sockets). Hyper threading usually adds nothing in gaming performance.
the i5 3570k is the current sweetspot gaming cpu, but you might want to wait for intels new cpu line thats comming this June. Reportedly its 13 to 18% faster and uses less power.
Also really really consider overclocking. A 30$ cooler (hyper 212) will be more than enough to get a 3.5 ghz 3570k to 4.0 ghz+.
[QUOTE=Plaster;39990040]This might help.
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/80170680/facepunch/AMD%20vs.%20intel.PNG[/IMG]
I'd stick with AMD because I really need more cores.[/QUOTE]
AMD processors don't have more cores than Intel processors. The "eight core" AMD FX CPUs are actually only quad cores. The reason they claim to have eight cores is because each core has two thread dispatch units and can process two threads at the same time, but it's not the same as having eight individual cores.
The Bulldozer/Piledriver line of AMD CPUs has terrible single thread performance because of this, reason being that two threads have to share resources within the core that results in contention and slows things down substantially. The only advantage an AMD FX CPU would give you is if you're into content creation and need lots of parallel processing. if you're just a gamer, it will cause pretty bad performance degradation.
[QUOTE=Cwizzy;39991789]Recently just bought a Corsair AX-650, my budget is ~$500.00 but the thing is I might be getting a hook up from one of my teachers. I was just curious about the difference, I thought core clock was the main factor in a CPU haha.[/QUOTE]
Clock speed comparisons only work when you're comparing two CPUs in the same generation line (ie. Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Bulldozer, etc.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
