AMD or Intel

thecoolest

Hi, I would like to build a new gaming PC. Which is better in gaming AMD or Intel? thanks

Quizzical

It's a question of your budget.  If you're willing to spend $350+ on the CPU, motherboard, and CPU cooler, then get Intel.  If you'd rather keep that sum closer to $200, then AMD is better in that range.

Cleffy

AMD has 3 areas where it excels in right now, parallel computing, integrated graphics, and low power CPUs. I would look at AMD if you are shopping for a tablet, sub $500 PC, or rendering rig. Otherwise I would get an Intel.

olepi

It comes down to what price point you are at. AMD is likely to have a good system in the cheaper price range, but if you want ultimate performance, and don't care about cost, then Intel might be better. It's a sliding scale of cost/performance.

Ridelynn

It is a matter of budget, but to put it in a different light:

If your total budget for your computer is less than about $600 US, your almost exclusively looking at AMD processors (and likely integrated graphics with that).

If your total budget for your computer is between $600 and about $1000 US, you could go either way - depending on how much of that budget you want to slide towards the graphics and other components (SSD, peripherals, etc).

If your total budget for your computer is over about $1000 US, there really isn't much reason to consider anything other than Intel (unless you just absolutely want to build an AMD rig for the sake of having it).

thecoolest

Thank you guys for answering my question. I might go AMD then. Thanks thanks thanks

thecoolest

Btw guys, i also need help with this. Please answer my questions too. Thank you

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/420339/Best-Gaming-Keyboard.html

Shauneepeak

I would REALLY look into an I5 instead of AMD if you go AMD you will lock yourself in with an AMD compatible MOBO meaning should you want to upgrade to Intel later, which you likely will, you will have to buy a whole new MOBO as well. in regards to gaming an I5 will give you essentially 98% of the performance of the much more expensive I7. I would recommend the 4670K though you could save some like $20 by going with the non K version but K makes it a little more future proof by allowing overclocking should you feel like it in the future.

Intel is definitely the way to go for performance and the I5 has a VERY good performance to price ratio you could save $100 by going with an FX-8320 but you lose out on a decent amount of power but for average gaming an AMD would be fine just like I said it locks you and an I5 would be a good deal better if you want to play games at Max setting.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116899

 

Now in regards to a good MOBO for the $ Quizzical would probably be the one to ask and likely save you a good amount over my recommendation but for a good mid-range gaming MOBO this one is quite good.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157503

 

Also if you can wait a bit Cyber Monday will be coming up fairly soon.

Phry

Personally, i'd rather be able to spend more on a decent GPU than a high end CPU, so if it comes to budgeting, i'd definitely choose a reasonably priced AMD processor over an intel one, particularly if its just for building a games machine, the intel ones are more powerful, but in terms of price, you can get some decent cpu's for a lot less than the intel options, but if you can afford to get a decent GPU and a decent Intel cpu, i'd probably go for it, its just i've never been in a position myself where the intel option was the 'affordable' one

Quizzical

Originally posted by Ridelynn

It is a matter of budget, but to put it in a different light:

If your total budget for your computer is less than about $600 US, your almost exclusively looking at AMD processors (and likely integrated graphics with that).

If your total budget for your computer is between $600 and about $1000 US, you could go either way - depending on how much of that budget you want to slide towards the graphics and other components (SSD, peripherals, etc).

If your total budget for your computer is over about $1000 US, there really isn't much reason to consider anything other than Intel (unless you just absolutely want to build an AMD rig for the sake of having it).

That's a good summary, but I'd like to add that "total budget" means "excluding peripherals" (keyboard, mouse, speakers, monitors, surge protector).  If you're going to spend $400 out of a $1000 budget on monitors, you should be looking at AMD for the CPU.

Another thing I'll add is that within the $600-$1000 range, AMD becomes a more compelling option as you get closer to $600, and Intel as you get closer to $1000.  Whether to go AMD or Intel is partially a matter of how much you value CPU performance versus GPU performance.  If you need high frame rates (e.g., 60+) and are willing to turn down graphical settings to get them, you should be spending more on a CPU and less on a GPU.  If you prioritize pretty graphics and insist on turning settings up, even if it limits you to 30-40 frames per second, you should be spending more on a GPU and less on a CPU.

Finally, even if you figure out which brand of CPU to get, you don't buy a brand name.  You buy a particular CPU.  So don't figure that you need one brand and then buy a random CPU of that brand.  The appropriate CPU to get depends on exactly how much you're willing to spend, but a hierarchy of what could make sense as budget increases looks something like this:

A4-6300

A8-6600K

A10-6800K

Athlon X4 760K

FX-6300

FX-8320

Core i5 4690

Core i5 4670K

Core i5 4690K

Core i7 4790K

Core i7 5820K

You use integrated graphics with the top three options, and need high clocked memory for the A8-6600K or A10-6800K.  The top four options use a Socket FM2+ motherboard, the next two (FX-series) use a Socket AM3+ motherboard with a 970 chipset, the next four use a Socket LGA 1150 motherboard, and the last one uses a Socket LGA 2011 motherboard with an X99 chipset and DDR4 memory.  You want an H97 chipset motherboard with the Core i5 4690, and a Z97 chipset motherboard for the Core i5 4670K through Core i7 4790K.

The most common sensible choices (depending on budget) are probably the A10-6800K, FX-6300, and Core i5 4670K or 4690K, depending on the price gap between them.

thinktank001

Originally posted by Cleffy
AMD has 3 areas where it excels in right now, parallel computing, integrated graphics, and low power CPUs. I would look at AMD if you are shopping for a tablet, sub $500 PC, or rendering rig. Otherwise I would get an Intel.

 

If that is truly the case, then Intel has no place in MMORPGs.   With developers continuous push towards the microtransaction model, then players running multiple accounts to bypass/lessen the restrictions of business model would be the preferred way of playing.   

Ridelynn

---

Originally posted by thinktank001
Originally posted by Cleffy AMD has 3 areas where it excels in right now, parallel computing, integrated graphics, and low power CPUs. I would look at AMD if you are shopping for a tablet, sub $500 PC, or rendering rig. Otherwise I would get an Intel.

 

If that is truly the case, then Intel has no place in MMORPGs.   With developers continuous push towards the microtransaction model, then players running multiple accounts to bypass/lessen the restrictions of business model would be the preferred way of playing.   

---

MMOs, as with most games, traditionally have not been CPU-limited. Even if your running half a dozen clients on one machine, your still going to be hard pressed to stress out a quad core and become CPU before you hit some other choke point - GPU resources, RAM, something.

The few MMOs that have been largely CPU-bound, have typically been so because they were poorly coded for CPU IPC (Everquest 2 most famously) - and more cores won't help that.

If/when games actually become efficiently multithreaded to the point that more cores > faster cores, it wouldn't be hard for Intel to release a die with a lot of cores on it aimed at the consumer line- they do already for the server line, and their "gamer" lineup just got updated to 8 real cores (16 with hyperthreading), which trumps anything AMD has out right now.

Battlerock

Get an I5 or an I7

The I7 4790k is pretty nice.

The I5 is about $100 less and will run any games you can throw at it flawlessly.

Quizzical

Originally posted by Ridelynn

 

---

Originally posted by thinktank001

---

Originally posted by Cleffy AMD has 3 areas where it excels in right now, parallel computing, integrated graphics, and low power CPUs. I would look at AMD if you are shopping for a tablet, sub $500 PC, or rendering rig. Otherwise I would get an Intel.

---

 

 

If that is truly the case, then Intel has no place in MMORPGs.   With developers continuous push towards the microtransaction model, then players running multiple accounts to bypass/lessen the restrictions of business model would be the preferred way of playing.   

 

If/when games actually become efficiently multithreaded to the point that more cores > faster cores, it wouldn't be hard for Intel to release a die with a lot of cores on it aimed at the consumer line- they do already for the server line, and their "gamer" lineup just got updated to 8 real cores (16 with hyperthreading), which trumps anything AMD has out right now.

The most extreme pro-multithreading case that is possible is a future where all that matters is total CPU performance, not the number of cores it is distributed among.  We're never going to get there entirely, but even if we did, how soon do you think developers would be willing to launch games where a Core i5-4670K isn't good enough?  I think the answer is pretty obvious:  not very soon, outside of a handful of badly-coded corner cases.

Yes, Intel could readily release a desktop CPU with more cores.  But so could AMD.  They both already do for servers.  If they thought the market was there, they'd release a desktop version, too--but they'd charge server-like prices for it.  Charging $2000 for a server chip, but $300 for an identical desktop version would tempt too much of their market to grab the desktop chip instead and oh well if it doesn't have ECC memory.  It's not an accident that when Intel releases desktop and server versions of the same chip, the prices are awfully similar.  $2000 for a desktop chip isn't going to have much of a market even if it is a really nice CPU.