I'm looking to build a mid to high end gaming PC with affordable parts.
In regards to Processor, which one has better performance?
im looking at x8 FX-8350 and i5-3570K.
Thanks before.
Highend Gaming PC - AMD vs Intel
kevinata on 03/04/2013 - 10:53
Comments
Yep, for gaming it tends to be about speed per core, and I hate saying it but intel just obliterates AMD in speed per core. That said - AMD all the way in High end gaming GPUs.
The main question isnt which Brand, or CPU (intel i5 Quad, K series if you want to OC), its which chipset/motherboard you buy - making the decision how many GPUs you can use.
Also - make dead sure you have a serious quality PSU - they start at about $80 to support a single GPU. NEVER gamble your expensive hardware on a cheap or even cheapish (ie coolermaster) PSU. Seasonic, Enermax, Antec, Corsair etc all the way.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/ and http://www.jonnyguru.com/ are the best places for PSU reviews and the only ones I (a trained electronic technician and engineering student with years of experience) trust.
http://www.silentpcreview.com is also great, espescially if you want a machine with kick that doesnt sound like a jet aircraft.
Better to be thinking about i5-3570 vs i5-3570k or even Xeon E3-1230v2 vs i5-3570k. Will you be overclocking or not?
Tbh, I am a total noob in this area. I just like to play video games on my laptop and thinking of switching to desktop PC.
I am willing to spend up to $1000 for a mid end gaming desktop PC, as long as it can run most games on high settings.right now, i think the star performer is a high speed i5 or even an i7 3770 if you can afford it and a card like a 7870-7950-7970 or a GT660
but i'd get the ATI just for the sweet sweet free AAA+ game coupons
but with haswell around the corner…
I've read it everywhere that i5 is better for gaming compared to i7?
yeah… from people who own i5s and cant afford an i7…
i agree that if it was me today, buying a gaming pc, i'd get a $200 i5 rather than a $300 i7 but epeen being what it is… people wanna brag about their rigs
Not better, but i7 adds almost nothing for almost all users. Don't pay for it.
with virtualisation being common place i'd argue that
and in the scheme of things $100 more isnt a big deal on a pc that will last 3yrs+
one could also argue theres no place for x79 and yet… here it is
with virtualisation being common place i'd argue that
If you are virtualising high performance loads (not just running ie 6 under win XP) you are NOT 'almost all users'. Even then though, it is still only specific cases that make the i7 worth the money. If you are setting up cloud hosting you probably aren't getting PC build advice from ozbargain (I hope).
and in the scheme of things $100 more isnt a big deal on a pc that will last 3yrs+
$100 will get me a lot of chocolate. Or any number of other things. In time the i7 will devalue much faster than the i5, you get the i7 because you want the greatest right now, and are willing to pay too much for it.
one could also argue theres no place for x79 and yet… here it is
There are two places for the x79:
1: Systems that are NOT home PCs
2: People who don't like chocolate (and thus have money to waste)
My home server running a core2quad q6600 runs 2 windows server 2012 and a windows 8 system under a server 2012 hyper-v with virtually zero CPU usage.
My i5 3570 CPU NEVER runs at full capacity even on the occasion that I game.
Unless you're running your main os virtually… it's unlikely that you'll see a difference anytime soon.
at the budget you will be able to build a very decent rig….
I have an FX-8350 and HD7870, 8gig ram, Asrock Extreme 3 mobo, Kingstone 240gbSSD, spent around $800 last month to buy and it runs everything 1680*1050 on max just fine, Crysis and Bioshock run perfect.
nice to see an AMD rig…..mine is aging gracefully
Built 2010, updated (SSD, new RAM) 2012….spent A LOT more than you did when I built it
Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition
G.Skill Ares 16GB RAM @1600 CL8
XFX 5850 Black Edition 1GB
Samsung 830 Series 256Gb SSD
Asus M4A89GTD-Pro USB3
Corsair HX850W
Noctua NH9
Antec 900
My old rig was similar to yours….go ivy bridge with a HD79** it will shit all over it
Did you build it by yourself?
Even as a long time AMD fan, I have to say go the i5/i7 route, they have better single thread performance and games are still not coding for multi-thread enough to make the octa-core AMD worth the looking at. My current Phenom II X4 965BE is the choke point in my rig, not my 5850 Black Edition.
For your budget, the last generation i5 2500k is worth looking at (more money to get good RAM, SSD GPU, and cooling). My advice is not to scrimp on your power supply and your cooling.
Intel i5-3570 $215
Gigabyte GA-B75M-D3H $69
Sapphire Radeon HD 7870 XT Edition $252
8G Kit 1600 Corsair Vengeance $65
ASUS Xonar DG PCI 5.1 Sound Card $28
Samsung 840 120GB ssd $97
WD 3.5" Blue 1TB WD10EZEX SATA3 64M 7200rpm HDD $67
Windows 7/8 oem $94
Antec HCG 520 $83
PC Case $35There you are a mid end gaming pc for $1000
I just placed an order through umart for this for $769.
Not high end, but a hell of a lot higher than what I had.Product Description:
1 Years return to base Warranty
AMD FX 6300 CPU - 3.5Hz
AMD970 Motherboard
8G DDR3 1600MHz RAM
1TB Hard Disk
22x DVD-Burner
ATI HD7850 Graphics Card
Thermaltake V3 Mid Tower + 500W PSUthanks for the response everyone. What PSU will be sufficient to power my PC? is additional 140mm fan required?
One that is atleast 500 watt 80 plus bronze certified.
What PSU will be sufficient to power my PC?
Depends almost entirely on the video card.
is additional 140mm fan required?
Almost certainly not.
I have used the Corsair CX-600 PSU's and ANTEC 300V2 cases a few time lately (workstation at the office - FX-8150/16GB/SSD/7750, and a for a friend - FX-4100/16gb/SSD/7750).
any high quality 500W psu should be sufficient for a single gpu machine.
generally the whirlpool.net.au desktops forum keeps a wiki with power supply recommendations for different roles, as do overclockers.com.au.
Corsair CX500, Antec Earthwatts 500D, Antec NeoEco520 and 620, Enermax EN-ENP550AWT 550W Tomahawk II are among the $75-$85 PSUs that i would trust for my own (single GPU only) gaming rig
i5 3570 k - $236
MSI z77a-g41 motherboard - $99
MSI ATI 7870 - $229
Patriot 8g (2x4g) - $51 MSY special
WD blue 7200 rpm 1TB - $67
Samsung 840 120GB SSD - $85 shopping express
TP Link wireless network card - $19
ASUS Xonar DG PCI 5.1 Sound Card $28
Antec 620W Neo Eco Bronze PSU - $95
Coolermaster USB3.0 RC-K350 - $51
Windows 7 home premium 64 bit - $94TOTAL - $1054
Any opinion on this?
i like this
but i'd get win8
i thought people hate windows 8?
I missed dvd rw for $19
comes up to $1073i've changed my mind about win8
its not that bad
might i be as bold as to state that its probably a good idea to get the whole pc from one place?
makes it easier for support
http://startisback.com/ is really great for bring back the Windows 7 look and feel of the original start menu.
I don't know why people are negging you. I thought windows 8 would suck initially, so I downloaded the iso from microsoft (without a key, as a trial) and it's actually not too bad. It seems responsive (obviously because I had to reformat to install it as my old drive was getting sluggish).
At first I thought it would be shockingly bad like all those videos seem to suggest, but it's nowhere near as bad as it's made out to be. Most things are exactly the same (eg. using the internet/other tasks) because you're in the "desktop" 99% of the time, only occasionally going to the start menu tiles (you don't even need them to launch programs) for things like searching and the occasional program launch.
It's not that bad at all. I like the new lock which you can set a pin, it's a lot faster to get going than windows 7 was, that's for sure.
Sorry for the way I wrote this post, it's far too late for proper structure :(
For that price try to get one of these if you can:
http://www.sapphiretech.com/presentation/product/?cid=1&gid=…
http://powercolor.com/us/products_features.asp?id=430They actually have the chipset from the 79xx series and are a better card.
i like this
but i'd get win7
- ditch the WD blue and get a black they are more reliable and faster
- you dont really need the sound card it wont add much over the stock realtek offering.
- I had a tplink card and nothing but issues id go an asus or a netgear since they are all around the same price.
- id get atleast a 90+ gold psu they are fairly cheap for low power output
- you said you were going from a laptop, what about peripherals your going to need a monitor keyboard mouse etc? also might want to think about an aftermarket cooler for ur cpu if you want it a bit quieter and cooler..
thats just what id do though
ASUS Xonar DG PCI 5.1 Sound Card $28
I think that the Sound Card is unnecessary. Your motherboard already has Realtek ALC887 with 8 audio channels. Unless you are buying a $200 sound card, the mobo onboard audio will be better. (http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1910718)TP Link wireless network card - $19
I guess you have your reason not to use a wire? The airwaves are getting pretty crowded at my place.MSI ATI 7870 - $229
Well, if that's the best you can do, I guess. Basically the gaming rig comes down to the GPU, and if you can go up to the 7950 or 660 Ti I think you will be happier in the long run. Plus MSY has a promotion going that you get both Bioshock Infinite and Crysis 3 for free with any AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series graphics card.Antec 620W Neo Eco Bronze
It's hard to tell when MSY PSUs are modular or not. There are both modular Antec 620W and also the other kind that forces you to hide a big tangle of unused cables somewhere. If you can get a modular power supply, it's much more convenient.Unless you are buying a $200 sound card, the mobo onboard audio will be better.
And even if you are, if you are using digital output from the motherboard audio it will be the same.
if you can go up to the 7950 or 660 Ti I think you will be happier in the long run
Perhaps, but you pay a lot more for them. a 7870 LE based board (I mentioned above) is better speed for (often) no more cost. A standard 7870 is still very good.
If you can get a modular power supply, it's much more convenient.
To be honest I never care to much about this. Nice to have, but I wouldn't pay more for it, just means you have more bits to lose after building it that you might need to find later.
This looks pretty good, I would drop the wifi card and use good old cable connection (Cat5e/Cat6). The soundcard is unnecessary, as mentioned already. These savings mean you can get a cheaper CPU cooler (something like http://www.mwave.com.au/product/sku-aa16572-noctua_allinone_…)
With your motherboard, just be sure to plug your SSD into the SATA III ports (looks like you only have 2)and not the SATA II ports.
These savings mean you can get a cheaper CPU cooler
Why? If you mean quieter, the GPU will be way louder than the stock CPU fan anyway (which is actually very good).
A good CPU cooler is more efficient than the stock CPU fan. If the OP is inclined they may even be able to stretch for liquid cooling
http://www.mwave.com.au/product/sku-ab47751-corsair_hydro_se…NOTE: I am using MWAVE purely for their stock range (check prices).
Additionally the noise level is additive, ie loud CPU cooler + loud GPU = extra loud. I do agree that stock coolers have gotten better, and the chips run at lower temps. If you intend to OC then you will definitely want to swap it out.
Replace this:ASUS Xonar DG PCI 5.1 Sound Card $28
With this: ASUS Xonar STX or ST ($ 169)
It'll blow your mind if you're an audiophile freak because it'll make your crappy Logitech speakers sounds like B&W speakers.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701
Get the AMD
Why the sound card? I say put that towards the 840 pro. MSY 128GB Pro $145. Just need $10 more.
probably no point to the sound card.
If you are gaming online you are best off with wired network.
Since you are getting a K series CPU, get a decent heatsink.
Have a good look round for reviews of the board, MSI boards are either total gems or complete dogs.
I use to have AMD and ATI and changed for Intel and nvidia. I doubled the benchmark but I have 10 times the FPS. It is simple: everything is optimised Intel + nvidia.
Xeon don't have the integrated video card, it doesn't matter as you are going to have a PCI one.
PC Case Gear has competitive prices, I bought from them.
Only buy quality, it includes a PSU from a well known manufacturer. And check the compatibility between parts: CPU + ram + mb, if you buy at the same place, the shop should do it for you.
I have:
ga-z77n-ud3
12 gb corsair pc-1600 xms3
Xeon 1230v2
Evga gtx 660 tiIt is simple: everything is optimised Intel + nvidia.
Really? News to me. Intel has a clear lead and most games don't make a lot of use of threads, so AMD's natural advantage is lost a little here. As for things being optimised for Nvidia over AMD, there are certainly cases but there are cases of the reverse as well.
I would totally agree about buying quality parts from well known manufacturers.
I do wonder what your old AMD/ATI rig was….but your current XEON/660 is pretty mean, that would have cost a bit.
lol old wives tale
here's what is nvidia optimised now:
Far Cry 3, Hitman: Absolution, and Sleeping Dogs.
Tomb Raider (2013) and Bioshock Infinite and Crysis 3.
By 'nvidia optimised' do you mean that they give preferential treatment to nvidia drivers over AMD? Because I can assure you that all of those games will also have had AMD optimisation done.
obviously people never heard of AMD never settle packs 1 and 2
I am not able to say which is better, but if you end up using intel, we ALL will soon and have no choice. AMD is the only alternative to intel, and if we don't support them they will disappear… And intel will have monopoly, and that would not be good. And yes I use Amd for that reason.
AMD won't dissapear. A lot of game consoles use AMD graphics technology — the upcoming PS4, XBOX2 and the current Xbox and Wii U all use AMD Radeon-based graphics.
So while it might seem that AMD is dying, behind the scenes AMD is actually taking a pretty firm foothold in the consoles market.
And lets not forget AMD not only sells CPU's, but also GPU's as well. They can will still live on so long as their graphics division has interested stakeholders.
I believe he means AMD will disappear from the CPU market, or at least the desktop CPU market — not that AMD will disappear from existence
I dont think they will - they make great workstations and great server clusters, they are power efficient and cheap.
They arent winning as gaming machines, but as multi thousand machine corporate installs for endless data entry and word processing and the like (where once typewriters sat) they do quite nicely too. And they seem to be moving into the SOAC region much more lithely than intel too.
Dont write em off yet.
I used to support AMD but with all their talk of what they were coming out with and then for it to be such a flop when compared with Intel…
Well my last build was an Intel and I couldn't be happier, I even had had a new AMD motherboard waiting but I just couldn't find a CPU that was good enough.
No point in supporting a company by purchasing their inferior product.Still run ATI never had a problem with them.
There is a small difference with an i7 - 5-10%, same with a 680 over a 670 - 5-10%, stock for stock - add all those increases up and you'll get quite a few more extra frames. I bought an i7 3770 for $297 (its now gone up) seeing as I can't be bothered overclocking anymore and it will easily last for 3yrs at least, no bottlenecks.
Saying that, avoid AMD's CPU's, they are laughable compared to an i5, and avoid building now, prices have substantially gone up, and Haswell is coming in June, rendering Ivy Bridge and LGA 1155 obsolete by Christmas. Also, a 7870 XT is the minimum for a decent gaming GPU, anything below that will be running out of puff at 1080p/1200p come next year with next gen ports and settings pushed up.
For sound, I bought an Asus Xonar STX for $150 and Swan M50W 2.1 speakers for $350 - if you want to spend $500 on sound, by all means I'd say its worth it, but a cheap DG isn't worth it. Onboard is nearly just as good.
better off putting ALL the money into getting a better DAC/reciever - the motherboard's spdif is exactly the same quality as that from a $300 sound card
I agree with most of the comments already posted, whilst it would be good to have a sound card, you don't need it unless you want to put in a true 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound (the audio jacks on the mobo is the basic one so will only support virtual 5.1 or 7.1 headsets i think)
As for the CPU, i'd get a non-k CPU if you are not going to OC your rig. save a couple of dollars and get some chocolates lol.
And this last part is purely my own opinion, but i'd rather have a GTX 660 or GTX 660Ti rather then a 7870 because it performs slightly better at factory clocks (1 to 2 frames more) and its roughly the same price $229 for the galaxy GTX 660 at PCCG.
As for the network card, you should use a lan cable if possible for gaming as wireless can become unreliable at times (when i game with my mate who uses wireless, we're rubberbanding like crazy sure this could be my issue as well but i play fine with other ppl with no lag)
Anyway, just my two cents.
the audio jacks on the mobo is the basic one so will only support virtual 5.1 or 7.1 headsets i think
Can you explain what you think you mean by this?
As for the CPU, i'd get a non-k CPU if you are not going to OC your rig. save a couple of dollars and get some chocolates lol.
Absolutely.
i'd rather have a GTX 660 or GTX 660Ti rather then a 7870 because it performs slightly better at factory clocks (1 to 2 frames more) and its roughly the same price $229 for the galaxy GTX 660 at PCCG.
660Ti is really not the same as the 660. Also the 7870 LE is a better option still.
Can you explain what you think you mean by this?
Sorry i dont think i can explain it properly… but on mobos that support up to 7.1 there should be 6 port audio jack and not the 3 port audio jack you see on the mobo OP mentioned.
The 3 port audio jacks only support stereo (green), mono input/ mic (pink) and and stereo input (blue).
The 6 port audio jacks are as per below
front stereo (green)
mono input/ mic (pink)
stereo input (blue)
rear stereo (black)
side stereo (grey)
centre and sub (gold)without the last three ports it will only support up to a 2.1 audio setup (i think not quite sure if it can go up to 2.1)
660Ti is really not the same as the 660. Also the 7870 LE is a better option still.
Yeah i know, but i was trying to recommend the GTX with the closest price to his 7870. Both GTX 660 and 7870 run most games round 50 frames on 1200 with maybe 1 to 2 frames differences depending on the optimisation. The GTX 660Ti run most games at 60 fames on 1200 but cost an extra 100 bucks.
I would suggest getting the Ti but with the budget he is looking at GTX 660 would have my vote, otherwise i would say get the Ti. Of course, these are purely from what i've seen, i could be wrong and the reviews may be flawed but again it is just my personally opinion.
Edit
I just remembered that Ivy-bridge CPU support using both the onboard GPU and the GTX 660 (virtulogic) together to boost performance… i personally haven't used it so i don't know if the performance boost will be significant but it might help give the GTX 660 the edge over the 7870.
Sorry i dont think i can explain it properly… but on mobos that support up to 7.1 there should be 6 port audio jack and not the 3 port audio jack you see on the mobo OP mentioned.
If you actually want surround audio using separate analogue outputs from the motherboard is a terrible solution anyway. All audio data is available in digital via a header, you can connect to your case if it has a digital socket or as a rear extension slot.
By header, i'm assuming that its something akin to an amplifier. If so, then wouldn't that cost extra just to get surround sound when all you need is a 6 port audio jack?
As you might have guessed, i'm not really sure how the header works could you please explain?Edit
Nevermind, i found out that a header is a unit that sorts out which signal goes to which port and needs a S/PDIF output on the board or sound card to work. Which the MSI Z77A-G41 doesn't have as well, so as i was saying before, there is no need for a sound card unless you want to set up a surround sound with your gaming rig.This answers your specific confusion:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Everything-You-Need-t…
But I recommend you read the whole article starting here:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/82
It will help you understand all of this. Also, it mentions HDMI, which if you use that for audio output makes the sound card even more irrelevant than it already is.
Edit:
… Which the MSI Z77A-G41 doesn't have
I'd be very surprised if it doesn't.
I haven't finished reading the article seems like an interesting read and i glanced at the important bits will read it when i get home. But according to the specs.
There doesnt appear to have the SPDIF anywhere on the board, internal or external.
So unless the HDMI cable can be used for the header as well. The OP may need a sound card for the surround sound.
On a side note,
… (virtulogic)…
I made a mistake with the name, it should be called Lucidlogic Virtu MVP and it seems the mobo may not support it too… so 7870 may be the better option if that is the case
There doesnt appear to have the SPDIF anywhere on the board, internal or external.
I wouldn't trust that listing, the manual would confirm but I can't check it right now.
So unless the HDMI cable can be used for the header as well.
I think that you aren't understanding these words. HDMI can definitely be used for audio (just depends on his amp/speaker/monitor setup).
I think that you aren't understanding these words. HDMI can definitely be used for audio (just depends on his amp/speaker/monitor setup).
I didn't say that HDMI can't carry digital audio and visual signals.
I meant what i said, i wasn't sure if there are headers out there that can use HDMI input. By what you said, HDMI input on header may be common.
I wouldn't trust that listing, the manual would confirm but I can't check it right now.
I had a look at the images of the board as well and there doesn't seem to have any plugs for SPDIF, unless im absolutely blind or its very well hidden…
Here is a review of the MSI Z77-G41
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/09/11/msi_z77ag41_lga_11…"2/4/5.1/7.1-channel"
"Support for S/PDIF Out"
There are alot of intel fan boys here. You obviously didn't read the OP -Good machine with affordable parts.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_alltime.html
The AMD 8350 is easily better than any of the intel cpu's in this regard. (Note - would however have higher energy bills as uses more power).
This is a bit misleading as pure CPU benchmarks tend to be heavily threaded which is not consistent with most real world use cases. Also, prices listed there may not be what you will actually pay here.
the 8350 is an interesting cpu
i do like it how they give you "more cores for your dollar"
have a look at how much money and trouble you get into if you needed 8 Intel cores!
however very few people need 4 cores, let alone 8
and let me say this, i have an AMD quad core cpu and in almost every respect its beaten in benches and real world by a an Intel dual core
now if you have a need for 8 cores cheaply, then by all means, the FX8350 is the way to go
but this is like the "4 core tablets" - its marketing
and energy bills isnt a big deal for PCs… i have an i7 with dual vga but its not like i run it 24/7
i do like it how they give you "more cores for your dollar"
have a look at how much money and trouble you get into if you needed 8 Intel cores!The tradeoff is that AMD processors don't do as well clock-for-clock against Intel.
Yes, AMD processors are cheaper (though this depends on market demand) and give you more cores per dollar, but the caveat is that these cores are individually weaker and slower. If you run a single-threaded benchmark that only uses 1 core, then AMD would lose by a significant margin.
Therein lies the rub: a lot of video games are direct console ports and lack proper multi-core support. At most, they might use 3-4 cores, but you get diminishing returns beyond that.
There are only several situations where all 8 cores in a CPU are being used — photoshop? Video editing? But gaming is not one of them.
Sadly, for gaming what counts is MIPS per core, not platform MIPS. I LOVE amd, have used em since 8088, but for gaming they just cant keep up atm.
That said - the multicore amds make fine workstastions, render rigs, servers etc.
just not gaming machines
For great recommendations on the best value for dollars spent, check out the Whirlpool "Gaming/Multi-Purpose Configurations" part of the "Whirlpool PC Suggestions"
http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/rmp_sg_whirlpoolpcs_gaming_conf…
http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/rmp_sg_whirlpoolpcs
I've used this list for a few years and never been disappointed.
Intel bribe review sites and make biased compilers.
http://i.imgur.com/8YUrCGJ.png
Every second Intel CPU architecture is designed in Israel, and Intel has fabs in Israel. When you buy Intel CPUs, you are supporting apartheid in Palestine.
http://i.imgur.com/TCM7Oyy.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/viVGfWk.pngIt has been recently learned through independent reviews (ie. non-profit benchmark sites not bribed by Intel) that AMD Processors have a lot closer performance to Intel CPUs and are just as good in single-threaded games and usually better for modern multi-threaded games (like Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, etc), and far better for any multi-threaded applications. And that's comparing non price equal CPUs, if you consider price equal CPUs, AMD is always better!
http://i.imgur.com/Ns1E2xE.jpg
It is a fact that AMD cpus are much better value for money than Intel, and perform excellently well.
http://i.imgur.com/bofgb6I.jpg
Intel constantly releases new chipsets forcing you to upgrade more frequently than should be necessary. Each new line of CPUs has dubious performance improvements over the previous. Haswell has already been benchmarked to be only 2%-3% faster than Ivy Bridge - even though it's an entirely "new" architecture. It will cost more AND you need a new motherboard to use it. What's more, Intel's new chipset has serious flaws (just google Haswell chipset problems), yet they are going ahead with production without a care. They also arbitrarily charge more for unlocked processors, and disable virtulisation instructions on them to force workstation users to buy arbitrarily more expensive CPUs still.
http://i.imgur.com/XJUJXOJ.png
Use AMD, they respect your freedom, while Intel CPUs require proprietary drivers to work at all!
Wow.
Intel bribe review sites
Evidence?
make biased compilers.
Intel MAKE compilers. For a long time they have had one of the best compilers in the game, even for running the result on AMD hardware. Can't blame them here. Don't like it, use another compiler.
Yep, Intel do no R&D at all, which is why their current line up is so bad. No wait that isn't true…
Every second Intel CPU architecture is designed in Israel, and Intel has fabs in Israel.
OK
When you buy Intel CPUs, you are supporting apartheid in Palestine.
Wow. I don't personally support Isreal, but seriously, wow. Why is the US exempt from this? Do you ever buy any products that have any offices there?
It has been recently learned through independent reviews (ie. non-profit benchmark sites not bribed by Intel) that AMD Processors have a lot closer performance to Intel CPUs
Please share. I usually use tomshardware as a good independent source. Please share your inside bribery information.
and are just as good in single-threaded games
Almost all benchmarks ever done say no.
and usually better for modern multi-threaded games (like Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, etc)
Sometimes, depends on the exact price point. Most people agree with this point anyway.
and far better for any multi-threaded applications.
.. which are few. Also generally agreed (without the word 'far').
And that's comparing non price equal CPUs, if you consider price equal CPUs, AMD is always better!
This is just rubbish.
Most of these tests are not real world.
It is a fact that AMD cpus are much better value for money than Intel, and perform excellently well.
Lots of claims, no facts.
Intel constantly releases new chipsets forcing you to upgrade more frequently than should be necessary.
Complete rubbish. Intel has VERY good back compatibility in many regards. Only last year did Debian drop 386 support from their current builds, not because they didn't work just fine as well as modern systems, but they just couldn't be bothered any more.
Each new line of CPUs has dubious performance improvements over the previous.
Some more than others, and this is well known. Core was a huge step up, as was Pentium M.
Haswell has already been benchmarked to be only 2%-3% faster than Ivy Bridge - even though it's an entirely "new" architecture.
So? New architectures are about creating room to improve further.
It will cost more AND you need a new motherboard to use it.
So stay with Ivy Bridge?
What's more, Intel's new chipset has serious flaws (just google Haswell chipset problems), yet they are going ahead with production without a care
Haswell is in preproduction. If you want to talk flaws talk about Pentium FDIV, but really for what they make the quality control is very good.
They also arbitrarily charge more for unlocked and disable virtulisation instructions on them to force workstation users to buy arbitrarily more expensive CPUs still.
This is the same as EVERY chipset manufacturer. You make a full featured chip and turn things off for the cheap version. Also it isn't arbitrary, it is to improve yield rates and thus drive down costs.
Evidence?
Just run benchmarks from major review sites yourself, and be stunned as the results are very different.
And there have been tonnes of fines on Intel, especially by the EU for this.
http://schestowitz.com/UseNet/2008/February_2008_3/msg00299.…Intel MAKE compilers. For a long time they have had one of the best compilers in the game, even for running the result on AMD hardware. Can't blame them here. Don't like it, use another compiler.
That doesn't change the fact that their compilers are literally coded to produce worse code for AMD cpus. Google it.
Yep, Intel do no R&D at all, which is why their current line up is so bad. No wait that isn't true…
All that R&D and only 2% extra performance in Haswell. Clearly it's all going to hookers and booze, as well as patents.
Wow. I don't personally support Isreal, but seriously, wow. Why is the US exempt from this? Do you ever buy any products that have any offices there?
I don't get what you're saying here. The point is, Intel is a Jewish company and profits go to jews in Israel, and fund apartheid. Don't buy Intel.
Please share. I usually use tomshardware as a good independent source. Please share your inside bribery information.
Tomshardware is not an independent source, nor is it a good source, nor is it a non-profit site. It is actually one of the worst sites, with terrible authors and reviewers. The fact that you are unaware of this and the recent discoveries shows that you are not an authority on the topic.
Here is the real deal, the smoking gun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
.. which are few. Also generally agreed (without the word 'far').
They are not few, virtually every reputable developer is writing multi-threaded code now for everything. The benchmarks I linked to already show this.
This is just rubbish.
That's not an argument, that's just denial.
Most of these tests are not real world.
You're right, they were done in a virtual reality world.
Lots of claims, no facts.
I literally just linked you to a series of benchmarks….
Complete rubbish. Intel has VERY good back compatibility in many regards. Only last year did Debian drop 386 support from their current builds, not because they didn't work just fine as well as modern systems, but they just couldn't be bothered any more.
Ummm no, a chipset lasts 2 years, while AMD is more than twice as long. 386 has nothing to do with chipsets, you clearly have no idea what you're on about.
Some more than others, and this is well known. Core was a huge step up, as was Pentium M.
Those happen very rarely. Steamroller will have 30% performance over Piledriver. Excavator (the one following) will also have significant improvements. These are iterative architectures, comparable to Sandy Bridge, Haswell, etc. Intel just can't compete - so it does what it does best, bribe everyone with their R&D money.
So? New architectures are about creating room to improve further.
Ummm no - there are no improvements at all, it's just more expensive. Intel motherboards are more expensive and need to be updated much more frequently, and Intel CPUs are more expensive and have almost 0% performance improvements over last models.
So stay with Ivy Bridge?
Are you trolling or what? Completely miss the point that TO USE A NEW CPU YOU NEW A NEW MOTHERBOARD when using Intel BUT NOT WITH AMD.
Haswell is in preproduction. If you want to talk flaws talk about Pentium FDIV, but really for what they make the quality control is very good.
It has been confirmed by Intel that the new chipsets will be shipping with the USB flaw - do you damn research!
This is the same as EVERY chipset manufacturer. You make a full featured chip and turn things off for the cheap version. Also it isn't arbitrary, it is to improve yield rates and thus drive down costs.
NO, AMD does NOT charge extra for unlocked processors, it's a STANDARD FEATURE.
I know I'm feeding the troll but I'm just going to correct a couple of the glaring technical issues.
1: Compilers produce code to x86 or x86-64. They can't magically predict if you will run it on an AMD CPU and thus produce worse code. (Edit: To clarify, the particular case mentioned was that certain extensions would not be recognised on non-intel CPUs even if they reported them to exist, the code itself did not change).
2: For compatibility I think you mean socket rather than chipset. In most cases CPUs will work just fine on a different generation chipset.
1: Compilers produce code to x86 or x86-64. They can't magically predict if you will run it on an AMD CPU and thus produce worse code. (Edit: To clarify, the particular case mentioned was that certain extensions would not be recognised on non-intel CPUs even if they reported them to exist, the code itself did not change).
Actually YES THEY LITERALLY CAN DO PRECISELY THAT. I am a programmer, I use compilers every day and in fact I have written compilers myself, and I (along with many others) have seen the relevant code within the Intel compiler. Once again, this is not a controversial claim, Intel has LITERALLY BEEN FINED for precisely rigging their compiler to produce inefficient code for AMD in Europe, and to the extent of my knowledge they STILL do it.
This is seriously just a google away, but apparently you are too deep in denial and/or don't want to admit how little you know about technology.
2: For compatibility I think you mean socket rather than chipset. In most cases CPUs will work just fine on a different generation chipset.
A different socket will have a different chipset. There can also be multiple chipsets for the same socket which don't work with all CPUs which can physically fit into that socket. It is sometimes but not always the case that a CPU will work with an updated chipset for the same socket.
The point is that Intel makes new ones constantly. There is literally no point in this but to force people to fork over more money.
Intel did exactly what I wrote in my comment. Glad to hear you have written a compiler, have a medal.
Your chipset/socket argument still doesn't make sense, there is no issue with changing chipset and keeping socket compatibility.
Intel did exactly what I wrote in my comment. Glad to hear you have written a compiler, have a medal.
What you wrote is misleading to say the least, you implied there would be no difference between the instructions the Intel compiler would produce for an Intel and an AMD cpu. This is verifiably false, and it has been proven that the Intel compiler is purposely biased against AMD CPUs so as to produce sub-optimal code.
If you believe otherwise, then you should join Intel's legal team and get them back the money which they were fined in the EU for doing precisely this. I'm sure that Intel will give you a very generous cut of several million dollars - so what are you waiting for?
Your ignorance really knows no bounds, perhaps you should inform yourself of the details:
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49In fact there is something new there that I didn't even know, which is that they were also found guilty in the US by the FTC and forced to compensate their customers! Excellent news.
Your chipset/socket argument still doesn't make sense, there is no issue with changing chipset and keeping socket compatibility.
It makes perfect sense. You have to upgrade your motherboard at least once every 2 years with intel, and with AMD you can go for 5 or 6 years without upgrading, while still being able to use the latest CPUs. This saves a lot of money, and more money still just because Intel motherboards are more expensive in general.
Further still, from that same website - it looks like Intel is continuing to nerf code for AMD processors:
It's not getting better. The latest version of Intel's SVML (small vector math library) has some functions that can only be called from processors with AVX because the input parameter is an AVX vector (YMM register). There is no logical reason why these functions should have a CPU dispatcher, yet they have two different code paths for the same instruction set: An optimized version for Intel processors with AVX and an inferior version for other brands of CPU with AVX.
im just watching the video linked above…
Interesting results are…..the FX-8350 is definitely better when you are streaming whilst you game….the Intel's are better for Crysis by itself.
they are testing at 1080p and 1440p
Crysis 2 - 3570k, 3770k - win
Crysis Warhead - 3770k > FX-8350 >>3570k
Black Mesa Source - FX-8350 - crushing win
Metro 2033 - FX-8350 -crushing win
Trine 2 - FX-8350 - winAMD FX 8350 Rig
MSI 990FXA-GD80 Motherboard
16 GB Kingston 2133MHz DDR3
Corsair H80 Liquid Cooling Unit
Kingston HyperX3K 120 GB SSD
HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870
Intel Z77 Rigs (3570k and 3770k)EVGA Z77 Stinger mini-ITX Motherboard
16 GB ADATA 2133 MHZ DDR3
Corsair H100
ADATA 256 GB SX900 SSD
HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870Found a link to the write up
http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-3570k-vs…
Just a note that Crysis 2 is a console port, which is why AMD doesn't crush it. For any non console port game, AMD will be better.
And given that both the PS4 and the xbox 720 (or whatever they decide to call it) are using AMD CPUs, all future console ports will probably work better for AMD cpus.
Sim City 5 - Non Port
http://pclab.pl/art52667-4.html
Crysis 3 - Non Port
http://pclab.pl/art52489-9.html
Assassins Creed 3 - port?
http://pclab.pl/art51968-5.html i5 2500k clocked @ 3.3ghz
http://pclab.pl/art51968-3.html " " @ 4.5ghz
http://pclab.pl/art51968-7.html Amd 8350 clocked @ 4.7ghz
Farcry 3 - Non Port
http://pclab.pl/art51626-3.html i5 2500k @4.5ghz
http://pclab.pl/art51626-4.html " " @3.3ghz
http://pclab.pl/art51626-5.html Amd 8350 @4.7ghz
Guild Wars 2 - Non Port
http://pclab.pl/art44531-5.html Amd 8150 @3.6ghz
http://pclab.pl/art44531-4.html i5 2500k @ 3.3
Sleeping Dogs - Non Port?
http://pclab.pl/art51002-5.html amd 8150 @3.6ghz
http://pclab.pl/art51002-4.html i5 2500k @3.6ghz
Counter strike Global Offensive - Non Port
http://pclab.pl/art38245-5.html Amd 8150 @3.6ghz
http://pclab.pl/art38245-4.html intel i5 2500k @3.3ghz
Max Payne 3 - Port?
http://pclab.pl/art49989-9.html amd 8150 @3.6ghz
http://pclab.pl/art49989-9.html i5 2500k @3.3ghzNoted, I have not put the boost speeds for any auto overclocks the cpu's have done but I think even a monkey can see that amd is"better" at "losing" in every single test.
simcity5
not portcrysis 3
not portMy sides have been lost, 10/10. Didn't even bother looking at the rest.
Nothing can take away from the fact that the i5 3570 is nearly half the size of the fx 8350. Smaller size equals greater efficiency, cooler temperatures and less power use. The only amd chip worth looking at for gaming is the fx 6300 due its budget price. Great for a budget build under $600. The fx 8350 is the same price as the i5 3570 and you would have to be a devoted amd fanboy to choose something that uses twice the power and produces twice the heat to obtain performance near the similar priced intel chip (i5 3570).
I am probably going to be flamed to bits for this but how much performance do you need. If you only want to play on medium-high detail then something like http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/98994 will likely do the job, or even keep an eye on xps and alienware here http://www1.ap.dell.com/au/en/dfo/df.aspx?refid=df&s=dfo
A self built machine is a great joy, but remember all the cables and the extra size, and the fact you cant grab it and take it to your mates (unless you build a micro ATX/ITX machine - which is an option too)
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.… gives you an idea of the frame rates to expect, anything over 25fps (most people say 30)is playable (TV is 25fps here)
anyhow - just a thought :)
I'm all for buying off the shelf, but unless you want a laptop I don't think this is a great idea, such laptops are heavy, get hot, and need to be plugged in all the time.
Also note than while I agree than many people are fine with 25-30 FPS there are two limitations:
1: Some people can really notice and appreciate the difference up to 60 FPS. Not past this, but up to this.
2: Be careful about average and minimum. If you average 60 but have periods where you get 1 frame per second it is still no good.
There is a huge difference between 30 fps and 60 fps when gaming…
if you're looking at 'high end' you wont be looking at AMD sorry to say
i do like FM2 for what it is