Intel i5 vs. AMD FX (Bias Intel fanboys not welcome)

I don't want the opinions of Intel purists. I'm looking for the best buy here.

I'm building a new machine but haven't been up to date with most CPU technologies since I built my last one with a Phenom II. My new rig will be for both gaming and regular use, so I'll need both good single-core and multi-core performance.

From what I've heard Intel has better single-core performance which is better for games, but the AMD FX line has better multi-core performance. I'm on a pretty tight budget so regardless of which one I go with I won't be able to get the best one.

I've been pretty happy with my Phenom II and it's never given me any problems, other than occasionally getting hot and causing a racket of fan bursts. If I get an i5 it'd probably be 3rd gen Ivy Bridge, and for the FX it'd be whatever I can get for roughly the same cost.

What do you guys think? Future proofing is essential. I don't want to have to replace my CPU or mobo for the next couple years at least. I've had my current mobo for 4 years and my Phenom II for 2 years.

 

Intel is going to be better. However, they love putting out new sockets so when / if you upgrade you will have to get a new mobo as well. If you want to play the latest games at high quality you will likely want an Intel. If not, then one of the AMD 8 core CPUs would be fine. And AMD seems to like to keep the same socket for much longer than Intel so you might get a CPU upgrade out of your mobo.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/701?vs=697
Might help.

 

Thanks!

Yeah seriously I've had my AM3 mobo for ages and got 2 processors out on it. Even now AMD is still only using their AM3+ sockets. Future-proofing is really important for me since I can't be upgrading mobo and CPU all the time, so I think I'm going to go with AMD unless someone convinces me otherwise.

 

I would go with the Intel i5. Games don't support 8 cores yet, so it's kind of a waste. Also, AMD chips are power hungry.

 

generic bias post incoming
i5 is better in everything unless the program uses more then 4cores

don't worry about futureproofing, dumb idea. you'll be upgrading the GPU for more performance before a CPU. 4670=2-3years easily.

 

Would also like to note that the 3570k and 4670k is about 30$ more than the 8350.

Furthermore, most people here have stated it pretty clearly. Most applications don't support more than 4 cores. Heck, most of those alone don't even support more than 1. Only the newer and resource heavy applications have been given capabilities to use more than 4 cores. Honestly, I'd go with the 4670k. It's only 30$ more than the 8350 and well worth the upgrade.

 

honestly, what difference does it make? Contrary to what the prior fools seem to think, if what you're planning to do some gaming with aforementioned machine, you (the end user) are not going to notice the difference in games. Sure, perhaps "website x" was able to get 1 more fps out of an intel cpu than the FX cpu in a particular game. and perhaps that intel cpu was able to convert a movie 15 seconds faster.. who cares.

I personally run mainly Intel products, simply because I can. But would I EVER badmouth an AMD CPU for any reason? NO. They make fantastic products, I've done a few builds with them and they are absolute powerhouse monsters all the same. Theyre capable of more power than ANY normal PC user could ever need. Sure, they're not quite on the same level as intel in terms of raw power, but it's YOUR money and YOUR build. Do what makes you happy. I promise you will be exactly that(happy) with either of your debated options.

and FWIW, with the mantle API coming around...it won't matter what CPU you run anyways. The AMD's will no longer have to worry about having a disadvantage to the competition in the gaming sector.

 

It does matter depending on what you are trying to get out of the build.

 

personally i went AMD with my build..i typically play league, rs, variety of steam games, cod, minecraft..so basic things like that and all of them run amazingly on my computer/build so eh

 

What's your graphics card? I'm personally looking at the R9 280X

 

Okay... So I'm going to try and keep this as clean as I can without any biased towards Intel...

Basically I have tried both Intel processors and AMD processors. Granted, I play a lot of games that were more CPU-intensive than GPU intensive (ie: Counter-Strike Source/Global Offensive)... This gave me a better analysis of what the Intel Processors -at least a few years ago- could do in terms of significantly outperforming their AMD counterparts.

So here goes: My first initial computer was an Intel Core-2 Duo E8400 processor (3.0gHz), a dual core CPU on whatever motherboard I had and I think 4 or 8GB of ram (dual channel). I had a GTX 280 on that board that I would eventually upgrade to a 470. Well, I went to college a couple of years after that and realized that lugging a full desktop to and from school was a pain in the arse... Long story short I build a budget AMD. Started it with a Phenom II Black edition processor which I found to be extremely sluggish compared to the E8400, so I eventually upgraded to an AMD Athlon II x4 chip figuring that it was a quad core a 3.0gHz. It obviously would be a better chip right?

Well... Both of them running that same GTX 470 card I found that the Athlon II x4 was actually very limited in its power to do anything compared to the Intel... And then I overclocked the Intel to 4.2gHz (stable) which boosted it's performance exponentially. It wound up crushing the AMD chip so hard that I switched right back to my Intel chip...

Please don't misunderstand this as "AMD SUX OMFG I HATE THEM" - they are great if you are on an extreme budget build sort of thing... but if you plan on doing gaming on any sort of higher end - you should really consider an Intel chip as the AMDs tend to be limited in what they can handle.

As for future proofing... There is no such thing as a truly future proof build obviously. However, that little dual core is a lovely power house that I eventually gave to my girlfriend (I gave her a full computer not just the CPU)... And I upgraded to an i5-3570K. This thing is a friggen monster in terms of doing anything (but I do have it overclocked under an AIO Cooler). Unfortunately, I have not tested it in comparison to the FX series chips nor will I be able to until I get money flowing from somewhere... I don't think I'll upgrade my computer for another 2-3 years or so unless I feel a necessity to (which would be for doing bullshit stuff like streaming). If you are looking for a great CPU to not have to upgrade for a long time, the Intel CPUs hold on for a long time (thus the use of an E8400 still). If you want to be allowed to upgrade to newer CPU's more frequently, the AMDs are great for that. On the other side of all of this future proofing - you are not sure what to expect FROM the future.

Let's take a snap-shot of reality here: the newest maximum specifications on any game coming out is from WatchDogs. That game requires a MINIMUM of an old Core-2 Quad (the 8400) processor or the AMD Phenom II x4 - 940 (they want a 4 core processor or you can't play it).
and here are the maximum specs for it:
OS: Windows Vista (SP2), Windows 7 (SP1) or Windows 8 (Please note that we only support 64 bit OSs.)
Processor: Eight core - Intel Core i7-3770 @3.5 GHz or AMD FX-8350 X8 @ 4 GHz
Memory: 8GB RAM
Graphics: DirectX 11 graphics card with 2GB Video RAM - Nvidia Geforce GTX 560 ti or AMD Radeon HD 7850
DirectX: Version 11
Hard Drive: 25GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Sound Card with Latest Drivers

If you look at those specs - the 8350 was AMD's top of the line card as of last year with the 9K series out now pushing higher clock speeds, and the 4770 series from Intel (and they have an 8-core coming out soon as well I believe).

Anyways - back to the point... If you are looking to future proof, you might want to set a realistic standard and expect that more games will require quad-core CPUs or possibly higher within the very near future. On TOP of that. You will need a new motherboard within the next two or three years - DDR4 has been announced (with ridiculous numbers to boot). Just keep that in mind if you plan on upgrading soon!

 

I went with an fx-8350. I have an i5-4670k in my other build, and for gaming purposes, there really is no difference. some games run a bit better on the i5, some run better on the fx.
I went with AMD this time around because the new consoles are using amd 8 cores, so any multiform games will be using more cores.
some games are also being optimized for AMD hardware. (PS2 for example)
Really and FX-8xxx series should serve you just fine.

 

If WatchDogs, a new game, plans on using more than two cores for its performance then realistically I should be going with AMD since their multicore performance is better than Intel's. Most benchmarks that give Intel the advantage these days is because Intel is vastly superior in single-core performance. If I bought an Intel 6 core or even waited for the 8 core I'd also be spending a lot more money than I'd like, where the FX series are within my budget and provide the multicore strength I'll need for upcoming games, not to mention I'll be able to keep the same motherboard when upgrading my CPU most likely, unless AMD introduces a new socket in the near future.

Leaning heavily towards AMD. I'll be doing more research very soon in terms of cost analysis and all that. I don't want to spend more than $350-400 on a CPU+mobo.

My only real concern is that I've seen benchmarks between the FX and i5 and there's a pretty huge gap depending on the game. I'll have to look into more bench marks I suppose, to really get a better idea.

On another note I just bought my R9 280X, the first piece of my new build. I'm using it in my current machine right now, and holy shit this thing's a beast.

 

With mantle, the amd processors have more capabilities than ever before for games. No longer should you have to worry about them being the major bottleneck in the system

 

I'd like to shed some light which wasn't mentioned earlier... Intel is expensive haha.

Seriously go look at the price of a normal i5 quad core and compare it to the AMD FX quad cores.....

In my opinion, AMD all the way. I have used them since I was a kid building computers. Phenom II was great, but FX was amazing! They come from the factory ready to be OC, and they are meant to be OC by the user. Part of AMD's marketing strategy. Plus, AMD is more focused around the gamers while Intel is more about corporate relations. They've been around for many more years so Intel has to maintain relations with Apple, Microsoft, HP, Dell, Gateway, Lenovo, etc etc.... AMD is sort of the new kid on the block, they've just begun becoming the prebuilt standard cpu.

That being said, I think you'd get more bang for your buck with the AMD FX series and I would definitely go with the eight core... For $40 more than a quad core, why not? I could buy two FX8 series with the money I could buy one i7 series....

 

Yeah I was looking at benchmarks between the i5 3570K and its Haswell siblings, as well as the new FX 8350...The FX wins over a broader spectrum by A LOT, and is only $200. I could settle for an FX 8320 as well and still only pay $150.

 

Thread seems to be full of bias amd fanboys lol.

This thread was predetermined for AMD. Imagine going to McDonalds and taking a survey on whether people would buy a McDonalds Big Mac or a Burger King Whopper.

It doesn't really matter either way. I had a old phenom II x6 and it was a monster in my eyes. But when I switched to Intel (a 3570k) I noticed a difference, even with the same hard drive. Even my GPU was faster because of the huge bottleneck I placed on with the phenom II. Just remember, keep your system in alignment. This means don't get a 8350 and dual 770's and expect performance. You'll need a better CPU to get the full SLI effect.

Go with AMD, you won't be disappointed because you've never had a good Intel. (From a intel fanboy)

I know it's 120$ more... But... facts: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/836?vs=697 (Literatly the 8350 is better in only 1 category, and even then it's not listing any game categories which I'm sure the Intel romps the AMD in all of them). You're wanting to build a computer, right? Looking at some of the hardware you're posting it seems your build will be in the 800-1000$ range. At that price, it may/would be well worth the extra 12% to put into an overall better system, because the system would be over 12% faster. Imagine you're 879$ build vs a 999$ build. It's really not that much of a difference. Here, I already built it for you: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3tdwq. Of course you can go with cheaper mobos or stock heat sinks, but this system is really just a beast 1000$ build, knock off 120-140$ if you want a 8350.

It depends on if you think those speeds are worth 120$ more. If you don't think so, go AMD, if you think so go Intel. The discussion is pointless unless you're really wanting some nittygritty power consumption and heat rating charts...

 

I am generally the first to say "Go AMD!" But.. I followed some advice from Xolr and I ended up getting a Intel Core i5-4670 Haswell 3.4GHz. I have to say that I will most likely never go back to AMD as the performance alone has blown my previous system out of the water. Yes the price tag hurt my wallet a bit, but I feel that I made the better choice for future upgrades.

I wish you the best with whatever you choose. You honestly can't go wrong with either.

 

Well for me its a toss up really... My last post I was the typical AMD fan, however there are two different tech lives I lead haha. First one is at work and we are ALL Intel there... Cannot be a system administrator without being able to build a server with Intel processors. But for personal computers I use AMD mainly (exception of mac but that has Intel in their pocket).

For sheer performance in a large-scale/hardcore setting: go with Intel as they are better equipped to handle such stress. However, if you are going to pure gameplay and would rather focus on graphics than processing power, AMD is the way to go. They pair well with the AMD graphics (who knew right?) as well as the Nvidia ones. The lower price allows for the purchase of a beefier GPU.

Again, the choice is yours and it mostly comes down to what you need the machine to do.