AMD or Intel

Just ordered all the parts!

 

Intel all the way If you have the money, then go for the i7 which you posted, although there's nothing wrong with the i5. I've never really used AMD, but I know they're more based around price than performance. As for Intel, they may be more expensive, but they are honestly worth the money. Go for Intel, they are way more worth the money, if spending that much on the processor is an issue for you, the Intel i5 2500k is an good alternative.

 

If you are going for cheap, amd. If you are willing to spend a little more intel. If those are your two options, you will severely regret getting the amd over the intel. That intel destroys any amd available today. Really if you wanted to you could scale back the processor to a 2600k or even a 2500k if you want to save some money. If you are looking to just game, the fps difference would be about 1fps. But you can overclock all of them to about the same speed.

 

Intel all the way. If you're on a budget, go with AMD, but as said above, it will severely hurt your computer's ability. I would go with the i7, but the i5 2600k or 2500k is good enough.

 

Between those two, pick the Intel without a doubt. Alternatively you can select the i5 2500k processor, it's about the same price as the AMD and still contains better processing power. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072

Now if you were building a budget computer, the $100 AMD processors beat Intel by just a little bit.

Any reason why you're not spending an extra few bucks for Ivy bridge? Motherboard incompatibility?

 

Budget isn't a problem, the AMD had 8 cores which would all be unlocked, I'm just going for a better processor.

 

Well then it seems as if Intel is your answer, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115095.

I was just letting you know a little more about the processors in case you had some sort of budget, or just wanted to be a little more knowledgeable.

 

More cores doeant always make a faster processors. Look at benchmarks on both processors. The intel beats the amd by miles. Plus most games will never use all 8 cores of the amd.

 

As much as I want to say Intel, AMD is fine for what you're looking for.

They're cheap and powerful, If you get the right model. I recommend the Phenom or Athlon. Not the FX series.

 

Go with intel, i have a modern Intel machine, and a modern AMD machine, the Intel machine "bulldozes" over the amd.

if you do go with AMD, do as RazerUK said above, don't go with the fx series.

 

I'd definitely go with intel, but I'd get a 2600k not a 2700k.

 

The AMD FX-8150 may be cheap for a "8 core processor" but it actually only has 4 real cores. It also uses much more power than intel processors, especially when overclocked.

 

Intel 100%. Just make sure you get the same throughout your computer - don't mix Intel and AMD.

Intel provides more "juice" per ghz than AMD does, and AMD has many issues. (Working in an area with hundreds of computers you learn quick.)
Example: Setting up computers in a FOG database for mass imaging, and everything works smoothly except machine with AMD.

& Last I remember AMD is also really bad about supporting legacy hardware with drivers.

 

I have found Intel to be a more reliable processor at that price range.

I highly recommend not going with AMD.

 

Intel blows AMD clear out of the water. Intel for life.

 

Intel or AMD - global dilemma. )
Using your links should say two things:
1. If your objective to run databases, servers, etc - choose Intel, they have good core for that king of jobs.
2. If your objective to run games, graphics - choose AMD, because "Intel HD Graphics 3000" is to slow and rediculous.

 

Have you ever heard of a dedicated graphics card? If you are gaming you should never use integrated graphics.

 

Yes, I heard about that. Also I heard about Dual Graphics of build-in+dedicated card too.

 

Intel without a doubt is the 'better' processor.
Look up bench mark tests etc and Intel always wins.
This performance comes at the cost of price.

AMD makes very good processors, that work very well, and can very easily be overclocked too. So you get A LOT of bang for you buck going AMD and it is cheaper.

And I mean, when will you ever really like max out your processor, or notice the speed of a larger cache (Intel) vs AMD. The difference is negligible unless you are doing very crazy things most of the time ( I believe?)

But some people just love the feeling of having 'the best' parts in their machine, which is very understandable.

 

I own both, the fx-8150 will run 6 bots with simba not overclocked while the 2600k or 2700k easily achieve 10-12, which is the same range for the 3770. I also own the 8120, there's about a 10% difference, but if you're oc'ing it they're quite even.

If you plan to fully use your CPU then you obviously want the better processor, which is the i7 all the way. The i7-860 actually outperforms the fx-8150, so at stock speeds I'd compare the fx core speeds to around 40-80% at best of all i7's.

And on a side note, the 2700k or 3770k onboard is enough for botting RS, if you need to you can 'disable graphics' on simba and just minimize them, literally no effect and it's using software mode already which requires processing power (hence you don't really need more than 8-12gb or gpu.)