[Gaming Pc] Intel or AMD CPU?

[Hyldran0]

Hello.

Soon going to order a new custom pc.
And i have a hard time with what cpu to use.

Setup:
16 gb ram 1600ghz
2x Gigabyte Radeon HD7970 3 gb
Intel SSD 128gb
Corsair H80i watercooler

And the CPU's:
Intel Core i7 3770k 3.5ghz ivy bridge (4x cores)
Or
AMD FX-8150 x8 3.6ghz black edition

This is going to be a gaming pc only. So i want the best performance with that setup!

Please, tell me what you guys think and maybe someone of you have any of these cpus.

Regards
Hyldran0

[1337pyro]

Intel has more power... AMD has better power/price

take the intel CPU if you can afford it. why not take the Intel Core i7-3930K @ 3.20GHz? It's a 6 Core Intel CPU with one third more power than the other one.

[Hyldran0]

Huh intel has better power and amd has more?
I can afford it. Just wanna know what the people think!

Its another socket on 3930k right?

[Classicclean]

If you're going for a pure gaming pc, I would not suggest you to buy an i7. It's just worthless. Really.
Also I would suggest waiting till june when the new haswell technology will come because they have even more power than the ivy bridge ones. And then go with an i5.

[Smoogels]

Games cannot make use of hyperthreading efficiently. Crysis 3 benchmarks show it making little use of the 4 hyperthreads while on the AMD 8 core it uses all 8 cores (somewhat). If you are pure gaming, a i7 is waste of money over a i5.

But AMD CPUs currently suck at games. A i5 3570K can play most games at max and will do for a few more years. Can overclock well to. A 8350 is likely to bottleneck your crossfire cards.

AnandTech - Bench - CPU

[suicidity]

Games cannot make use of hyperthreading efficiently. Crysis 3 benchmarks show it making little use of the 4 hyperthreads while on the AMD 8 core it uses all 8 cores (somewhat). If you are pure gaming, a i7 is waste of money over a i5.

But AMD CPUs currently suck at games. A i5 3570K can play most games at max and will do for a few more years. Can overclock well to. A 8350 is likely to bottleneck your crossfire cards.

AnandTech - Bench - CPU

These say you're wrong:
AMD FX 8350 OC vs i5 3570k OC : The Battle Continues | Tek Syndicate
Crysis 3 Benchmarks | AMD FX 8350 vs Intel i7 3770k - Both Overclocked | Tek Syndicate

AMD FX 8350 vs Intel 3570K vs 3770K vs 3820 - Gaming and XSplit Streaming Benchmarks - YouTube

[Smoogels]

These say you're wrong:
AMD FX 8350 OC vs i5 3570k OC : The Battle Continues | Tek Syndicate
Crysis 3 Benchmarks | AMD FX 8350 vs Intel i7 3770k - Both Overclocked | Tek Syndicate

AMD FX 8350 vs Intel 3570K vs 3770K vs 3820 - Gaming and XSplit Streaming Benchmarks - YouTube

Not really. Firstly, the sources you have linked are not exactly the most reliable and trustworthy. Secondly, I mentioned that Crysis 3 made use of all 8 cores. It's also a "AMD optimized game", most games are not. If you truly wish to prove me wrong, link a few benchmarks from several reputable sources of different games.

I personally like AMD and would love to have a computer based around one of there processors however, if your computer is for gaming it does not really make sense. Maybe it will in the future, with next gen consoles being powered by AMD processors/graphics.

It's not a bad processor, but in 95% of games it's outmatched by a equivalently priced Intel. What also makes me laugh though is the 8350 is using all 8 cores and only pulls a tiny bit ahead in Crysis over a quad core Intel.

[suicidity]

Not really. Firstly, the sources you have linked are not exactly the most reliable and trustworthy. Secondly, I mentioned that Crysis 3 made use of all 8 cores. It's also a "AMD optimized game", most games are not. If you truly wish to prove me wrong, link a few benchmarks from several reputable sources of different games.

By reputable sources.. you mean AnandTech which runs games on low-medium settings, with insanely low resolutions ( to skew towards Intel ), and tomshardware which is notoriously biased towards Intel ( What? AMD magically has 20-60 fps, on tomshardware, lower than everyone else's charts? The other guys must have it wrong ).

Look, at AMD, at resolutions people actually use, on settings they're actually going to play on, and leave the biased reporting behind.. It works out better for everyone.

I personally like AMD and would love to have a computer based around one of there processors however, if your computer is for gaming it does not really make sense. Maybe it will in the future, with next gen consoles being powered by AMD processors/graphics.

It's not a bad processor, but in 95% of games it's outmatched by a equivalently priced Intel. What also makes me laugh though is the 8350 is using all 8 cores and only pulls a tiny bit ahead in Crysis over a quad core Intel.

There is a FX8150 rig, FX8350 rig, and an i5-3570K rig in my house; I can assure you that you're full of shit. The one thing the AMD processors are good at is games.


Regardless, fan boys will be fan boys.

[Smoogels]

By reputable sources.. you mean AnandTech which runs games on low-medium settings, with insanely low resolutions ( to skew towards Intel ), and tomshardware which is notoriously biased towards Intel ( What? AMD magically has 20-60 fps, on tomshardware, lower than everyone else's charts? The other guys must have it wrong ).

Look, at AMD, at resolutions people actually use, on settings they're actually going to play on, and leave the biased reporting behind.. It works out better for everyone.



There is a FX8150 rig, FX8350 rig, and an i5-3570K rig in my house; I can assure you that you're full of shit. The one thing the AMD processors are good at is games.


Regardless, fan boys will be fan boys.

Sigh. I'm not just talking about them two, there are many more. Plus, them sites are known to give more reliable results and infact, they don't just test low resolutions. Have you even look at their benchmarks recently? The source you linked has been known to give inaccurate results.

I can give you 101 reasons why AMD Piledrivers are worse than Intel in games. The answers are everywhere yet you do not seem to want to take them into consideration. Some of the reasons are considerably slower cache, unoptimized architecture, low IPC... The only reason AMD catches up with Intel in games such as Battlefield or Crysis is because of their 8 cores which these games actually use (probually because they where partnered/marketed with AMD). But a quad core Intel is still about the same even though AMD has more cores? It's the result of the bottlenecks such as low IPC, slow cache, VERY poor single threaded etc. When you take a look at other 'new' games the AMD lags behind.

You also fail to take into consideration the considerably higher power draw and heat. A 8350 pulls crazy amount of power which then results in more heat.


Please, if you think I am "full of shit" link me more sources to support your statement. I also do not understand your fanboy statement. I am in no way a fan boy for Intel. I like AMD, so if I'm a "fanboy" anywhere it would be for them. Although, judging by your post it seems you are one. Regardless, fan boys will be fan boys.

[Freefall552]

I'd go with the intel cpu. Newer Intel cpus are faster per ghz in most cases. And since you have a good cooler you won't have to upgrade for at least a couple of years.

[Harambeqt]

Go intel, always worked good for me

[fredalbob]

Even though as an avid AMD user. If you can afford an i7, go ahead and get one.
The problem with AMD's current CPU's is they actually have 8 separate cores. There's not hyperthreading involved.
Most applications are only designed to use up to 4 cores + hyperthreading.

Although I run everything flawlessly with my FX8120, if you're looking for better benchmarks. Intel will give them to you.

[s1gnal]

Intel will provide with better game performance. Simple as that

[waltsmith89]

Intel is best if you can wait more cause Haswell baby is coming...

[BigJesusMordino]

i7 is waste for a gaming PC, rather invest in better GFX and SSD.