Intel vs. AMD: Which brand of CPU should you choose when building a PC?

[Bill_Bright]

This is something funny that i have found.

AMD Zen is going to be exciting but there's no way AMD is going to be able to catch Intel in performance. There was a big discussion about this a little while back. AMD just doesn't have the fund to turn out CPUs like Intel can.

It is not funny at all. It is the just the way it is.

AMD announced years ago it will NOT attempt to compete head to head with Intel. Instead, it will focus on smaller (niche) markets (and mobile devices). Even if the Zen blows the socks off "comparable" Intels, it will just mean the Camaro beat the Mustang - not that all Chevys are better than all Fords.

Now what I am waiting for, and think will be exciting and great for us consumers is if/when Samsung buys AMD. Then, with Samsung's deep pockets, AMD may be able to compete across the board with Intel and that can mean nothing but more, better, and cheaper options for consumers.

This recent massive recall of the new Samsung Galaxy Note S7 may put the brakes on the acquisition, however. Let's hope not.

 

[Recon-UK]

If you want something funny to laugh at.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/240/discussions/0/350540780278164995/


Guy can't even run Global Offensive above 20FPS and is running on Windows XP.

 

[Ithanul]

If you want something funny to laugh at.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/240/discussions/0/350540780278164995/


Guy can't even run Global Offensive above 20FPS and is running on Windows XP.

Darn, talk about being hard headed.

 

[john_]

Right now Intel is the only choice in about 90% of all cases with AMD's quad core APUs being the best choice in very specific cases.

 

[thesmokingman]

Right now Intel is the only choice in about 90% of all cases with AMD's quad core APUs being the best choice in very specific cases.

My one amd setup is an apu. A 9yr old girl doesn't need much, well it does have a 7970 attached which makes minecraft a lot better. The APU's graphics are still too slow for 1080p minecraft lol.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

If you want something funny to laugh at.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/240/discussions/0/350540780278164995/


Guy can't even run Global Offensive above 20FPS and is running on Windows XP.

Jesus that guy is a moron.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I've decided against Intel for most buys due to value and their shity business practices like socket swaps for no discernable reason and buying favour repeatedly but if never say never.

 

[ahujet]

Not able to wait a few months more for Zen to arrive and decide for the best b4b at that time?

Have 32gb ddr3 ram, don't want to spend money on ddr4 ram so I'm staying with ddr3 board. Plus I doubt that zen will have better single core performance than i5-4670k.

 

[GhostRyder]

Thing is, Intel is the best bet for CPU's at the moment except in the very budget areas (Under $100). There is just no competition or reason to get the upper chips from AMD when even the low end i5's best them in most tasks that rely on single threaded performance.

It will change when Zen comes out even if Zen is not up to the hype/predictions. Being that its going to the old style where every core gets its own resources (For the most part) its going to be much better than anything AMD has had out in a long time.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I don't really see Intel being that much of a budget buster for most users - at least if you think strategically (long term).

The CPU is but one component in a computer. Once you factor in the cost of the motherboard, RAM, graphics card (if not using integrated), drive(s), case, monitor(s), keyboard, mouse, speakers, and power supply, then the cost difference is much less significant - especially when you spread that cost over the life of the computer.

And those differences can be further reduced if you factor in the energy savings of the typical Intel over the AMD for the life of the computer, and more again if you factor in the savings in air conditioning costs from the lower amounts of heat being pumped into the room (if your home is air conditioned, that is).

 

[Kanan]

I want to add to my opinion:

In very specific scenarios a FX 6300 or 8320 is maybe worth it, with that I mean scenarios specifically in need of a lot of cores, integer, that is. On that regard AMD isn't bad, it's a viable option I'd say.

 

[R-T-B]

Not a fair question or survey. So I will not take it.

I already replied so I won't withdraw my reply, but frankly, you have me wishing I hadn't. So true.

 

[dorsetknob]

The following error occurred:
Please vote for at least one option.
Cannot be bothered its predictable INTEL
^^^^ I'm guessing its a massive lead for intel probably in proportion to their market share

 

[Recon-UK]

The following error occurred:
Please vote for at least one option.
Cannot be bothered its predictable INTEL
^^^^ I'm guessing its a massive lead for intel probably in proportion to their market share

I added my vote just to see it, obviously it would be intel.

 

[EarthDog]

I don't really see Intel being that much of a budget buster for most users - at least if you think strategically (long term).

The CPU is but one component in a computer. Once you factor in the cost of the motherboard, RAM, graphics card (if not using integrated), drive(s), case, monitor(s), keyboard, mouse, speakers, and power supply, then the cost difference is much less significant - especially when you spread that cost over the life of the computer.

And those differences can be further reduced if you factor in the energy savings of the typical Intel over the AMD for the life of the computer, and more again if you factor in the savings in air conditioning costs from the lower amounts of heat being pumped into the room (if your home is air conditioned, that is).

This a great point for those who run 24/7 with a load...F@H, etc. Otherwise, the difference between the platforms on idle are not much. Gaming 4 hours a day with a system difference of say, 31W (assuming stock..overclocked is a different story and can yield your post more applicable) will save around a penny per day? Even overclocked with a difference of 100W is still a couple pennies over those few hours.

It really will take overclocking and 24/7 loads to even begin making up for the meager platform difference (typically around $150).

 

[theFOoL]

If anyone here bought a ATi video card back in the day and your pc had a Intel cpu in it AND if one person said you should have gone nVidia then your Stupid! NVidia/AMD doesn't matter what you buy now. Far as the cpu's then that don't matter either. Before I switched to Intel I always had a Athlon based cpu and yeah I overclocked mine to 3.8ghz with a hd6850 att I was happy But oonce these new Zen cpu's roll out you bet I'll be buying one

 

[Ithanul]

This a great point for those who run 24/7 with a load...F@H, etc. Otherwise, the difference between the platforms on idle are not much. Gaming 4 hours a day with a system difference of say, 31W (assuming stock..overclocked is a different story and can yield your post more applicable) will save around a penny per day? Even overclocked with a difference of 100W is still a couple pennies over those few hours.

It really will take overclocking and 24/7 loads to even begin making up for the meager platform difference (typically around $150).

Pretty much. But folding a CPU kind of a waste now a days.

In the BOINC department though. That is a whole other matter. Especially if trying to run dedicated 2P/4P rigs for it. Don't have one of those rigs yet, but most likely will be a Xeon setup because of the electrical draw. Though, I do have 1090T that BOINCs and boy can it hold on its own considering I have a 960 on that rig going 24/7 folding while the 1090T does four BOINC WUs at once. Don't bother it one bit.

But get right down to it. The CPU don't draw that much especially when you compare it to a GPU or several GPUs in a computer. My 1090T with 960 at full load don't pull no where near what my two Tis can draw out together on their own.

 

[Melvis]

38 why, just always bought intel.
I did had many times ATi graphic cards back in the days.

I was just wondering, most people Ive seen that have never had a AMD CPU are either teenagers or people that just never heard of AMD till like 6yrs ago.

 

[Bill_Bright]

It really will take overclocking and 24/7 loads to even begin making up for the meager platform difference (typically around $150).

Except that does not account for the "warm fuzzy" factor - which can also factor in to your personal satisfaction.

Do I "need" leather seats and premium sound in my truck? Will I get my money's worth for them when I trade my truck in? That would be a "no" on both accounts. But will I "enjoy" and be more satisfied with both over the years I own my truck? Absolutely! So in that respect, they are well worth the extra cost - especially when I spread that cost over the 5 - 6 years I typically keep my vehicles.

If saving a "few" pennies per day over the typical lifespan or ownership of a computer (3 - 5 years) is a priority, then go AMD. And if I were building an "office" machine or a computer strictly for business work, then looking for ways to shave pennies off expenses is part of doing business.

But if I am building a computer that will be used for personal use, including entertainment, then I am willing spend extra for what I "want" - not just for what I "need". I am a pretty practical person. But I went to school to get a good job so I can enjoy some of the finer things in life. I am not going to spend my money on a solid gold watch, but I may buy a top quality watch with a little gold trim!

 

[EarthDog]

Sure we can all think of ways to make it viable monetarily... like in a business with 50 PCs or a datacenter... but this is one PC, so monetarily speaking, outside of the 'warm and fuzzy feeling you are describing, there isn't more than a negligible return on platform difference. That was all I said.

 

[Bill_Bright]

but this is one PC, so monetarily speaking, outside of the 'warm and fuzzy feeling you are describing, there isn't more than a negligible return on platform difference. That was all I said.

Then that supports the argument to always go AMD because (with only a couple exceptions) AMDs cost less. Again, I just cannot agree with that UNLESS sticking to a tight budget is the top priority. And if that is the case, then I am perfectly fine with that. As I said way back in my first post in this thread, "Both brands of CPUs make very reliable, quality CPUs and both will form a decent platform for a quality system."

 

[EarthDog]

I could care less about amd or intel. Just adressing how much money one platform over another saves because of cpu power efficiency shouldnt really be a consideration for most users due to how little it actually saves for someone not running loaded 24/7...at least shouldnt be a monetary consideration, the power savings, anyway.

 

[HD64G]

Have 32gb ddr3 ram, don't want to spend money on ddr4 ram so I'm staying with ddr3 board. Plus I doubt that zen will have better single core performance than i5-4670k.

It is rumoured that some mobos with AM4 for Zen will handle DDR3 as well as DDR4 (1 kind of them at a time though).

 

[dorsetknob]

It is rumoured that some mobos with AM4 for Zen will handle DDR3 as well as DDR4 (1 kind of them at a time though).

Asrock has a history of that sort of thing with their duel series
Maybe an Asrock Board to watch out for

 

[ahujet]

It is rumoured that some mobos with AM4 for Zen will handle DDR3 as well as DDR4 (1 kind of them at a time though).

But will it have better single core performance than i5-4670k?