PC Processors: AMD or Intel?

[Elberik]

I am in the planning stage of getting a gaming PC & I am having trouble figuring out which processor to go with. I?m on a budget so dual-core AMD processors are appealing. A friend noticed me looking at AMD processors and told me that they were all shit and that I should go with Intel (which is about 3 times more expensive). I have chosen to crowd-source the answer to the following question. Are AMD processors actually bad or are they fine and Intel is just expensive = quality.

As a side-note, yes I understand how cores work.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Well both have their advantages. AMD are a bit less powerful yet cheaper and Intel are more powerful and more expensive. Both will be perfectly fine for a gaming PC (make sure you get at least a quad core).

 

[Supernova1138]

I strongly recommend you get at least a quad core CPU if you go with AMD. Some of the newer games out there do not do well with dual cores (Core i3s excluded due to hyperthreading), particularly AMD's dual core options. If your budget is extremely tight, AMD is a good option, the FX 6300 and 6350 being the best in terms of price to performance. I would say try to avoid the A series APUs if you intend to get a dedicated graphics card. The A series main draw is its integrated graphics, with its CPU performance not being that great, and if you have a dedicated graphics card you won't be using the integrated graphics anyway.

 

[AWAR]

Generally speaking, if your budget is lower than $180-$200 you should go with AMD. I'd suggest the quad core 955 priced at $85.

 

[Albino Boo]

Intels are worth the extra money but if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. As others have said go for a AMD quad core. If you can afford an i3 I would go for one those over a FX 6300 or 3500 because that gives you an upgrade route to the more powerful i5 or i7. There is no AMD cpu on the market that can compete with the i5s and up.

 

[Elberik]

How would you rate the specs of this PC?

processor: i3-3220 3.3 Dual-core
motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H61M-S2PV
8GB memory
1TB hard-drive
video card: Radeon HD6670
Power supply: Ultra 600W

 

[AWAR]

snip-

I see no reason for a separate thread.
Nevertheless, I personally wouldn't go for anything under an i5. I would either get a phenom 955 and use the extra money for a beefier graphics card or get a 6300. Single core performance may be impressive on the i3s but having more than 2 cores might be more advantageous in the future. A possible upgrade to a non used i5 is not a good prospect either since socket 1155 is already being phased out.
The PSU brand doesn't sound reliable. Get a Corsair or OCZ 500w one.

 

[Inconspicuous Trenchcoat]

Processors do make a difference. I used to use the AMD Phenom II 965 that AWAR is recommending. Buying that will definitely hold you back. I had a AMD 6950 graphics card; with that processor, I got 25-40 FPS in Sleeping Dogs. Usually around 35, it played a bit rough. When I built a new system with a i7 3770k in it, I continued to use my 6950 while I waited for my new card to come in. Sleeping Dogs shot up to a very solid 60, with almost no dips. The 965 does run some games very well, but it definitely will limit your GPU's potential (don't think it'd matter with a AMD 6670).

If you want to play MMOs you definitely shouldn't get a Phenom II 965. It ran TERA and Guild Wars 2 badly enough that it bothered me, dropped to low 20s all the time. If you're an MMO player, you'll want a good CPU.

Get an i3 3220 for $130 or jump up to the best i5 you can afford. Once you reach the i5 price range, Intel is much, much better. It may be more expensive, but AMD is just bad at that level and up.

From what I've read: i3 3220 beats AMD FX 6300 in most games; in some cases the FX 6300 does better, mostly in newer games like Crysis 3. However, the FX would be a better buy if you use programs that benefit from having more threads, such as video or photo editing--FX's per thread performance is much worse than Intel's, but the FX has more threads than the i3. At $180+ range, Intel destroys AMD.

Maybe you should buy a solid foundation, and then get a graphics card after you save for a few months? If you can wait, you don't have to buy the whole system at once.

Here are two of the best resources I've found on the internet for learning about building your own PC:
I need a new PC! thread on Neogaf [http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=600246]
Falcon Guide [http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/The_FalconO6/media/CurrentLogicalPCBuyingGuide/Guide.png.html]

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Processors do make a difference. I used to use the AMD Phenom II 965 that AWAR is recommending. Buying that will definitely hold you back. I had a AMD 6950 graphics card; with that processor, I got 25-40 FPS in Sleeping Dogs. Usually around 35, it played a bit rough. When I built a new system with a i7 3770k in it, I continued to use my 6950 while I waited for my new card to come in. Sleeping Dogs shot up to a very solid 60, with almost no dips. The 965 does run some games very well, but it definitely will limit your GPU's potential (don't think it'd matter with a AMD 6670).

If you want to play MMOs you definitely shouldn't get a Phenom II 965. It ran TERA and Guild Wars 2 badly enough that it bothered me, dropped to low 20s all the time. If you're an MMO player, you'll want a good CPU.

Get an i3 3220 for $130 or jump up to the best i5 you can afford. Once you reach the i5 price range, Intel is much, much better. It may be more expensive, but AMD is just bad at that level and up.

From what I've read: i3 3220 beats AMD FX 6300 in most games; in some cases the FX 6300 does better, mostly in newer games like Crysis 3. However, the FX would be a better buy if you use programs that benefit from having more threads, such as video or photo editing--FX's per thread performance is much worse than Intel's, but the FX has more threads than the i3. At $180+ range, Intel destroys AMD.

Maybe you should buy a solid foundation, and then get a graphics card after you save for a few months? If you can wait, you don't have to buy the whole system at once.

Here are two of the best resources I've found on the internet for learning about building your own PC:
I need a new PC! thread on Neogaf [http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=600246]
Falcon Guide [http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/The_FalconO6/media/CurrentLogicalPCBuyingGuide/Guide.png.html]

Really? I've got a Phenom II 965 and I've had no issues running games on it. Paired with a GTX 570 I was getting a solid 60 FPS in Sleeping Dogs and pretty much every other game.

 

[Inconspicuous Trenchcoat]

Really? I've got a Phenom II 965 and I've had no issues running games on it. Paired with a GTX 570 I was getting a solid 60 FPS in Sleeping Dogs and pretty much every other game.

Yeah, I dunno why. It was an old motherboard with DDR2 RAM. I always had paranoia that somehow that was slowing it down, but I've never heard of motherboards reducing FPS lol--and RAM barely matters in games as long as you have enough (I had 8GB).

The next question is what settings were you running it at? I was 1920x1080, everything high except AA at the lowest, high res texture pack. Of course reducing settings in Sleeping Dogs (except AA) didn't improve my FPS, so I just left them on the highest. A 570 is better than a 6950, but I still don't know why my old computer had so much trouble with SD (and MMOs).

And my Phenom II 965 ran a good amount of games well, just not others. All I know is my new processor (and motherboard, RAM etc. Everything except the GPU) boosted my FPS in every game I tried.

I run pretty much every game at 1080p on high settings with no AA (I can't see any difference with AA on). I don't really have any trouble with MMO's either (FF XIV beta ran just fine, never tried Guild Wars 2 though) so it is a bit strange to see an issue there. I have overclocked my CPU a fair bit though.

I never overclocked my 965. Maybe that's it. /shrug

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Really? I've got a Phenom II 965 and I've had no issues running games on it. Paired with a GTX 570 I was getting a solid 60 FPS in Sleeping Dogs and pretty much every other game.

Yeah, I dunno why. It was an old motherboard with DDR2 RAM. I always had paranoia that somehow that was slowing it down, but I've never heard of motherboards reducing FPS lol--and RAM barely matters in games as long as you have enough (I had 8GB).

The next question is what settings were you running it at? I was 1920x1080, everything high except AA at the lowest, high res texture pack. Of course reducing settings in Sleeping Dogs (except AA) didn't improve my FPS, so I just left them on the highest. A 570 is better than a 6950, but I still don't know why my old computer had so much trouble with SD (and MMOs).

And my Phenom II 965 ran a good amount of games well, just not others. All I know is my new processor (and motherboard, RAM etc. Everything except the GPU) boosted my FPS in every game I tried.

I run pretty much every game at 1080p on high settings with no AA (I can't see any difference with AA on). I don't really have any trouble with MMO's either (FF XIV beta ran just fine, never tried Guild Wars 2 though) so it is a bit strange to see an issue there. I have overclocked my CPU a fair bit though.

 

[Griffolion]

-snip-

Your friend is an idiot. Intel's processors are markedly better in single threaded performance, yes, but AMD's processors are priced accordingly.

If you're on a budget, AMD is always recommended. They give decent performance. Just make sure you go quad core. The FM2 socket Athlon line can be gotten for fairly cheap. The good thing that AMD generally has over Intel is their upgrade path. Meaning if at any time you want to upgrade your motherboard, as a general rule older processors will go in there. Also, if you get an FM2 Athlon, then you will be able to use an A series at a later date if you want to.

As a general rule, the A series are more expensive because they have an integrated GPU. They are actually quite capable, but you need 1866MHz memory at the very least to get optimal performance from them. 1600MHz just won't cut it. If you really can't get a decent GPU in your budget, consider this option and then save to get a decent GPU later.

 

[antidonkey]

AMD makes perfectly fine processors. I used to run them for years. Unfortunately, they've fallen back into their old ways where the only real benefit of them is their price. Right now the best AMD CPU is equal to a mid-range CPU from Intel, performance wise. If you're wanting a general purpose machine that will occasionally run a game, then AMD is probably the best choice if you're on a budget.

 

[renegade7]

It will depend entirely on the other hardware you want to use and the other constraints you are working with.

AMD is somewhat cheaper and a little more future-proof. They're easier to upgrade since they have only have a handful of form factors meaning any given socket on your board can take many more different models. Intel has countless form factors ("sockets" as they are called).

Intel is more powerful than AMD but it's worth it if you're willing to spend the money.

If you don't need the extra processing power, go with AMD. It likely won't matter much though, with games it's much more likely to be your graphics card bottlenecking you than the processor.