Tech and Talk > Gaming > PC gaming Tech > AMD vs I-core

reply to tuladrin

Re: AMD vs I-core

I'll be upgraging my rig within the next 3-6 months and will be moving to Intel from AMD. I'm pretty set on the 3930k and an x79 motherboard. I'm assuming I'd get your recommendation for this set-up, right?

Well I guess it depends on what you intend to do with it. For just gaming, no I think an Ivy Bridge CPU and Z77 motherboard would be fine.

On a fresh build I probably spend on average about ~$400 to ~$600+ USD. I was able to build my Core i7 3930K / Asus P9X79 Deluxe based system for about ~$660 (for motherboard and processor) out of pocket. I had an Amazon coupon that brought down the price of the motherboard significantly. If I had to spend much more then that I probably would have opted for something cheaper.

This was pre-Ivy Bridge though. I think a Core i7 3770K (~$300) or Core i5 3570K (~~$170 to ~$200) is a great option.

reply to McBrain
I'd go Z77 and i5-3570K as well. You can't really future proof with a more expensive CPU after a certain point (unlocked quad core, right now).

Future-proofing was definitely the goal of that idea. I was assuming LGA 2011 would be the way to go...and the 3960x is definitely out of my price range.

I can also only assume that by the March/April timeframe I'm looking at the 3930k and x79 mobos will have had pretty significant price reductions.

FWIW, the CPU and ASRock x79 mobo I was looking at on newegg were $700 together.

But, dropping to an i5 and z77 will definitely free up more space in the budget (which I haven't even established yet) for a second GPU and 1000w PSU I'll need.

Eventually I'd like to end up with:

-i7-3930k/i7-3770/i5-3570k
-X79/Z77 mobo (depending on CPU obviously)
-MSI Hawk 7870 x 2 (I've got one currently)
-1000w PSU
-Either 3x~23" or 1 27" 120hz monitor
--
McBrain#1430

Name's Ash...Housewares.

Go with a 3570K and overclock it slightly.

You probably wouldn't notice much difference in the 3930 or 3770.

Take the extra money and get a second video card or upgrade your current one.

reply to McBrain
Intel has a strategy of replacing processors in their Core i7 and Core i5 lineup with faster chips in the same price range. So in this case, essentially, gone are the days that a high end processor will drop in price in significant ways. The Core i7 3930K hit the market in late 2011 at about ~$650 (IIRC) but the price was elevated above the MSRP at that time (IIRC) by retailers / e-tailers. Microcenter is notorious for undercutting MSRP on such Intel Processors in very significant ways and by no means is a daily price available everywhere.

Future proofing is basically unattainable and doesn’t really merit much consideration IMO.

There is a difference in these processors but for gaming the Core i5 3570K is a good choice that is considerably cheaper. Heavily threaded applications other then gaming would likely make those differences more apparent but as I understand it the AMD FX 8320 does fairly well in heavily threaded applications. The AMD FX 8320 isn’t as good for general gaming as a Core i5 3570K and above but it isn’t an unmitigated disaster either,….or at least from the benchmarks I have seen so far.

reply to McBrain

Went with AMD A6 3620 with Radeon 6530D back in June, Been using AMD Systems since 2003, Entire House is AMD Processors besides very old laptop, and one Intel Atom HTPC. Gaming Performance is Great on the A6 Based system, Other programs performance Excellent!, Very Happy.

Old System was AMD Athlon 64 Single Core 2.20ghz
THis one A6-3620 Quad Core 2.20ghz, with Turbo boost up to 2.50ghz, Which is more than enough for my current needs, As well as 8gb of DDR3 Ram, and Support for AMD Dual Graphics if I ever need more video power

Depends what you need it to do, but Intel is best bang-for-buck now.

True, Maybe in the way future sometime i'll eventually get back to Intel based System.. But for now this works fine for my needs at this point..

reply to Krisnatharok
OK, I'm ignorant. I just bought an AMD FX-8120 on a Gigabyte GA0970A-D3 board because it was about $100 less expensive than a i5-3570k on a Gigabyte Z77-DS3H board with the exact same other components. Did I err in thinking the 8 core AMD was more bang for the buck than the 4 core intel?

No, that's not an incorrect thought process.

It's exactly why I bought my Phenom II x4 965 Black Edition and ASRock Extreme3 970 in September. The two of them together were ~$200. I've got 2 USB 3.0 ports, 2 PCI-e slots for CrossfireX if I want, and a CPU capable of overclocking to 4.2 GHz or higher simply by using OC presets in my BIOS...a pretty sweet deal for less than an i5-3570k by itself, if you ask me.

Now, I only use my computer to surf the web and play World of Warcraft, so for my needs the AMD processor and mid-range motherboard are plenty. I'll be upgrading to either an i5-3570k or i7-3770k and Z77 mother board in the near future, but that's simply because I want to, it's got nothing to do with the performance of my current set-up.
--
McBrain#1430

Name's Ash...Housewares.

reply to Ignorant

I was looking for the post that has been linked before previously that explained in detail why AMDs are slower than Intel for the past two go-around (Bulldozer vs. Sandy Bridge, Piledriver vs. Ivy Bridge). The tl;dr version is that AMD architecture sucks--it doesn't matter how many cores you have, or how fast they are.
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.

In terms of gaming, it sucks. Tom's says it best (source):

considering it's gen1-2 of a completely new architecture it's a good thing, but the proper thing would have been to not release gen1 publicly, and at-least wait till second or third gen before retail release.

simple thing is, it was with out a doubt rushed to retail.