AMD or Intel in new CPU build?

[beerbaron105]

Looking at the 8-core AMD vs something like an Ivy Bridge i5, I know that the Ivy is far more power efficient, the 8-core AMD scores higher on the CPUmark testing, the computer would primarily be used for Battlefield 3 (and beyond) as far as gaming is concerned, and then simply internet/media/HD movies/social



AMD has a far more attractive price, but Intel seems to have better overall performance, just wondering about future-proofing, no real interest in overclocking



Thanks

[george__]

So you want future proofish system that will stand the test of time for games? Then a Intel rig would be a better bet :D

[MkmBandit]

Current AMD would definitely hold up for a couple-few more years, but Intel is leaving them in the dust. Would be a better bet to spend the extra $50 and go Intel.

Besides for your uses, you have zero use for 8-cores. A hexacore or even a quad would serve you well. Still, gaming, Intel.

[Amourek]

Intel, no question. Bulldozer is only competitive in heavily threaded applications.

[Techgeek32]

My PC has an one year old quad core Intel i5 CPU and I have no problem on playing Battlefield 3. I will suggest you Intel also.

[Forhad]

Intel processors are much better than the AMD ones at the moment . But for gaming the AMD is still an option.

[beerbaron105]

Okay thanks, so which i5 ivy bridge offers the best blend of value and performance?

[mikeo007]

3500k would probably be your best bet. Leaves room for OC in the future.

[mr_raider]

3500k would probably be your best bet. Leaves room for OC in the future.

For his own use, even an older 2500k will do.

[DavidY]

3500k would probably be your best bet. Leaves room for OC in the future.

Don't you mean i5-3570K? If one doesn't plan to OC, you can save a few $$ by going with an i5-3450. I'm waiting to see what the i3 IB looks like.

Dave

[mikeo007]

Don't you mean i5-3570K? If one doesn't plan to OC, you can save a few $$ by going with an i5-3450. I'm waiting to see what the i3 IB looks like.

Dave

You're right, I was thinking 2500k Sandy Bridge, then saw he said Ivy Bridge. Didn't edit the post properly.

[george__]

get a i7....

[divx]

^i5 is fine

[hurley_bernard]

What's with these threads?

Has the OP been asleep the last decade?

Intel has been facewrecking AMD since the Pentium 4s.

The only reason to ever get AMD is if you are on a ridiculously tight budget and can't squeeze out an extra $50 from your beer fund.

But no, seriously, when it comes to the age old Intel or AMD, the answer is always Intel. No exceptions. No discussion. Intel. Don't even look at the AMD models, just get intel and be happy.

Got a core i7 920 on December 2008. Now approaching 4 year old mark on it, and it's still overkill for gaming.

That CPU plays all i want at max settings.

[george__]

What's with these threads?

Has the OP been asleep the last decade?

Intel has been facewrecking AMD since the Pentium 4s.

The only reason to ever get AMD is if you are on a ridiculously tight budget and can't squeeze out an extra $50 from your beer fund.

But no, seriously, when it comes to the age old Intel or AMD, the answer is always Intel. No exceptions. No discussion. Intel. Don't even look at the AMD models, just get intel and be happy.

Got a core i7 920 on December 2008. Now approaching 4 year old mark on it, and it's still overkill for gaming.

That CPU plays all i want at max settings.

Negative. The AMD Athlon X2 were very good CPUs, that were more best for bang than the Pentium Ds.... It wasn't until roughly Core 2 Duos came out that AMD started having some issues... Now they are in the waterrr drowning.
I used a AMD Athlon X2 3800+ for playing games until about 2 years ago. The thing still was able to play some of the newer titles @ lowest settings, very impressive for such a old computer :P
Minor headache I had was the nForce chipset support kinda sucked as you went up to newer OS, like Vista and Windows 7 but Intel chipsets were a bit less of a pain

@DIVx

The i7 is sooo fast though :(. Why not buy the i7 and call it a day for a few years

[1337rice]

What's with these threads?

Has the OP been asleep the last decade?

Intel has been facewrecking AMD since the Pentium 4s.



Ummm, were you asleep the last decade? AMD's Athlon X2, FX and Operton ridiculed Pentium 4's, D's, and even the insanely expensive Extreme Editions back then. The gap was minuscule for the huge price premium on Intel, which was why Socket 939 was AMD's "best-seller" due to a great price for performance. Intel's market share actually went DOWN back then.

AMD's architecture is literally a piece of garbage (since Intel released the C2D) because they haven't done anything significant to change it like Intel has.
For a cheap $300 HTPC, AMD is the way to go. For performance-oriented use, Intel all the way.

[george__]

Ummm, were you asleep the last decade? AMD's Athlon X2, FX and Operton ridiculed Pentium 4's, D's, and even the insanely expensive Extreme Editions back then. The gap was minuscule for the huge price premium on Intel, which was why Socket 939 was AMD's "best-seller" due to a great price for performance. Intel's market share actually went DOWN back then.

AMD's architecture is literally a piece of garbage (since Intel released the C2D) because they haven't done anything significant to change it like Intel has.
For a cheap $300 HTPC, AMD is the way to go. For performance-oriented use, Intel all the way.
+1.

[mucat]

Personally, I would focus on the video card and spend the extra on it instead of the cpu.

[beerbaron105]

Personally, I would focus on the video card and spend the extra on it instead of the cpu.

I am re-using the Radeon 6850 1gb from my current PC, I can overclock it slightly and it should still play BF3 with decent results, my biggest bottleneck right now is my e7200 CPU