AMD or Intel

hellboy99

I'm in the process of deciding what components to get to build a new PC, it will be used for graphic and web design and heavy gaming. I've never had an AMD PC and just wanted to know which I would be better off going for out of the following two CPU choices:

AMD Black Edition AMD Phenom II X6 1100T / 3.3 GHz processor

Intel Core i5 2500 / 3.3 GHz processor

Thanks.

deconduo

If you are willing to overclock, the i5-2500k coupled with a P67 motherboard is what you want.

If you have a budget let us know and we can give you a good balanced build. Make sure to say whether you need an OS/Monitor etc. in the budget.

hellboy99

deconduo wrote: »

If you are willing to overclock, the i5-2500k coupled with a P67 motherboard is what you want.

If you have a budget let us know and we can give you a good balanced build. Make sure to say whether you need an OS/Monitor etc. in the budget.

Not looking to overclock.

Budget wise I'm looking to spend round €300, I only need a motherboard, CPU and RAM.

deconduo

This is what you want then:

Total build cost: €240.61 + €30 shipping
8GB-Kit G.Skill PC3-10667U CL9 €34.67
MSI H61M-E33 (B3), Intel H61, mATX, DDR3 €53.03
Intel Core i5-2400 Box, LGA1155 €152.91

hellboy99

deconduo wrote: »

This is what you want then:

Total build cost: €240.61 + €30 shipping
8GB-Kit G.Skill PC3-10667U CL9 €34.67
MSI H61M-E33 (B3), Intel H61, mATX, DDR3 €53.03
Intel Core i5-2400 Box, LGA1155 €152.91

Not bad, thanks for that

I was looking at this earlier, would this be any better than the setup you mention?

Total build cost: €263.87
AMD Black Edition AMD Phenom II X6 1090T / 3.2 GHz processor
ASUS M4A87TD EVO, AM3, ATX
8GB-Kit G.Skill RipJaws-X PC3-10667U CL9

deconduo

hellboy99 wrote: »

Not bad, thanks for that

I was looking at this earlier, would this be any better than the setup you mention?

Total build cost: €263.87
http://www3.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?agid=1242&aid=34041&lid=2
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=34243&agid=1232
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=44319&agid=1192

With good overclocking it might barely win on some threaded tasks like photoshop. For gaming it would get destroyed though.

hellboy99

deconduo wrote: »

With good overclocking it might barely win on some threaded tasks like photoshop. For gaming it would get destroyed though.

Really that bad for gaming, I thought these AMD Phenom II X6 1090T where faster than the i5's and better for gaming?

deconduo

hellboy99 wrote: »

Really that bad for gaming, I thought these AMD Phenom II X6 1090T where faster than the i5's and better for gaming?

No its not even close. Because games aren't threaded having 6 cores vs 4 doesn't help at all. At stock speeds, the i5-2400 gives about 50% more FPS on average. While overclocking the Phenom can help a bit, it still doesn't compete until you get up to around 4GHz which is nigh impossible on air.

marco_polo

deconduo wrote: »

No its not even close. Because games aren't threaded having 6 cores vs 4 doesn't help at all. At stock speeds, the i5-2400 gives about 50% more FPS on average. While overclocking the Phenom can help a bit, it still doesn't compete until you get up to around 4GHz which is nigh impossible on air.

Ah in fairness thats 50% FPS at gaming benchmark resolutions/detail level. In reality at proper resolutions the difference doesn't manifest itself at all unless you have a fairly serious multicard setup to expose the CPU limitations, by removing the GPU bottleneck.

Solitaire

Nope, they're better for high-demand multithreaded applications, especially those that are not HyperThreading-optimised.

EDIT - thread isn't refreshing right... server's hamsters are drunk again :rolleyes:

And most modern games are threaded, the catch is that the bulk of them are hard-coded to use three or four cores - no more, and no less (which is why more and more games run abysmally on a dualie!). The 1090T's 2-3 extra cores are roundly ignored while the greater throughput of the i5's cores is used to the fullest.

marco_polo

Solitaire wrote: »

Nope, they're better for high-demand multithreaded applications, especially those that are not HyperThreading-optimised.

EDIT - thread isn't refreshing right... server's hamsters are drunk again :rolleyes:

And most modern games are threaded, the catch is that the bulk of them are hard-coded to use three or four cores - no more, and no less (which is why more and more games run abysmally on a dualie!). The 1090T's 2-3 extra cores are roundly ignored while the greater throughput of the i5's cores is used to the fullest.

Ah all I was saying is that saying they are not terrible for the average gamers needs, which is likely playing at high settings on a 1080p screen with a single card in the 6770-6970 range, in which case the difference in FPS is much closer to 0% than 50%. I wasn't claiming they were better, or the right choice for this build.

Solitaire

I wasn't having a go at you

Jonny7

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=203

direct comparison

af_thefragile

AMD's 6 cores is better if you wanna do stuff like video editing and such which makes good use of all the 6 cores. But games don't use so many cores so if you wanna just play games, its gonna be no better than i5.

i5 is good for games because it has enough cores and you can overclock it easily beyond 4GHz. Some have overclocked it upto 4.8Ghz with good mobo and cooling. So it'll give better performance while gaming and might even be as good as the AMD when transcoding video, audio and stuff when overclocked.

I don't know how close the difference between the i7 and the AMD processor because i7 has hyperthreading...


So if you wanna play games, get i5. If you wanna do video editing and are on a budget and don't care about overclocking too much, get the AMD. If you're getting AMD, make sure to get the AM3+ socket so they'll be compatible with the new Bulldozer processors that will come out later this year.

deconduo

af_thefragile wrote: »

AMD's 6 cores is better if you wanna do stuff like video editing and such which makes good use of all the 6 cores. But games don't use so many cores so if you wanna just play games, its gonna be no better than i5.

i5 is good for games because it has enough cores and you can overclock it easily beyond 4GHz. Some have overclocked it upto 4.8Ghz with good mobo and cooling. So it'll give better performance while gaming and might even be as good as the AMD when transcoding video, audio and stuff when overclocked.

I don't know how close the difference between the i7 and the AMD processor because i7 has hyperthreading...


So if you wanna play games, get i5. If you wanna do video editing and are on a budget and don't care about overclocking too much, get the AMD. If you're getting AMD, make sure to get the AM3+ socket so they'll be compatible with the new Bulldozer processors that will come out later this year.

We aren't discussing the i5-2500k as it is outside of OP's budget. Its the i5-2400 vs the X6 1090T

In fact, you are wrong and the i5-2400 beats the X6 even in fully threaded applications at stock speeds. The X6 only catches up when overclocked, and doesn't catch up at all in gaming.

There really is no reason to get the X6 at all.

af_thefragile

Why would you buy a 2400? Like its only like 30eur or something cheaper than the 2500k and you get faster speed with overclocking and all...

deconduo

af_thefragile wrote: »

Why would you buy a 2400? Like its only like 30eur or something cheaper than the 2500k and you get faster speed with overclocking and all...

Because you then need to buy a P67 motherboard which adds another €40 to the price...

marco_polo

To be honest only compelling reason for an AMD build would be if the budget was closer to 200 than 300.

EDIT This thread sure moved on fast in between me clicking reply and Save