Intel or AMD CPU for gaming PC?

Serephucus

nesf wrote: »

The average game just wants a relatively modern dual core though. We should have most games taking advantage of 4 cores at least if not hyper threading too but they just don't make the effort to code that kind of stuff in in most games. Not that it surprises me, people gaming off custom builds or high end machines are the exception not the rule.

Agreed. The games I'm thinking of - GTA IV, Supreme Commander, etc. - are very much the exceptions.

Hopefully the next generation of consoles will help. Having said that, the PS3 has a CPU with seven cores...

nesf

Serephucus wrote: »

Hopefully the next generation of consoles will help. Having said that, the PS3 has a CPU with seven cores...

Multi-platform games are coded with the lowest denominator in mind. All we get on the PC is better graphics from developers wanting to show off their engine. Actually building proper multi-threading into the core from day one doesn't tend to happen with console ports.

Serephucus

nesf wrote: »

Multi-platform games are coded with the lowest denominator in mind. All we get on the PC is better graphics from developers wanting to show off their engine. Actually building proper multi-threading into the core from day one doesn't tend to happen with console ports.

Excuse me, I have a Wii or two to smash...

That, or a very dedicated modding community.

nesf

Serephucus wrote: »

Excuse me, I have a Wii or two to smash...

That, or a very dedicated modding community.

Ahh, the Wii...

marco_polo

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

Welp, as consoles reelase with multi-core and multi-threaded processors (I'll cry if the next xbox isnt at LEAST a dual-core) we'll see that stuff slowly start to flow in, a billion years too late albeit, but still better than the current state!

Sometimes I feel like modern gaming PC's are like Usain bolt with no legs, all that potential never getting used!

It actualyl has a still failry respectible tri core processor with hyperthreading-like capabilities. If anything where it is really showing it age is in terms of memory and GPU limitations.

Serephucus

marco_polo wrote: »

It actualyy has a still quite respectible tri core processor with hyperthreading like capabilitoes? If anything where it is really showing it age is in terms of memory and GPU limitations.

It does. As far as I remember though, one of them is reserved for physics calculations. Maybe one of the others is as well?

aperture_nuig

Total build cost: €408.06 + €30 shipping
Super-Flower SF700A14A Gamer Edition 700W €61.73
Sapphire HD 6850 1GB GDDR5 PCI-Express €122.72
Gigabyte GA-H67M-D2-B3, Intel H67, mATX €72.82
Intel Core i3-2100 Box, LGA1155 €100.97
8GB-Kit G.Skill PC3-10667U CL9 €28.26
3R Systems Design Gehäuse R340 Black, mATX €21.56



So, after listening to the pro's and con's of the chat here I came up with that build based on an i3. I found that a similar build can be made with the AMD CPU mentioned(albeit with a full ATX board and not mATX) so they would seem to be the competition for the bang-for-buck end of things. any comments on the above build? (OS dvd drive and hdd not included)

Eboggles

aperture_nuig wrote: »

Total build cost: €408.06 + €30 shipping
Super-Flower SF700A14A Gamer Edition 700W €61.73
Sapphire HD 6850 1GB GDDR5 PCI-Express €122.72
Gigabyte GA-H67M-D2-B3, Intel H67, mATX €72.82
Intel Core i3-2100 Box, LGA1155 €100.97
8GB-Kit G.Skill PC3-10667U CL9 €28.26
3R Systems Design Gehäuse R340 Black, mATX €21.56



So, after listening to the pro's and con's of the chat here I came up with that build based on an i3. I found that a similar build can be made with the AMD CPU mentioned(albeit with a full ATX board and not mATX) so they would seem to be the competition for the bang-for-buck end of things. any comments on the above build? (OS dvd drive and hdd not included)

Very nice build for the price, there are a few things. Drop the psu to a good 450 watt, that would do fine. Maybe get a better case? one for 20 euro doesn't seem like a good idea

This is a good psu
This is a good mAtx case

Paul_Hacket

aperture_nuig wrote: »

Total build cost: €408.06 + €30 shipping
Super-Flower SF700A14A Gamer Edition 700W €61.73
Sapphire HD 6850 1GB GDDR5 PCI-Express €122.72
Gigabyte GA-H67M-D2-B3, Intel H67, mATX €72.82
Intel Core i3-2100 Box, LGA1155 €100.97
8GB-Kit G.Skill PC3-10667U CL9 €28.26
3R Systems Design Gehäuse R340 Black, mATX €21.56

I'd recommend that you take a look at the Tomshardware.com custom gaming builds. It is generally considered the benchmark site for these things and they recommend the AMD X4 at your budget level. The savings you will gain from it will allow you to purchase a faster graphics card which will give you superior games performance to the build above and the X4 will be noticeably faster than the 2100 for general computing, so it's a win-win.

Take a look at the build below for their September 2011 $500 gaming pc:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-overclock-graphics-card,3032.html

nesf

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

the X4 will be noticeably faster than the 2100 for general computing, so it's a win-win.

It really isn't unless you are doing video encoding or 3D rendering. Seriously, look at the anandtech benchmarks for the 2100 vs the 965 BE: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=102

We don't know if the OP even wants to overclock yet and the X4 chip is inferior at stock.

Monotype

Don't get the gamer edition PSUs. Amazon is the good series. 450W is enough or 550W if you think that you will be doing plenty of upgrades.

Paul_Hacket

nesf wrote: »

It really isn't unless you are doing video encoding or 3D rendering. Seriously, look at the anandtech benchmarks for the 2100 vs the 965 BE: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=102

We don't know if the OP even wants to overclock yet and the X4 chip is inferior at stock.

You miss the point that this chip is overclockable without any add-ons to 3.8ghz and often all the way up to 4.2ghz. If you look at the actual heads-up test which Anandtech posted for this chip (not sure why you posted the 965 version) you will see that the AMD beat the 2100 in twelve out of 26 tests without even being overclocked.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289

Very few of the Anandtech tests take advantage of multithreading, which is important for real world computing scenarios (having several apps and web pages open at the same time, etc).

Since the AMD chip is significantly cheaper than the 2100 and thus the money saved can be spent on a much better graphics card I'm having a very hard time understanding your logic in recommending a two core chip with 3MB of cache and no overclocking ability.

Also, the OP should look at the Toms Hardware benchmarks which post a variety of real world tests and gaming frame rates, and not just synthetics. With overclocking employed the AMD clearly beats a locked i3 chip, and since it's significantly cheaper it's kind of a no-brainer.

Also, on the synthetics level Passmark benches the AMD about 25% faster than the i3.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+955

EDIT - I'm based in the USA and just checked the UK pricing, seems the AMD isn't any cheaper than the i3 in Uk or Ireland. However the points on speed still apply.

Paul_Hacket

nesf wrote: »

It really isn't unless you are doing video encoding or 3D rendering. Seriously, look at the anandtech benchmarks for the 2100 vs the 965 BE: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=102

We don't know if the OP even wants to overclock yet and the X4 chip is inferior at stock.

Since this chip is designed to be overclocked and has official backing from AMD for doing so, and since it requires no additional hardware and can be completed in less than two minutes by following the instructions in the video below - which do not even require going into the BIOS - then why wouldn't he?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p7HB9OMJSs

Monotype

Anandtech's tests certainly aren't extensive enough and the 2100 is not a clear winner - overclocking is a serious advantage here alright but the 955 seems to be increasing in price lately and is above the 2100.

Also that H67 board picked out is very much out of stock.

Paul_Hacket

Monotype wrote: »

Anandtech's tests certainly aren't extensive enough and the 2100 is not a clear winner - overclocking is a serious advantage here alright but the 955 seems to be increasing in price lately and is above the 2100.

Also that H67 board picked out is very much out of stock.

Yeah, I just checked the pricing, I'm in the USA - surprised to see that the AMD is not priced a little lower in Europe.

nesf

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

You miss the point that this chip is overclockable without any add-ons to 3.8ghz and often all the way up to 4.2ghz. If you look at the actual heads-up test which Anandtech posted for this chip (not sure why you posted the 965 version) you will see that the AMD beat the 2100 in twelve out of 26 tests without even being overclocked.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289

Very few of the Anandtech tests take advantage of multithreading, which is important for real world computing scenarios (having several apps and web pages open at the same time, etc).

Since the AMD chip is significantly cheaper than the 2100 and thus the money saved can be spent on a much better graphics card I'm having a very hard time understanding your logic in recommending a two core chip with 3MB of cache and no overclocking ability.

Also, the OP should look at the Toms Hardware benchmarks which post a variety of real world tests and gaming frame rates, and not just synthetics. With overclocking employed the AMD clearly beats a locked i3 chip, and since it's significantly cheaper it's kind of a no-brainer.

Also, on the synthetics level Passmark benches the AMD about 25% faster than the i3.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+955

EDIT - I'm based in the USA and just checked the UK pricing, seems the AMD isn't any cheaper than the i3 in Uk or Ireland. However the points on speed still apply.

The 12 tests it won in are not representative of "general computer use" unless you encode videos constantly. You claimed the X4 is substantially faster in general computing, that just isn't true. You'll barely notice the difference between the two chips unless you're either gaming or encoding at stock where the i3 or the X4 respectfully win.

My point is that for someone that doesn't want to overclock, and while I don't agree with the view such people do exist, the i3 is a better chip. The 955 BE only wins in an overclocked scenario.

The other big reason to go for the i3 is to open the option to get an i5 next year or an Ivy Bridge chip on the same mobo. The AM3+ socket is just not comparable in terms of options that we know about right now. Don't get me wrong, I think the X4 955 BE is a very good chip, I just think when you're getting a cheap chip the socket is crucially important and whether upgrades are available for it there should be a deciding factor unless performance is seriously gimped by going for the upgradeable option.

Paul_Hacket

nesf wrote: »

The 12 tests it won in are not representative of "general computer use" unless you encode videos constantly. You claimed the X4 is substantially faster in general computing, that just isn't true. You'll barely notice the difference between the two chips unless you're either gaming or encoding at stock where the i3 or the X4 respectfully win.

My point is that for someone that doesn't want to overclock, and while I don't agree with the view such people do exist, the i3 is a better chip. The 955 BE only wins in an overclocked scenario.

The other big reason to go for the i3 is to open the option to get an i5 next year or an Ivy Bridge chip on the same mobo. The AM3+ socket is just not comparable in terms of options that we know about right now. Don't get me wrong, I think the X4 955 BE is a very good chip, I just think when you're getting a cheap chip the socket is crucially important and whether upgrades are available for it there should be a deciding factor unless performance is seriously gimped by going for the upgradeable option.

Okay, so you think this guy isn't going to do an overclock (for reasons you haven't explained and despite it requiring no hardware and taking two minutes to do so). Yet you think he's going to do a processor swap next year or something? Sorry - that just doesn't make sense.

My GF has a dell with a 2100 in it, I multitask a lot - using multiple apps such as a word processor, multi-tabbed browser session, itunes and a few other apps open. When using her machine lags are often noticeable - they aren't noticeable using the 955 which I have at home which is hardly surprising since it has twice the cache, twice the cores and a faster clock rate. Yes the i3 is a more efficient and more modern chip and if the 955 was limited to a 3MB cache, two cores and its base clock speed the i3 would beat it. However it isn't. Again, what do you say to the guys at TomsHardware? Pretty much everyone in the comments for their Sept 2011 gaming build agreed that this is the best build at this budget level.

And if the OP does want to upgrade in the next year or so he would be much better advised to get a cheap AMD 3+ motherboard which supports crossfire and just drop in a second graphic card next year. Cheaper and easier than a processor upgrade and also giving him at least a 50% increase in gaming frame rates. If he tries to do this with an Intel solution he will have to pay a LOT extra for the motherboard - the other problem with going down the Intel route at this budget level. In short, at these prices Intel just don't offer a balanced solution for a budget gaming rig.

nesf

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

Okay, so you think this guy isn't going to do an overclock (for reasons you haven't explained and despite it requiring no hardware and taking two minutes to do so). Yet you think he's going to do a processor swap next year or something? Sorry - that just doesn't make sense.

My GF has a dell with a 2100 in it, I multitask a lot - using multiple apps such as a word processor, multi-tabbed browser session, itunes and a few other apps open. When using her machine lags are often noticeable - they aren't noticeable using the 955 which I have at home which is hardly surprising since it has twice the cache, twice the cores and a faster clock rate. Yes the i3 is a more efficient and more modern chip and if the 955 was limited to a 3MB cache, two cores and its base clock speed the i3 would beat it. However it isn't. Again, what do you say to the guys at TomsHardware? Pretty much everyone in the comments for their Sept 2011 gaming build agreed that this is the best build at this budget level.

And if the OP does want to upgrade in the next year or so he would be much better advised to get a cheap AMD 3+ motherboard which supports crossfire and just drop in a second graphic card next year. Cheaper and easier than a processor upgrade and also giving him at least a 50% increase in gaming frame rates. If he tries to do this with an Intel solution he will have to pay a LOT extra for the motherboard - the other problem with going down the Intel route at this budget level. In short, at these prices Intel just don't offer a balanced solution for a budget gaming rig.

Ahh, the comments in the June recommendation which had an i3 in it were far more complicated. There was a lot of disagreement over whether to go for an i3 or an X4 955 BE.

The issue we're disagreeing over comes down to whether you want max performance now at your budget or the option for much better performance down the line once you scrape together a bit more money. Assuming one is willing to overclock the X4 wins the former, the i3 the latter. What we have is two divergent design philosophies, I'll always, always plumb for the latter approach since I believe in slowly incrementing towards a powerful system if I'm on a tight budget. I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree with the approach that doesn't pay attention to what I can do to the rig next year to make it better.

xtal191

You could even get get the x4 960t, its cheap enough and it can be unlocked to a 6 core

deconduo

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

You miss the point that this chip is overclockable without any add-ons to 3.8ghz and often all the way up to 4.2ghz. If you look at the actual heads-up test which Anandtech posted for this chip (not sure why you posted the 965 version) you will see that the AMD beat the 2100 in twelve out of 26 tests without even being overclocked.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289

Very few of the Anandtech tests take advantage of multithreading, which is important for real world computing scenarios (having several apps and web pages open at the same time, etc).

Since the AMD chip is significantly cheaper than the 2100 and thus the money saved can be spent on a much better graphics card I'm having a very hard time understanding your logic in recommending a two core chip with 3MB of cache and no overclocking ability.

Also, the OP should look at the Toms Hardware benchmarks which post a variety of real world tests and gaming frame rates, and not just synthetics. With overclocking employed the AMD clearly beats a locked i3 chip, and since it's significantly cheaper it's kind of a no-brainer.

Also, on the synthetics level Passmark benches the AMD about 25% faster than the i3.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+955

EDIT - I'm based in the USA and just checked the UK pricing, seems the AMD isn't any cheaper than the i3 in Uk or Ireland. However the points on speed still apply.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=362

The X4@3.7GHz wins at threaded tasks, i3 wins at games. Given that the question is Intel vs AMD for a gaming PC, the i3 is the obvious choice. Why buy something that needs to be overclocked, needs a 3rd party cooler, is hotter, consumes about twice as much power and yet still gives lower performance in games.

Serephucus

I'd be siding with Intel on this one. Best to get a lower-tier chip and have options later on - saving motherboard (and potentially memory) costs when an upgrade on the AMD side becomes necessary - than getting slightly higher performance in the short term.

Also, I'd be of the view that the OP would be more likely to do a processor swap than overclock. Yes, you don't need any new hardware. Yes, it takes two minutes, and yes, most people should do it. The problem is most people don't. There's too big a perception out there that computers are these delicate, finely-tuned instruments of technical harmony, and OCing (to the masses) is just asking for trouble.

Paul_Hacket

nesf wrote: »

Ahh, the comments in the June recommendation which had an i3 in it were far more complicated. There was a lot of disagreement over whether to go for an i3 or an X4 955 BE.

The issue we're disagreeing over comes down to whether you want max performance now at your budget or the option for much better performance down the line once you scrape together a bit more money. Assuming one is willing to overclock the X4 wins the former, the i3 the latter. What we have is two divergent design philosophies, I'll always, always plumb for the latter approach since I believe in slowly incrementing towards a powerful system if I'm on a tight budget. I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree with the approach that doesn't pay attention to what I can do to the rig next year to make it better.

Fair enough - but in all honesty if he buys an AM3+ motherboard he has the option of adding a new processor from AMD. And as I say - the main upgrade which makes sense for 99% of people is to have a route to add a second graphics card (especially since this guy is a gamer) - an option which will be much more expensive with Intel motherboards.

Paul_Hacket

Serephucus wrote: »

I'd be siding with Intel on this one. Best to get a lower-tier chip and have options later on - saving motherboard (and potentially memory) costs when an upgrade on the AMD side becomes necessary - than getting slightly higher performance in the short term.

Also, I'd be of the view that the OP would be more likely to do a processor swap than overclock. Yes, you don't need any new hardware. Yes, it takes two minutes, and yes, most people should do it. The problem is most people don't. There's too big a perception out there that computers are these delicate, finely-tuned instruments of technical harmony, and OCing (to the masses) is just asking for trouble.

Sorry, your points about overclocking makes zero sense in the context of an OP who is using a web forum to find the best parts for his custom gaming build. I posted him a youtube video above showing how to overclock this chip using an official AMD utility without even entering the BIOS, you really think he isn't capable or willing to do that given that he's obviously somewhat tech savy and interested in getting the best bang for his buck?

And saving on motherboards when doing a processor upgrade is kind of beside the point when Intel motherboards are so much more expensive to begin with - especially if you're looking for a dual graphics card cable one. In my experience very few people do processor upgrades - they use a machine for a few years and then buy a new system since by that time there are generally new technologies available (e.g. USB 3, better SATA, etc.) that it is easiest to get by just buying a new system and selling the old one on eBay. The only upgrade that it makes sense for most gamers to do at this price level is to add a second graphics card.

nesf

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

Fair enough - but in all honesty if he buys an AM3+ motherboard he has the option of adding a new processor from AMD. And as I say - the main upgrade which makes sense for 99% of people is to have a route to add a second graphics card (especially since this guy is a gamer) - an option which will be much more expensive with Intel motherboards.

The AM3+ line up from AMD doesn't touch the i5 or i7s for performance and from what AMD have been saying this is likely to stay the case going forward. The upgrade path is poor for the AM3+ I'm afraid.

An extra 6850? It's a toss up really depending on what kinds of games he plays whether he'd benefit more from one or the other assuming he's gaming at 1080p or less. If he's gaming at 720p then a 6850 is more than enough. Either way you want a clear upgrade path in the hardware you're buying and you buy an upgradeable socket for the same reason you buy an SLI board.

Paul_Hacket

deconduo wrote: »

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=362

The X4@3.7GHz wins at threaded tasks, i3 wins at games. Given that the question is Intel vs AMD for a gaming PC, the i3 is the obvious choice. Why buy something that needs to be overclocked, needs a 3rd party cooler, is hotter, consumes about twice as much power and yet still gives lower performance in games.

Except it doesn't need a third party cooler and doesn't give lower performance in games since at his budget and with the graphics card he has indicated he is buying the graphics card is the one throttling performance. Buying an x4 along with a cheap AMD motherboard will allow him to buy a better card => much better gaming performance. You might want to review the Tomshardware build which evaluated both of these processors since your comments don't seem to be based on evidence.

nesf

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

Except it doesn't need a third party cooler and doesn't give lower performance in games since at his budget and with the graphics card he has indicated he is buying the graphics card is the one throttling performance. Buying an x4 along with a cheap AMD motherboard will allow him to buy a better card => much better gaming performance. You might want to review the Tomshardware build which evaluated both of these processors since your comments don't seem to be based on evidence.

The tomshardware build wasn't based off evidence it was based off people going nuts because a locked Intel chip was chosen in June. If you're a big overclocking head the idea of taking a locked chip at any price level is anathema.

Paul_Hacket

nesf wrote: »

The AM3+ line up from AMD doesn't touch the i5 or i7s for performance and from what AMD have been saying this is likely to stay the case going forward. The upgrade path is poor for the AM3+ I'm afraid.

An extra 6850? It's a toss up really depending on what kinds of games he plays whether he'd benefit more from one or the other assuming he's gaming at 1080p or less. If he's gaming at 720p then a 6850 is more than enough. Either way you want a clear upgrade path in the hardware you're buying and you buy an upgradeable socket for the same reason you buy an SLI board.

Sorry, wait a minute - you're talking about an upgrade path for a gamer and you're trying to suggest that it's a "toss up" whether he would get better results from adding a second graphics card in a year or two or upgrading to a marginally faster processor? That's flat out ridiculous - there are already games which will tax this card at high settings and in a year or two such games will be quite common.

Also, if he buys an AMD now he could afford a 6870 since he wouldn't have to spend as much on the motherboard and thus would get an immediate improvement in graphics. And as I posted to someone else above, very few people make processor upgrades - a four core AMD that can run at 4ghz will be more than sufficient for general computing for a couple of years. After that point the vast majority of people would generally just sell their system and buy a new one to take advantage of new motherboard technologies.

Paul_Hacket

nesf wrote: »

The tomshardware build wasn't based off evidence it was based off people going nuts because a locked Intel chip was chosen in June. If you're a big overclocking head the idea of taking a locked chip at any price level is anathema.

So what unlocked Intel chip is there available at this budget range? Answer - none.

Hank Scorpio

Intel for me, still very happy with my i5-760 18 months on

nesf

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

Sorry, wait a minute - you're talking about an upgrade path for a gamer and you're trying to suggest that it's a "toss up" whether he would get better results from adding a second graphics card in a year or two or upgrading to a marginally faster processor? That's flat out ridiculous - there are already games which will tax this card at high settings and in a year or two such games will be quite common.

It depends on the kinds of games he plays. BF3, sure the extra card makes perfect sense, with an RTS like Supreme Commander and similar the extra CPU power makes more sense for large scale games. High end simulation games also scale better with CPU etc.