Intel or AMD. are thy both the same sh**.
Just a question of /g/'s opinions since it's hard to generate mine, although according to price i'd place AMD no.1
>>51873181
fuck off, nigger
Intel runs gentoo better so go Intel.
>>51873181
ignore this! I'm just to foolish because i can't make my own decisions about cpu's.
>>51873181
Intel has better performance per thread.
AMD has more threads per dollar.
If you have something that needs many threads (read: Anything but video games), go AMD. If you have something that relies solely on 2 or 4 threads (Read: Video games), go Intel.
>>51873181
Intel. Better performance per core and in some cases, even more cores.
Unless you're poor. Then AMD, cause it works fine too. Pretty much figure that a i5 6600 and a FX3250 are sudo on par
>>51873295
>i5 6600 and a FX3250
What did you mean here? A 6350 or 8350?
Cause we all know a 4350 won't compare to an i5.
>>51873181
Intel is better for gaming, sure, but the real life gains are rather unnoticeable in most GPU heavy games. In cpu heavy games you can feel it I guess.
>>51873272
>If you have something that relies solely on 2 or 4 threads (Read: Video games), go Intel.
pretty much tl;dr go intel because everyone on /g/ is a tech illiterate gamer kiddy who lost his way trying to find /v/
why else would threads like this exist
>>51873425
wow where did i go there? the 8 core 4.0ghz one without a iGPU
AMD is like a big brute, big for nothing, fucking 8 cores 4.0ghz gets destroyed by a quad core 3.5ghz
>>51874209
that's because it's not really 8 cores it's 4 cores
>>51873221
Really? I though amd moar coars would give faster compile times.
>>51873181
as far as gaming is concerned intel gives you less of a bottleneck... however, amd will push damn near everything 60fps.
amd will out preform lower end i5's and i7's when it comes to multi core, with only the highest end of the 4core from intel beating out an amd (im not sure how amd or intel overclock right now, if its proportional or if its diminishing returns)
intel also releases true 6 and 8 core chips that kick the shit out of amd in multicore and single core, but that's a 400$ minimum with a 200-300$ minimum on the motherboard and likely a 100-200$ minimum on new ram as you can't reuse ddr3 where as amd motherboards can be 75$ or less and handle a 8350
however, if you are looking for a cpu right now,
DON'T FUCKING DO IT
if amd can be trusted in their performance measurements, they are getting at least haswell performance out of their new cpu, its 8 core 16 thread, and they are pushing it at mainstream prices, this is replacing the 8350 sku so we assume its 350$~
at worst, amd fails, and even if they fail its assumed better than their current arcetecture to meet what they released (depending on how much they still may have a winner) and nothing changes
what is reasonable to expect, amd puts out a cpu that crushes intel in multicore, but they beat them in single core, though not by enough to justify the performance lost multicore, and intel needs to do a complete i3/5/7 wide price drop.
>>51874209
in single core, multi core they are neck and neck.
>>51874209
You forgot to mention that the quad core is twice as expensive
>>51876131
>if amd can be trusted in their performance measurements,
Jesus christ are you gullible
I have a bridge to sell you, dipshit
Intel hates your freedom.
>>51876343
It isn't though. They are the same price.
The only excuse for AMD is being poor.
Intel beats them in all relevant benchmarks.
>>51873181
Intel has better features like actually putting a thermal sensor on their CPU so you can tell what the temperature is exactly. AMD gives you a general calculation on what it thinks the temperature might be. Just an example of how AMD is able to compete price wise. they look at little things like core temperature and decide you don't really need know because it'll save you 30 bucks per processor.
>>51876500
ECC RAM
IOMMU
You pay a premium for those in Intel CPUs.
>>51873542
aw, salty nerd bitch :^)
>>51876554
I'm really mad zen is going to support ECC RAM
Irs literally useless for 99% of consumers and will just raise the price.
>>51876614
>consumers
Please don't use that word when refering to computer users.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Consumer
>>51873272
>says Intel has more performance per thread but at a higher cost than AMD
>Tells you to buy AMD if you need performance requiring multiple threads
Please fuck off
>>51873181
Intel's best low-end cpus blow AMD clean out of the water. Aside that they are usually more closely matched. Current generation for the most part though is slightly more in Intel's favor all around.
AMD is only priced lower if you are only comparing CPU vs CPU. If you factor UN mobos it changes things. Great Intel boards are generally a bit cheaper than great AMD ones.
Also AMD CPUS run much hotter and require better cooling. It's almost to the point where liquid cooling is a must with AMD period, and if you OC forget about air cooling completely. Liquid cooling raises the total cost of ownership even more, and can make AMD the more expensive choice. Not that liquid cooling is a bad idea for Intel CPUS though, just that you can get away with not using it.
>>51876856
if you buy low end, especialy for the igp, you dont buy great components, you buy cheap components.
$ for $ amd systems will be better perfrorming.
>>51876856
>Intel's best low-end cpus blow AMD clean out of the water
Ha. Maybe in unverifiable proprietary benchmarks.
>>51873232
>asking /g/'s opinion for anything
You are beyond help.
>>51876856
>actually using "muh high wattage" as an argument
wow I guess those 5$ higher annual bills on electricity are so huge we're gonna be poor oh fuck?
>>51877425
My parents make me pay 1 good boy point for every 10 kilowatt hours used.
>>51873181
>sh**
>>51876731
AMD has always had much better multicore performance. The reason they're in the shitter is because multicore performance isn't what the vast majority of the consumer market needs. All the average consumers (gaymers included) need are max 4 cores and high singlecore performance to power simple applications. Basically, AMD put all of their money and R&D into the wrong direction for the consumer market.
>>51876362
a new cpu architecture by someone who consistently clock for clock beat intel... this is what i have backing me up on my assumption they didn't fuck up. they are also ramping up for server production if i remember right, that's not a move amd could make if they weren't at least reasonably sure they have a winner.
is the reason i'm waiting and not just getting a quad core i7 right now, there is reasonable enough info to justify waiting.
>>51876491
gpu wise amd is good enough that you can take a "i really hate nvidia" stand and not be let down, you may not get day 1 performance but you are usually going to get great preformance in the long run.
cpu wise... i agree, granted, i take a stand against intel's jew prices by not buying any cpu... still running a 955 black, it gets the job done but i cant go on another year with it just on this build is little over 6 years old, that motherboard... i dont know if it will last another year.
>>51876660
what the fuck is that retarded ass site?
>>51876614
they are targeting a 8 core 16 thread cpu for mainstream price, as in the 350$~ sku they are replacing it with... while im not going to use ecc, i also dont give a fuck. imagine this, the cpus support both, and amd makes a 16 core version but a few cores are fucked, they sell it to consumers instead of servers, and we get the chance to unlock a 16core 32thread cpu
>>51876731
per core amd comes to aroun 1300, intel comes to 2300, multicore, amd comes to around 8000-9000 and intel comes in lower till you hit the higher end of the skus, the higher end 4000 are the only ones that start to soundly beat it (4 core, not the 6 core 1000$ cpus they use to put out).
>>51876491
2300 -2310 lol
>>51878220
gpu bottleneck game? i prefer to use cpu bottlenecks when comparing cpus, that way you get a better understanding of where they stand.
however, like i said, a 8350 will almost always get you to 60fps,
>>51877928
>a new cpu architecture by someone who consistently clock for clock beat intel... this is what i have backing me up on my assumption they didn't fuck up. they are also ramping up for server production if i remember right, that's not a move amd could make if they weren't at least reasonably sure they have a winner.
Oh boy we have an idiot on our hands.
Can't wait for the disappointment.
Do me a favor- when Zen comes out and it's much worse than the pre-release marketing says it was (Which has never not been the case for anything in the history of mankind), remember me telling you how stupid you are, then forever more remember how stupid you are whenever you consider posting anything online.
>>51878562
>>51878220
>>51878653
lets say it hits the middle between what amds current does ipc and what intel does, it would still be an 8 core 16 thread, and would beat out intel at any cpu level under 6 cores, they would have to royally fuck up, which i dont believe they did because the whole gearing up for enterprize.
screen cap this and post it the day before it the day zen comes out, all im hoping for is 8 cores 16 threads, and they could even dump the multithreading and i wouldn't mind.
so long as the price is within 50$ of 350, it will be a hard sell to go intel, see, current cpus from amd push games to 60 fps, if you even go halfway between amd and intel, you may be able to push 120 in most games, so gaming wise amd has you covered,
in multicore, it would beat out a 4core intel just by virtue of it being 4 cores.
and on that note, i would rather have a slower single core 8 core over a very fast single core quad just because when shit spikes a cpu in general computing, lets say something stupid kicks in and demands a full core devoted to it, you feel it far less on 8 cores than 4 cores.
it would be VERY hard for zen to not at the very least have my interest if not my money.
>>51878818
Somebody is a shill.
>>51879130
i hate intel for jewing us as much as i hate nvidia for gimping us artificially.
Convince me not to buy an AMD FX
>>51873272
My FX 6350 has handled every game I've put it to. It really depends how CPU bound the game itself is.
For instance, I play World of Tanks quite a bit. It isn't multi core compatible so it's a bit bottlenecked, but any decent gpu makes up for it and it still runs 100+ FPS on ultra with my GTX 970
>>51873181
used intel CPU
cheaper
faster
cooler
jewtel not getting your money
>>51876343
So?
What are you poor?
>>51880112
You should look into a nice Athlon x4 860k instead.
>>51877425
That's really fucking neat! Had I said a single goddamn thing about wattage or energy bills you would have really set my ass straight there, I'm sure.
A liquid cooling setup costs more than a heatsink and a few fans. It can add hundreds of extra dollars, depending on how fancy/efficient you want to make it, onto the price of building a completely new PC.
