I will be building a new computer soon and was looking at the Intel i5 chip line as the i7 is still too expensive. But a couple of other people are talking about building machines with the new AMDs. Why would I want to go with an AMD chip over an i5? Is it price or are there performance issues as well?
From what I hear, the AMDs have superior onboard graphics., If you’re not getting a dedicated graphics card that could make a difference.
AMD is generally cheaper for a given set of specifications which means you can fit a more powerful processor in your budget.
Unfortunately, Intel’s developed some neat technologies (i.e. hyperthreading) that make their chips actually perform better than similarly spec’ed amd processors.
The OP is not buying a whole computer, he can choose a mobo. And superior onboard graphics is like saying waterboarding is superior to bamboo under the nails! Even if you’re not a gamer, I’d prefer a video card that isn’t parasitic and dies if its mother(board) dies.
I was at this place a couple of years ago, and went i5 (a little after they started the i line). I “hear” that Intel is better now; in the past they would alternate in “goodness” like some sort of weirdtech caduceus.
With on board graphics, I think he meant AMD’s APU’s.
Kinthalis is correct, this is what I meant. The OP gave no clue as to budget. Of course, if his budget is $1500 then go wild with the graphics card, but if it’s $300 then you have to scale that back quite a bit.
ETA: Scratch that, picking an 15 is a hint as to budget. If you’re dropping $200 on the processor, you probably can afford a dedicated card.
For a video card, I’ll be looking for a Radeon 6770 or rough equivalent. Not a top-line gamer card but definately second tier.
As I understand it, the only reasons to go with AMD over Intel at this point in time are either price or if you’re interested in overclocking.
Your next choice is ATI vs. Nvidia. If you haven’t already decided on the former.
Up until a few years ago I used to always build my own (and friends) PCs because it was a lot cheaper. Now that it no longer is I don’t bother. The biggest downside to building your own is hardware/software inter-compatibility issues. Big makers like HP and Dell rigorously test all their components to be sure they all play nice together. Having built a lot of systems over the years I can attest that this can sometimes be a big issue.
Anyway, besides what I stated above, I am a firm believer that there is little merit to any ‘which is the better CPU maker’ arguments. PCs are a commodity. As long as there aren’t any issues with any potential peripherals or software you plan on installing, Intel vs AMD is little more than arguing Kirk vs Picard…
Unless you have a real preference for Picard, I strongly disagree. AMD consistently leads when it comes to performance/price, while Intel owns the market for speed. IMHO there’s been a solid distinction the last 5 years at least.
Basically, for the same $ you get more performance (or the same speed costs you less, whichever). Also if the idea of overclocking appeals you, the AMD is likely the way to go. If it helps, I put together Intel boxes at the office when speed or stability is what I’m after - my home PCs have all been AMD when I care more about my wallet and don’t mind spending a few hours finding out if that dual-core I bought can turn in to a quad-core without a fight.
unless you use applications that take advantage of hyperthreading (VM’s, 3d modeling,etc), there’s no point in the average pc builder/gamer buying an i-7. intel has had a considerable lead in the processor department in the last several years.
if you can score a 2500k for a good deal, i’d get that over one of the newer ivy bridge processors, as they’re more than capable of running anything you can throw at it. not to mention they’re great overclockers. ivybridge is also the last processor for the current sockets that intel is using, the next family of processors that comes out next year (end of year? i think) will use a different socket. that is another thing to consider.
Would that be the same HP that came out with the Versa line that was a complete cow because they were using printer chips on their machines and Dell that has the infamous proprietry PSU?
I don’t think I’m going to have compatability issue with ASUS mobo talking to XFX video card and using Corsair RAM. I also like to make sure I have the parts I want on it and to be honest, I like to build machines.
Can y’all explain AMD is a better performer and Intel has better speed. Isn’t that two sides of the same coin?
It’s contradictory. I used to lean towards AMD, especially when they had the upper hand when it was Athlon 64 vs. Pentium 4. But AMD has long since given up trying to keep pace with Intel. I’ve long since given up on AMD. You can consistently get better performance from Intel at the same price; the Core uArch has been inherently higher performing than Bulldozer or Piledriver or whatever writing-checks-the-product-can’t-cash names AMD has applied to their architectures.
honestly, unless your goal is “lawl ovarclock MOAR” then there’s not much reason to do anything but put an Intel CPU on an Intel motherboard.
The original poster didn’t say “performance”, he/she said performance/price.
It just means that each unit of performance, in general, costs less from AMD, but AMD is unable to match Intel’s performance.
Intel, performance=150, price=150, unit performance cost=1
AMD, performance=120, price=100, unit performance cost=1.2
If you only need “120” then buy the AMD, if you need “150” buy the Intel.
Intel = performance, AMD = price/performance used to be true back when the AMD Phenom II & earlier chips were current. Now, your choices generally should be:
- AMD APU on a very constrained budget (entire system <$5-600), where you won’t have a separate graphics card. This is because say, an A10-5800K (the one you should buy, if you get an APU), is basically the equivalent of a similarly priced i3-3220 + like getting a graphics card like a 6670 or so for free
- Intel Ivy bridge at all other budgets, or if you want a dedicated card. Just looking at “price/performance” charts doesn’t tell the whole story of why intel is absolutely killing AMD.
Lets compare, say for example:
i5-3570k (the best price/performance intel CPU) - http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80637i53570k - best online price $215
AMD FX-8350 (the highest consumer CPU AMD sells) - http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd8350frhkbox -best online price $190
For your $ for each of those, in the intel you get a processor that does far more work per clock. Which leads to higher framerates in most games and better performance in lightly threaded work loads. (Which is most of what people do)
The AMD processor only does better in highly threaded workloads (video rendering, running a VM server, etc).
But the real difference is that the Intel is
- Much more overclockable - the i5-3570k is all but assured to get to at least 4.2ghz, and most can get higher
- Uses much less power - which means that over the long run, you actually spend more on the AMD cpu.
I’ve been an AMD fan for awhile, but they have little to offer right now outside of their APU products for the desktop. Basically because they are making all their CPUs on an older/larger process node they can’t really compete.