Gaming CPU

[Fruitz]

Hello
Want to build a new pc for gaming and video editing and what not
just wondering what CPU would best best for that. My friend said that AMD is good "more bang for your buck" I think he said or should i go for intel?
Im going to guess most people would say choose what your budge allows but I just want to know I don't mind paying a few extra dollars if it helps me in the long run.

Thanks
-Fruitz

 

[Fruitz]

Doesn't matter i got a AMD FX 8150 8 Core Processor Black Edition and a ASUS M5 A99X EVO motherboard and a case today

 

[Virssagòn]

The amd sucks, go for an i5 3570k for gaming and if you are going to do big video editing the i7 3770k. But don't go with an fx...

 

[Pyotr]

FX are fine, some people are just still stuck in the dark ages where CPU actually mattered more than the GPU for the average user. Get the best you can within your budget, even if it might not be "the best bang for the buck".

 

[jonnyp11]

FX are fine, some people are just still stuck in the dark ages where CPU actually mattered more than the GPU for the average user. Get the best you can within your budget, even if it might not be "the best bang for the buck".

for what he wants the cpu is important, but for the money an 81XX will do good, but he over paid like hell getting an 8150, same chip as an 8120 that costs less with an overclock he could easily do himself and save a chunk.

 

[Virssagòn]

for what he wants the cpu is important, but for the money an 81XX will do good, but he over paid like hell getting an 8150, same chip as an 8120 that costs less with an overclock he could easily do himself and save a chunk.

Still standing on what I said...

 

[Haydos_69]

There both fine. Correct me if I'm wrong (I've been not out of this for a while). But basically they use different connections. So it really depends on what is compatible to your motherboard.

 

[FuryRosewood]

if they havent bought a motherboard id grab the intel chip... if they already have a amd motherboard, midas well get the FX

 

[Motox20]

I love AMD, I have a AMD 965 Quad Core and it runs everything I play maxed out, no issues, OC'd to 4GHz. For the money I always say go with AMD for CPU and use the extra cash you save over getting an Intel on a better graphics card.

Sure intel CPU's are superior but you have to take into consideration that you may hit a "cap" of sorts in regards to what you're playing. Meaning that you'll reach maximum settings with no hiccups with say my CPU, so anything higher you're not using which is a waste of money.

There's no point in buying "the best" or simply a better CPU if you're not going to utilize it's potential, buy what you need and use the $ to upgrade other components. Regardless of what anyone tells you, AMD can and does meet or exceed requirements for maxing out any game, it's just a matter of some research to know what model to get. I get tired of the "bench score" argument, sure it's cool seeing those high numbers but let's face it, they don't really mean much in practical terms once you hit a certain level.

Basically it's opinion and personal experience, I used to stick to Intel and Nvidia religiously but after finally trying out the other side I like my current setup so much better in terms of "bang for your buck" and overall performance. The only thing I went overboard on was my MB, because in the near future when I upgrade I don't want to be very limited on options.

 

[swchoi89]

I love AMD, I have a AMD 965 Quad Core and it runs everything I play maxed out, no issues, OC'd to 4GHz. For the money I always say go with AMD for CPU and use the extra cash you save over getting an Intel on a better graphics card.

Sure intel CPU's are superior but you have to take into consideration that you may hit a "cap" of sorts in regards to what you're playing. Meaning that you'll reach maximum settings with no hiccups with say my CPU, so anything higher you're not using which is a waste of money.

There's no point in buying "the best" or simply a better CPU if you're not going to utilize it's potential, buy what you need and use the $ to upgrade other components. Regardless of what anyone tells you, AMD can and does meet or exceed requirements for maxing out any game, it's just a matter of some research to know what model to get. I get tired of the "bench score" argument, sure it's cool seeing those high numbers but let's face it, they don't really mean much in practical terms once you hit a certain level.

Basically it's opinion and personal experience, I used to stick to Intel and Nvidia religiously but after finally trying out the other side I like my current setup so much better in terms of "bang for your buck" and overall performance. The only thing I went overboard on was my MB, because in the near future when I upgrade I don't want to be very limited on options.

Agree completely; used amd cpu before and works well. Now I use Intel though

 

[SuperDuperMe]

FX are fine, some people are just still stuck in the dark ages where CPU actually mattered more than the GPU for the average user. Get the best you can within your budget, even if it might not be "the best bang for the buck".

In some games they do, gta iv, arma 2, ms fx, take on helicopters.........

Just putting that out there.

 

[Aastii]

The amd sucks, go for an i5 3570k for gaming and if you are going to do big video editing the i7 3770k. But don't go with an fx...

The AMD doesn't suck, it just isn't as good as the previous AMD generation for the money, or the current Intel. It is still good enough to play any game though, so you could argue it is the perfect chip for this use.

you don't need a 3570K, you don't even need an i5 for gaming, you can get along fine with an i3, as I saw myself when rocking a 2100. For video editing too, not really necessary to get an i7. If you are mashing up some videos and adding some effects, any chip can do that. It may, if the software is heavily multi-threaded, take less time to convert the final product, but unless you are rendering and modeling for said videos, there really isn't a reason to spend out on the i7

FX are fine, some people are just still stuck in the dark ages where CPU actually mattered more than the GPU for the average user. Get the best you can within your budget, even if it might not be "the best bang for the buck".

I somewhat agree, but your argument about the FX being fine falls down when you then say "get the best you can within budget". That is never the FX chips. The previous generation Phenom II chips are stronger core for core, clock for clock, yet cheaper. An i3 beats out any of the FX 4xxx chips and in most applications, the 6 and 8 too, it is only multithreaded software that it loses on.

As it stands today, AMD have nothing to offer in any market segment, other than the extreme budget user (ie, I play facebook games and look at funny cats) and the HTPC market

There both fine. Correct me if I'm wrong (I've been not out of this for a while). But basically they use different connections. So it really depends on what is compatible to your motherboard.

You are right and wrong. They do use different connectors, it does depend on your motherboard for which is compatible, but that isn't the only difference and never has been. Chipset and power consumption both matter for complete system compatibility, for the difference between the two, power consumption, performance, features, heat, overclockability, all matter and do make a difference

 

[spirit]

For video editing too, not really necessary to get an i7. If you are mashing up some videos and adding some effects, any chip can do that. It may, if the software is heavily multi-threaded, take less time to convert the final product, but unless you are rendering and modeling for said videos, there really isn't a reason to spend out on the i7

I agree with Aastii. I actually use an overclocked 2500K to render and encode video and do photo editing and it is fast enough. Even my old i5 760 was, and that was never overclocked.

 

[Aastii]

I agree with Aastii. I actually use an overclocked 2500K to render and encode video and do photo editing and it is fast enough. Even my old i5 760 was, and that was never overclocked.

My Phenom II 720BE was quick enough at stock, without the 4th core unlocked. Unless you are doing professional video editing, it is ridiculous to drop any amount on the CPU just for the off chance that you smack an intro onto the start of a video clip or put some music over it

 

[FuryRosewood]

There are games where if your cpu is holding you back, my phenom ii 955 with the gtx460 was, with wow, believe it or not. Changed over to a i7 and the 460 was a whole different card. The cpu can and will affect what the gpu can do, so in those cases where you need the gpu to perform at its fullest might be a reason to look at the intel side.

 

[StrangleHold]

The AMD doesn't suck, it just isn't as good as the previous AMD generation for the money, or the current Intel. It is still good enough to play any game though, so you could argue it is the perfect chip for this use.


As it stands today, AMD have nothing to offer in any market segment, other than the extreme budget user (ie, I play facebook games and look at funny cats) and the HTPC market

I dont really get this. I can say these two statements said at the same time is the worst case of talking out both sides of your face at the same time I have ever read.

Plus the second part is completely false and dont really understand why a Mod would even make a statement like that. If it is true, I would like for you to explain to me how in the world I can only play facebook games and look at funny cats having a 8120 overclocked to 4.7 that I paid 160 bucks for with a 40 buck cooler and two 6950 in CF.

Bring on any 160 buck Intel, guess in that price range the most it would be is a i3 2125 vs, a unlocked 8120.

This place has got so, can really even think of a word for it without being banned. So much nonsense one sided remarks and alot of complete bias untrue crap its amazing. Now even from a Mod.

 

[jonnyp11]

I dont really get this. I can say these two statements said at the same time is the worst case of talking out both sides of your face at the same time I have ever read.

Plus the second part is completely false and dont really understand why a Mod would even make a statement like that. If it is true, I would like for you to explain to me how in the world I can only play facebook games and look at funny cats having a 8120 overclocked to 4.7 that I paid 160 bucks for with a 40 buck cooler and two 6950 in CF.

Bring on any 160 buck Intel, guess in that price range the most it would be is a i3 2125 vs, a unlocked 8120.

This place has got so, can really even think of a word for it without being banned. So much nonsense one sided remarks and alot of complete bias untrue crap its amazing. Now even from a Mod.

Actually what he said is true in a way. He first said there is nothing wrong with them, AMD cpus work perfectly fine and will do anything an intel will. Then he tried to say that in most cases an intel of a similar price point will outperform any amd of said price point at stock, when you factor in the overclock you are tipping the scale in the favor of the one side, for this point we will assume he means stock. If you look at gaming, an i3 is generally better than any FX processor. He may have exagurated a bit like we all do, but his argument isn't contradictory, it's the same as saying a little cheap car does the job, but that ferrari is a lot better, you may not actually see too much of a difference but the advantages are obvious. At the same time since you most likely won't see a huge difference, then either will work for you.

 

[FuryRosewood]

I dont really get this. I can say these two statements said at the same time is the worst case of talking out both sides of your face at the same time I have ever read.

Plus the second part is completely false and dont really understand why a Mod would even make a statement like that. If it is true, I would like for you to explain to me how in the world I can only play facebook games and look at funny cats having a 8120 overclocked to 4.7 that I paid 160 bucks for with a 40 buck cooler and two 6950 in CF.

Bring on any 160 buck Intel, guess in that price range the most it would be is a i3 2125 vs, a unlocked 8120.

This place has got so, can really even think of a word for it without being banned. So much nonsense one sided remarks and alot of complete bias untrue crap its amazing. Now even from a Mod.

Sure in the 160 dollar range there may not be anything, but 20 bucks or more that there is core i5 chips that consume far less power, and run cooler than any of the clocked AMD chips, might even run pretty damn close to what the amd chip runs... I still cant see the 'value' of the AMD chip if you have to clock the balls off it to go anywhere, which eats up your electricity bill...then where is your bang for your buck now? Its gone. I'm waiting for their next literation of the chip to make anymore speculations because you can argue this to the ground, but facts are facts right now.

 

[StrangleHold]

Actually what he said is true in a way. He first said there is nothing wrong with them, AMD cpus work perfectly fine and will do anything an intel will. Then he tried to say that in most cases an intel of a similar price point will outperform any amd of said price point at stock, when you factor in the overclock you are tipping the scale in the favor of the one side, for this point we will assume he means stock. If you look at gaming, an i3 is generally better than any FX processor. He may have exagurated a bit like we all do, but his argument isn't contradictory, it's the same as saying a little cheap car does the job, but that ferrari is a lot better, you may not actually see too much of a difference but the advantages are obvious. At the same time since you most likely won't see a huge difference, then either will work for you.

Give me a break.
His first statement is ( It is still good enough to play any game though, so you could argue it is the perfect chip for this use.)

Then says. ( other than the extreme budget user (ie, I play facebook games and look at funny cats)

Your saying thats not contradictory. If not then the world is not what I thought it was.

All FXs are unlocked and meant to be overclocked. So to fit the/your price comparison your going to remove the fact thats its unlocked. What a crock!

Sure in the 160 dollar range there may not be anything, but 20 bucks or more that there is core i5 chips that consume far less power, and run cooler than any of the clocked AMD chips, might even run pretty damn close to what the amd chip runs... I still cant see the 'value' of the AMD chip if you have to clock the balls off it to go anywhere, which eats up your electricity bill...then where is your bang for your buck now? Its gone. I'm waiting for their next literation of the chip to make anymore speculations because you can argue this to the ground, but facts are facts right now.

Its more then 20 bucks to get a unlocked Intel. The 20 bucks is still a locked i5 2310 which has no HT. Your going to have to do better then heat. Mine with a 40 buck cooler at 4.7ghz. hits 48c under load. What does a overclocked Ivybridge hit with a 40 buck cooler runnung at 4.7ghz even at 22nm. Sure aint in the 48c. Wattage, doesnt fly unless your running it overclocked 24/7. That 3 bucks more a month on my power bill is really killing me.

The next generation Piledriver will probably get maybe 5 to 10% better, depending on what your running. Dont really know why they even changed the name from Zambezi/Bulldozer to Vishera/Piledriver. Its the same processor, really its nothing more but the next stepping. Steamroller is really the next generation of Bulldozer. See I am honest, I'll slam AMD when its needed. But I dont just make crap up to fit in the current lets slam AMD and over exaggerate the comparison. Like the reality that Ivybridge at 22nm runs hotter then a 32nm. Zambezi that uses more wattage.

 

[Aastii]

Let me clarify.

When any of the i series processors outperform their AMD counterparts in the price range, why go AMD when performance is in mind? They can do the same performance tasks the Intel chips can, but there is always a but, be it value for money or performance, Intel pips them the post.

That isn't to say that they have nothing though. The Llano and Athlon chips are awesome when it comes to your more basic systems.

I wasn't saying AMD are good for nothing, I think if you read my replies you will see I said the complete opposite.