Why intel?

F

FiveSeven

Member
I am looking to put 1100-1500 into a build and I am a little new to the industry. So if someone could enlighten me that would be great. I was wondering
1. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106010
That seems like a really good processor, with specs I would never see out of intel and for less than most intel chips. Is there something bad about it?
2. Why are intel chips so expensive when their specs seem below average?

3. For my price range could someone show me a decent intel chip?
 
1. That is a medium processor only. Not a great gaming processor.
2. Intel is not really that expensive at all. They charge what they can because to build the best you have to charge slightly more. Put it like this, you wouldn't but a "Supercar" that cost 8 grand new would you? Even if it advertises a max HP of 20000 but has that great little fine print saying with a massive NO2 shot and @ 50k RPM or something like that.
3. 1100-1500 wait till tomorrow and see the price of the Ivybridge chips. Right now I would say the 2500k, but tomorrow assuming they launch on time, get the 3570k (replacement to the 2500k) and you will be good.
 
Most people think that more cores = better. In reality, you only really need 4 cores at most. Its hard to find applications that even really utilize all 4 cores at the same time. Intel's are far better for gaming than AMD.

Besides, the FX-series was a total flop by AMD. It was supposed to be their comeback to Intel's Sandy Bridge but it never matched intel performance wise. The intel's were faster, more durable, and ran a lot cooler than the AMD fx chips. You were able to overclock them higher with a lower voltage.

I don't know how many more cards AMD has to play, but they are falling behind significantly especially with Intel's release of Ivy Bridge tomorrow. And like wolfeking said, wait until tomorrow, see what the prices are and pick one of those up.
 
Intel is just more efficient/better. If you are using a program that only uses one core, even with that 3.8Ghz vs. 3.3Ghz, the intel at 3.3 will be a good leap ahead of the amd fx. Then also, the intel performance scales better. AMD didn't use true cores, they used modules with a full core and like a half core together, so with that, the 8 core version is still behind the quad core intel i5's
 
wolfeking said:
1. That is a medium processor only. Not a great gaming processor.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement.

But Intel is still faster. The architecture is different, and more efficient/fast. In gaming, I don't think you would see that much of a difference with the same graphics card. But since the AMD is cheaper, you could spend a little more on the graphics card and maybe get better fps.

And cores/Ghz don't matter if the architecture is different. You could overclock a P4 to 5ghz, and a single i5 core would probably be faster at stock.

This is still speculation, about the Intel vs. AMD. My FX chip plays all my games how I want them, so I am happy with it.

Like said earlier, I am still doing tests comparing a phenom II with my new FX, and I'll hopefully get my hands on my friend's 2500k and do some more comparisons.
 
Last edited:
Man, this place has got so much Intel fanboyism going on its almost got nauseating. Its unbelievable the amout of BS rambling.
 
Perkomate said:
benchmarks, baby.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=551

FX-8150 vs 3770K.
Boom.
Click to expand...

hey, it scores higher in several of those...too bad the lower score is the better one ;) It only comes close in a few benches and the rest are miles apart. Although i still can't wait for the 8170 or whatever the piledriver one will be, they can't get worse and they know exactly what needs to be done to increase the performance, so hopefully they can at least quick fix the issues if not resolve them completely, and god knows they need to fix it.

EDIT: Actually looked some more and at the very bottom it beat it at 2 game benches :confused: They were full render tests for Civ V, but on the no render one which said it was a cpu test, the 3770k was of course ~1.5 times better. Of course the second one it won at actually has the exact same title/description as the first and the 3770 had the same score as the firts, but the 8150's score was over double, although it's possible it was a type-o or swapped numbers or something
 
Last edited:
I've yet to run into a game I can't run with my AMD cpu.. It depends more on which cpu's are being compared, not brand vs brand. If you're just going to cherrypick and take a low level athlon vs a core i7 975, of course the Intel will win out. It's best to compare their closest level cpu's against each other, and not low to high end.
 
we were referring to fx v i-2/3000 which are meant to be equal abnd more specifically it started as 6100 v 2500k, but the 8150 v 3770 also works
 
An AMD Phenom II 975 Quad-Core Processor can handle about almost any game when paired with the right video card.

The cost of a Phenom II 975 is close to $150. The cost of a Core i5 2400 Quad-Core is close to $215 if you pair it with a good heatsink. The heatsinks Intel provides are not very good quality. The Core i5 2400 has more processing power. Your choice on spending more to go Intel.
 
I'm not saying that AMD aren't capable, because they are. They are fine for using it. However I choose Intel as they are cooler, quieter, use less juice and faster. Yes, they're more expensive, but I think it's pretty good.
 
I would agree on the cooler part. Going from competing product lines, the Athlon II m300 and the core 2 duo t7200, I see a marked cooler run with the T7200. As in more than 20* cooler at max load. Going on sandy bridge, mine on stock cooling runs within 5-10* above room temp.
 
i mean comparing the best with the best available right now. 3770K vs 8150.
In the past, sure, AMD had an edge on intel. Not now however, at least in the performance department. They do a nice line in APUs though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top