Jump to content



Photo

AMD FX or Intel i7?


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#31 threetonesun

threetonesun

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 26-February 02

Posted 08 April 2013 - 17:50

I'm pretty sure the i7 also has more L3 cache. Can make a difference in gaming and high end rendering apps.


Not unless you get an extreme version. The normal i7s have 8MB.


#32 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 08 April 2013 - 17:56

Not unless you get an extreme version. The normal i7s have 8MB.


i7-2600K

i5-2500K

i7 has 8MB of cache, the i5 has 6MB of cache

#33 threetonesun

threetonesun

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 26-February 02

Posted 08 April 2013 - 17:57

i7-2600K

i5-2500K

i7 has 8MB of cache, the i5 has 6MB of cache


Oh, I thought you were comparing the i7 and the FX. :rofl:

#34 Faks

Faks

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 01-May 09
  • Location: Europe
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate
  • Phone: Samsung Crap

Posted 08 April 2013 - 18:02

let's point out all facts i have FX-8150 about a year and didn't had issue with games and everybody saying only is just daft and wrong .... because most benchmarks are made up also too many are brain dead or washed .... (burn in hell INTEL FANS)

#35 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 08 April 2013 - 18:02

let's point out all facts i have FX-8150 about a year and didn't had issue with games and everybody saying only is just daft and wrong .... because most benchmarks are made up also too many are brain dead or washed ....


You can't be serious...

#36 Faks

Faks

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 01-May 09
  • Location: Europe
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate
  • Phone: Samsung Crap

Posted 08 April 2013 - 18:06

go for flame wars ...
http://www.techspot....7-2600k.182236/
goo to point out from there
The intel is a bit better for gaming, The bulldozer however is no slouch and may outperform the intel in multithreaded applications.

Plus windows 7 is poorly optimised for the bulldozer and there are rumours of a 20 to 25% performance increase using windows 8.


choose wise and many just talks and never checks the facts most important windows 8 does works faster then windows 7 sow it's win win ... you buy cheap gain performance from single os upgrade ...
too many lives on cliches ... time to wake up ...

#37 YounGMessiah

YounGMessiah

    "individual magnets"

  • Joined: 16-June 09
  • Location: Garden Of The Gods
  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S3

Posted 08 April 2013 - 18:50

Whats funny is no one was really talking crap on AMD and then you come in making yourself look bad.

I even stated I have an 8150 and has been fine. Always actually been an AMD fan, but Intel has some quality which cant be ignored.
Now times have evolved and I decided to main with an i5 now, still use my AMD; I did notice some differences, not much.. Mainly in application startups and game loading..


And I believe Windows 7 was out before Bulldozer.... So AMD didnt optimize Bulldozer..

#38 Coagulated

Coagulated

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 15-September 10
  • Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Posted 08 April 2013 - 19:01

I'd just grab an i5 3570k and be done with it, but that's just me.

I was going to go Bulldozer with my new CPU, I'd had my heart set on AMD since the 1090T, but by the time I was ready to buy and researched all of the current AMD/Intel ranges? It was i5 for me.

I could have gone i7, and I seriously considered it, but these days I just don't have the time to love and caress my computer as much as I'd like, and I certainly don't have time to do any video editing anymore. So, for the times when I do a little video editing, an i5 will be more than enough.

#39 threetonesun

threetonesun

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 26-February 02

Posted 08 April 2013 - 19:02

Plus windows 7 is poorly optimised for the bulldozer and there are rumours of a 20 to 25% performance increase using windows 8.


Which ended up just being rumors.

Not to mention, releasing a CPU and then saying it doesn't fully work on the world's most popular desktop operating system, and saying "it'll get better, probably" does not instill confidence in most people.

#40 +dead.cell

dead.cell

    My Body My Temple

  • Joined: 09-July 04
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • OS: Win 7 Pro / Win 8 Pro
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy SII

Posted 08 April 2013 - 19:32

Whats funny is no one was really talking crap on AMD and then you come in making yourself look bad.


Pretty much this. I've been a fan of AMD (processors) all my life, never having owned an Intel processor. Still, if money isn't an issue, I'd totally go for an Intel processor, hands down. Hell, money IS an issue for me, but I'm already making plans for my next rig seeing as mine is from 2008.

That said, I saw Aokromes mention waiting for the Haswell lineup, but that may not be due out until June from what I've heard.

#41 Snake89

Snake89

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 16-July 04

Posted 08 April 2013 - 19:49

Pretty much this. I've been a fan of AMD (processors) all my life, never having owned an Intel processor. Still, if money isn't an issue, I'd totally go for an Intel processor, hands down. Hell, money IS an issue for me, but I'm already making plans for my next rig seeing as mine is from 2008.

That said, I saw Aokromes mention waiting for the Haswell lineup, but that may not be due out until June from what I've heard.


The Haswell stepping C2 "which fixes the USB bug" won't be out until the end of July. Just wanted to give you a heads up.

#42 chrisj1968

chrisj1968

    copyrighted!! ©

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 17-June 08
  • Location: United States

Posted 08 April 2013 - 19:55

Get the i7, get the k model, give it an easy overclock to somewhere above 4ghz and it'll leave the fx chip in the dust.


with the speeds and architecture as they are, multi-cores etc.. Is overclocking even important anymore? I remember reading a MaximumPC mag article whereby they said that speeds were irrelevant due to the multi cores.. dunno, that caught my attention after having been on during the single core speed demon express like so many were at that time

#43 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 08 April 2013 - 20:06

Oh, I thought you were comparing the i7 and the FX. :rofl:


Ah I see, sorry if there was any confusion.

#44 Xyphus

Xyphus

    Hardware Junkie

  • Joined: 01-September 03
  • Location: South Bend, Indiana - USA
  • OS: Windows 7 64bit, OSX, and various distros of Linux.

Posted 08 April 2013 - 20:06

If you're going to be doing mostly gaming, you really aren't going to notice much difference in real world experience. I have two systems I run side by side. The first is running an AMD Phenom II 955BE, the second is running an i7 2600. Both are sporting 8GB RAM, and running comparable video cards. Both can crank up details to to max in games, and you don't notice a lick of difference.

Now when it comes to video encoding and multimedia, the i7 will trounce the Phenom II. But for gaming, the AMD is still quite solid. Go with what your budget will allow. I would say take the AMD route and use the extra cash to buy the next tier up in video cards if it is going to be used primarily for gaming. But if you do video encoding and ripping, pop for the i7.

#45 OP ACTIONpack

ACTIONpack

    Graphic Designer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 10-August 03
  • Location: Lawrenceville, GA
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: HTC Windows 8X

Posted 09 April 2013 - 01:12

I'm just not a gamer anymore. Just want to upgrade my computer because when I'm not at work, using my MacBook pro retina, I want to jump on my desktop at home. Also I don't want my laptop to out performance my desktop. I still have to pay off my laptop which I owe 900 on it.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!