This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

FX-6300 and R7 260x

#31ShubPosted 7/22/2014 7:57:51 AM
There's nothing wrong with AMD CPUs but you get what you pay for, and indeed in games that make heavy use of the CPU but don't use all available cores like Civilization V, Intel has a sizable advantage because of the higher single-thread performance. In fact Intel has the edge in most situations, even when you'd think the 8 cores of an FX-8350 should help it edge out an i5-4690K in multi-threaded applications.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1261
And purely for gaming, I'd argue that a Haswell i3 is a better value.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1197

I would absolutely get an AMD CPU in some situations, but budget permitting, and purely for gaming, it makes little sense.
---
-What is best in life?
-To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.
#32AltmadragonPosted 7/22/2014 8:12:11 AM(edited)
TC, I'm on a budget advice?

post, get intel

Tc, ok im on a budget would amd do?

poster, nope only get intel

Tc, hmm you sure?

poster, intel is the best only, heres some bench marks showing intel running games in high 100's while amd only hits 80's. I mean if you cant hit above 90 fps then it sucks, right? am I right or am I right.
---
Merlin SM8| i7-4770k| Asus MaximusViFormula| AsusDC2 780 SLI| 32GB Kingston HyperX Beast| Seagate 3TB HDD| 250GB Samsung Evo| Swiftech 480x2 rads, Acrylic Loop|
#33ClouddxPosted 7/22/2014 8:18:28 AM
Altmadragon posted...
TC, I'm on a budget advice?

post, get intel

Tc, ok im on a budget would amd do?

poster, nope only get intel

Tc, hmm you sure?

poster, intel is the best only, heres some bench marks showing intel running games in high 100's while amd only hits 80's. I mean if you cant hit above 90 fps then it sucks, right? am I right or am I right.


That wasn't the point of my posts, but if that's what you took from it okay. As Shub said, even on a budget the i3s perform just as well if not better than AMD CPUs in most games.
---
i7-920 @ 3.6 // 770 GTX // 12 GB G.Skill Sniper Ram // PS3 // 360
FiiO e9+17 // AD700 + M50 // Deck Legend + 82 // DAS Ultimate S
#34AltmadragonPosted 7/22/2014 8:41:57 AM
Clouddx posted...
Altmadragon posted...
TC, I'm on a budget advice?

post, get intel

Tc, ok im on a budget would amd do?

poster, nope only get intel

Tc, hmm you sure?

poster, intel is the best only, heres some bench marks showing intel running games in high 100's while amd only hits 80's. I mean if you cant hit above 90 fps then it sucks, right? am I right or am I right.


That wasn't the point of my posts, but if that's what you took from it okay. As Shub said, even on a budget the i3s perform just as well if not better than AMD CPUs in most games.


why so defensive did I mention your name in my post?
---
Merlin SM8| i7-4770k| Asus MaximusViFormula| AsusDC2 780 SLI| 32GB Kingston HyperX Beast| Seagate 3TB HDD| 250GB Samsung Evo| Swiftech 480x2 rads, Acrylic Loop|
#35ClouddxPosted 7/22/2014 8:52:46 AM(edited)
Altmadragon posted...
Clouddx posted...
Altmadragon posted...
TC, I'm on a budget advice?

post, get intel

Tc, ok im on a budget would amd do?

poster, nope only get intel

Tc, hmm you sure?

poster, intel is the best only, heres some bench marks showing intel running games in high 100's while amd only hits 80's. I mean if you cant hit above 90 fps then it sucks, right? am I right or am I right.


That wasn't the point of my posts, but if that's what you took from it okay. As Shub said, even on a budget the i3s perform just as well if not better than AMD CPUs in most games.


why so defensive did I mention your name in my post?


/sigh some people always trolling. Who else posted benchmarks for CPUs in this thread?
---
i7-920 @ 3.6 // 770 GTX // 12 GB G.Skill Sniper Ram // PS3 // 360
FiiO e9+17 // AD700 + M50 // Deck Legend + 82 // DAS Ultimate S
#36Hi CPosted 7/22/2014 8:59:26 AM
That wasn't the point of my posts, but if that's what you took from it okay. As Shub said, even on a budget the i3s perform just as well if not better than AMD CPUs in most games.


You should send Microsoft and Sony an email then as they make machines that only do games.
#37ClouddxPosted 7/22/2014 9:06:57 AM(edited)
Hi C posted...
That wasn't the point of my posts, but if that's what you took from it okay. As Shub said, even on a budget the i3s perform just as well if not better than AMD CPUs in most games.


You should send Microsoft and Sony an email then as they make machines that only do games.


lol, what does PC gaming have to do with consoles? Unless you're implying that he's not buying a PC to game on; which in that case I think you should read his first post.
---
i7-920 @ 3.6 // 770 GTX // 12 GB G.Skill Sniper Ram // PS3 // 360
FiiO e9+17 // AD700 + M50 // Deck Legend + 82 // DAS Ultimate S
#38reincarnator07Posted 7/22/2014 9:23:31 AM
Altmadragon posted...
TC, I'm on a budget advice?

post, get intel

Tc, ok im on a budget would amd do?

poster, nope only get intel

Tc, hmm you sure?

poster, intel is the best only, heres some bench marks showing intel running games in high 100's while amd only hits 80's. I mean if you cant hit above 90 fps then it sucks, right? am I right or am I right.


If they're both about the same price, why go for the inferior product? As I said in my first post in this thread, there's pretty much no point in AMD processors in a gaming build outside of APUs. Intel has them beat at pretty much every other price point. They certainly have their place elsewhere, but not in gaming.
---
Fan of metal? Don't mind covers? Check out my youtube and give me some feedback
http://www.youtube.com/sircaballero
#39Pengu1nPosted 7/22/2014 11:10:34 AM
iiFroZenHeAveNz posted...
OMGWYATT posted...
Pengu1n posted...
reincarnator07 posted...
Unless you're looking at APUs, there's pretty much no reason to go with AMD processors in a gaming build.


I have been using AMD processors for years now starting with an Athlon 64 and working up to my current 6 core 6300 and have had no issues running games whatsoever. I really don't know where people are getting their info from that AMD cpu's are rubbish for gaming or that their GPU's have constant driver issues because the people who own them always tend to disagree.

it's almost as if intel fanboys need constant reassurance that they made the right choice in spending loads on a CPU and they do so by spreading lies about AMD and post and re-post benchmark scores time and time again (even though due to intel bias from websites, youtubers and magazines they tend to be over exaggerated or faked in Intel's favour) and that AMD CPU's don't run games or that they explode in a ball of fire just from running minesweeper.

It's like those people who actually spent loads on a monster HDMI cable they need reassurance that it was money well spent and do so by quoting the 'features' of that $100 cable such as 'oxygen free copper shielded cabling'.


Intel's CPU's outperform AMD's at basically every level, they have since Sandy Bridge. Monster Cables are high priced garbage that don't do anything more than a basic cable, and are in no way comparable to Intel cpu's which you actually get what you pay for. AMD's video cards are perfectly fine, the r9 series offer pretty good value. CPU's are a competely different story, they just aren't up to par with the i5/i7's of today and even sandy/ivy bridge series.

It seems you're an AMD fanboy doing the exact thing you're blaming everyone else of doing.

And no, I'm not an intel fanboy.


You must be poorly educated. In no shape or form does he specify or reveal that he is an AMD fanboy. He simply said that he has used AMD for many years and have yet to experience any problems, only gratification. He did not bash on your Intel fanboy a** and was open to TC using Intel if he wanted. Here's the thing fanboy trash.. In the real world an FX-8350 runs just as well as most i5's and runs better than some i5's in the $250-300 price range. Oh guess what? I got my 8350 for $150. Oh my gosh that's $100 less. Before you claim yourself as a non-Intel fanboy, how about you show it instead of telling it.. Using your lame biased non-gaming benchmarks does not help. In real life situations where the CPU's are actually used to do something we do everyday, there's not much of a difference. I admit that Intel has more quality stuff but I'm not paying $100 extra for 2-5 more frames. That's just horrible money management. If you have the money, go for it. Buy me a 4790k as well. But if your fanboy self can't then I can live with my AMD processor.

Don't believe me? How about I give you real time situations of CPU usage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLRZxRL8N8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc


I used to use intel CPU's as well i have also used nVidia GPU's as well. When i switched from Intel to AMD i went from a Pentium 4 2.53Ghz to an Athlon 64 running at 2.2ghz and that and the motherboard were the only 2 new parts. i was using the same PSU, the same GPU the same OS the same RAM the same amount of RAM everything and my performance in games wasn't affected the computer didn't crash any more than it did with the P4. I didn't have any driver issues or anything like that either despite people telling me i had made a bad choice and should have stuck with intel.
---
FX 6300, HYPER 212 EVO, 16GB DDR3, 7870 GHZ 2GB, 2TB HDD, 64 GB SATA III SSD, 12X BLU RAY, 750W PSU, X-FI FATAL1TY,WINDOWS 7
#40DarkZV2BetaPosted 7/22/2014 12:02:00 PM
iiFroZenHeAveNz posted...
OMGWYATT posted...
Pengu1n posted...
reincarnator07 posted...
Unless you're looking at APUs, there's pretty much no reason to go with AMD processors in a gaming build.


I have been using AMD processors for years now starting with an Athlon 64 and working up to my current 6 core 6300 and have had no issues running games whatsoever. I really don't know where people are getting their info from that AMD cpu's are rubbish for gaming or that their GPU's have constant driver issues because the people who own them always tend to disagree.

it's almost as if intel fanboys need constant reassurance that they made the right choice in spending loads on a CPU and they do so by spreading lies about AMD and post and re-post benchmark scores time and time again (even though due to intel bias from websites, youtubers and magazines they tend to be over exaggerated or faked in Intel's favour) and that AMD CPU's don't run games or that they explode in a ball of fire just from running minesweeper.

It's like those people who actually spent loads on a monster HDMI cable they need reassurance that it was money well spent and do so by quoting the 'features' of that $100 cable such as 'oxygen free copper shielded cabling'.


Intel's CPU's outperform AMD's at basically every level, they have since Sandy Bridge. Monster Cables are high priced garbage that don't do anything more than a basic cable, and are in no way comparable to Intel cpu's which you actually get what you pay for. AMD's video cards are perfectly fine, the r9 series offer pretty good value. CPU's are a competely different story, they just aren't up to par with the i5/i7's of today and even sandy/ivy bridge series.

It seems you're an AMD fanboy doing the exact thing you're blaming everyone else of doing.

And no, I'm not an intel fanboy.


You must be poorly educated. In no shape or form does he specify or reveal that he is an AMD fanboy. He simply said that he has used AMD for many years and have yet to experience any problems, only gratification. He did not bash on your Intel fanboy a** and was open to TC using Intel if he wanted. Here's the thing fanboy trash.. In the real world an FX-8350 runs just as well as most i5's and runs better than some i5's in the $250-300 price range. Oh guess what? I got my 8350 for $150. Oh my gosh that's $100 less. Before you claim yourself as a non-Intel fanboy, how about you show it instead of telling it.. Using your lame biased non-gaming benchmarks does not help. In real life situations where the CPU's are actually used to do something we do everyday, there's not much of a difference. I admit that Intel has more quality stuff but I'm not paying $100 extra for 2-5 more frames. That's just horrible money management. If you have the money, go for it. Buy me a 4790k as well. But if your fanboy self can't then I can live with my AMD processor.

Don't believe me? How about I give you real time situations of CPU usage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLRZxRL8N8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc


Pengu1n is a known AMD fanboy, apparently basing everything off of a time when AMD wasn't sucking super bad.(Athlon days were great! AMD was very competitive all the way up until Core 2 series and their late-to-the-party Phenom IIs, and remained fairly competitive up until Sandy Bridge.)
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross