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

More cores in a processor are better right? So why is Intel best?

#11PhoenixRush(Topic Creator)Posted 7/31/2014 5:06:37 PM(edited)
Clouddx posted...
PhoenixRush posted...
To be honest I don't want the absolute most expensive everything. I want something that outperforms PS4/XB1 running most everything in high settings at 60 FPS or so. I am not sure what the best build for this would be as I'm new to all of this still.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MOAN005Fvw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f6INgYBmGo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSYTMhDoMS8

The first two will run games better than a PS4/XB1. The last one is just a super cheap PC that will play games, but on lower settings. Instead of the 650 ti Boost you can get an MSI 750ti for $119.99.

Here's a $600 build: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfGE4i_A6E4 this will absolutely DESTROY a PS4/XB1 in terms of performance.

P.S. Neither the PS4 or X1 play games @ 60fps(other than a select few).


Sadly I would need a prebuilt setup because as I said before, I can't even install a graphics card correctly. I mean I did get it to work but it didn't really fit too well. So instead I'm going to keep my sanity and shell out more money eventually. Besides, warranties are much more convenient that way. I know most everyone else is a building pro, but not me..
#12Pengu1nPosted 8/1/2014 3:57:40 AM
People will always tell you that intel is better by a country mile. But this is not true. Non biased tests have shown that AMD and Intel out perform each other at different tasks such as gaming, video rendering and photo editing.

And in situations where Intel is better the difference isn't even noticeable. A game might run a 2 or 3 fps faster on a core i7 then an 8350 or a video might render a couple of seconds faster on intel than AMD.

But an AMD CPU isn't a bad choice by any means with an FX6300, 8GB of RAM and an HD 270X you should easily be able to play games at 1080p at or around 60FPS.
---
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
#13godplaysSNESPosted 8/1/2014 4:15:21 AM
For gaming, go with at least an i5. Many games still use four cores/threads max, and Intel simply dominates in single threaded performance. If you want to have better multithreaded performance as well, go for i7.

For poorly multithreaded games like Starcraft 2, even a Haswell i3 can have double the minimum framerate of AMD's best CPU.
---
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
#14wanderzPosted 8/1/2014 5:08:34 AM
there are companies that will let you pick out the parts and they will assembly it for you, you can get it with or without windows installed as well.

i've ordered several computers and parts from this company over the last (i think) 15 years, for myself, friends and family members never had a problem, the one time they ran out of an item i had ordered they offered me one that was almost twice as much for no extra charge.

http://3btech.net/configurator.html

i'm not sure what other companies offer the same service, without charging an arm and a leg for it.
i believe tigerdirect.com may also at least sometimes offer that, but not 100% certain.

do not ever buy a name brand computer (dell, gateway, acer, etc) tho.. they come loaded with a bunch of crap on them that can actually bog down your computer, and they generally use some really cheap parts, like the power supply, and sometimes use parts that can't be replaced unless you order from them because they intentionally make them slightly oddly shaped. (again, i've heard of this with power supplies)
take a look around for sights like that i mentioned (or use 3btech) pick out some parts and post here again, either in this topic or another one, and i'm sure people will help you make sure you got what you need..

i believe you can also call 3btech and tell them what you are looking for in a computer and they will help you, but i of course never tried that so i'm not sure how honest they'd be about giving you the best value rather then suggesting all the most expensive parts.
---
i tried being serious once, in 1989.. didn't particularly care for it.. so don't expect it to happen again.
#15ssj4supervegetaPosted 8/1/2014 5:14:54 AM
i had a triple core processor once...what about that?
---
LoL summoner: Vejitables
Bromaciaaaaaaaaaaaa!
#16PhilOnDezPosted 8/1/2014 6:13:31 AM
Pengu1n posted...
And in situations where Intel is better the difference isn't even noticeable. A game might run a 2 or 3 fps faster on a core i7 then an 8350 or a video might render a couple of seconds faster on intel than AMD.


http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Torchlight.png

Dat '2 or 3' fps. That's AMD's fastest single core vs one of intel's lower (not lowest, but it's still $50 cheaper than the AMD CPU) end CPUs. And before you call the bias card, this is from the same site that recommended the 5800/6800k for low end gaming rigs when they were released.
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez
#17Haley Joel OsmentPosted 8/1/2014 6:21:06 AM
ssj4supervegeta posted...
i had a triple core processor once...what about that?

All tri-core CPUs were just quads where one core wasn't up to standard and thus disabled. Although they ended up disabling healthy cores too in the end to meet demand. My X3 720's fourth core worked just fine.

---
I see dead people.
#18KhelThuzadPosted 8/1/2014 7:27:07 AM
Clouddx posted...
PhoenixRush posted...
To be honest I don't want the absolute most expensive everything. I want something that outperforms PS4/XB1 running most everything in high settings at 60 FPS or so. I am not sure what the best build for this would be as I'm new to all of this still.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MOAN005Fvw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f6INgYBmGo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSYTMhDoMS8

The first two will run games better than a PS4/XB1. The last one is just a super cheap PC that will play games, but on lower settings. Instead of the 650 ti Boost you can get an MSI 750ti for $119.99.

Here's a $600 build: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfGE4i_A6E4 this will absolutely DESTROY a PS4/XB1 in terms of performance.

P.S. Neither the PS4 or X1 play games @ 60fps(other than a select few).


Cry in a girly, butthurt fanboy voice: noooo a gaming pc cost u $2000...
---
Trolling? Better get the facts right or get owned.
#19KURRUPTORPosted 8/1/2014 1:55:16 PM
PhilOnDez posted...
Pengu1n posted...
And in situations where Intel is better the difference isn't even noticeable. A game might run a 2 or 3 fps faster on a core i7 then an 8350 or a video might render a couple of seconds faster on intel than AMD.


http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Torchlight.png

Dat '2 or 3' fps. That's AMD's fastest single core vs one of intel's lower (not lowest, but it's still $50 cheaper than the AMD CPU) end CPUs. And before you call the bias card, this is from the same site that recommended the 5800/6800k for low end gaming rigs when they were released.


You Intel fanboys come up with the dumbest comparisons. Apu vs a cpu... Like what is the point of that comparison? Does that graph make you feel better about buying Intel? Because to informed/knowledgeable people it just makes you look like tool.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
#20PhilOnDezPosted 8/1/2014 2:31:21 PM
You AMD fanboys come up with the dumbest excuses. Why would an APU vs a CPU not be a valid comparison, especially when said APU is AMD's fastest MA and said CPU is actually an APU as well? Does hand waving evidence that shows how disparate the two companies' products truly are make you feel better about buying AMD? Because to informed and knowledgable people you look like a tool.
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez