[quote name='"Dabbed"']^you would go with a i5 before AMD ever. typical intel fanboy talk, lmao. and what if the person buying is on a budget and wants to spend the minimum possible? yea RAM is cheap enough where if you do need it..might as well because its cheap. but i'm a firm believer in spending only as much as you need. and to the thing about the case, who the hell gets annoyed by the way there case look, you must be pretty much a loser because its a damn chassis. NowIsB you're a joke and you've made completely irrelevant points seeing that he's not even doing video encoding, using CS5, when i said what instances would he be using it. k thanx bai [/quote] Not to get into this argument, but Intel shits on AMD all day. That is all
And your evidence backs that up where? please, inform me. you're obviously uneducated on processors. Tell me where Intel shits on AMD, i'd like to know. Intel is only better then AMD for games that don't support multi-core (4+ cores) but a Phenom x4 would preform better then a core i3 in games that utilize all those cores. (unless obviously your using a i5 quad or a i7) AMD you can unlock hidden cores > AMD is half the price > AMD has quad cores that preform better at multicore apps then a core i3>
Intel kills all AMD processors. I have an AMD desktop in my home, its a piece of shit. The CPU is trash, runs so hot, and is generally bad at multitasking. Also i like how you say "where's your evidence" then you talk shit, with no evidence lol I wish, with the prices you see AMD going, that they preformed well, but the problem is they often dont.... Also the other thing is, Intel motherboards are often a shit ton nicer than the AMD counterpart. Just saying.... http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/320166-28-bulldozer-8120-intel-core-2500k http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/343577-28-intel http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/334788-28-intel-core-3450-4170 http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/343031-28-intel-future-proof enjoy the "evidence" lol
you have a AMD at home and that's your evidence that it's a piece of shit, you don't even state WHAT model you have, and compare it to what. you obviously don't know shit about processors bro, just because one processor model is bad at multi tasking doesn't mean the whole crop is, you've probably got a fucking athlon 6400+ for gods sake, using a AM1-AM2 socket. And you compare it to a newer intel. and intel motherboards are nicer? are you serious? there are 100 different motherboard manufactors, the way they're produced is up to the manufacture. so you saying that makes absolutely no sense because ASUS makes AMD and Intel boards. so does MSI. and About 90 other brands. MY evidence, Well first off, i've owned about 7 different computers with various different processors (both intel AND amd) and AMD has always came with a better price/preformance ratio, AMD does not make bad processors, hell. my last computers phenom II x6 preformed better on benchmarks then my buddies core i5! and you trying to say that there a piece of shit makes you look like you know nothing about computers/hardware. none the less AMD and there product line. go screw yourself with a broom. oh and fyi if you read my earlier post you would of known i said that intel is better core 2 core designed games, of course it has higher framerates. AMD is will kill the i3 and below WITH MULTIPLE CORE CAPABLE GAMES. obviously you don't understand that. because it will be faster on multi tasking and games with that utilization.
check my post again for the evidence, buddy. lol you must need a bong rip, go do that. I never said they dont make the motherboard, i said the Intel counterparts were better.... also 100 mobo producers? lol
reread what i just posted, obviously you don't understand how benchmarks work for games that are only capable of utilizing 2 cores at a time oh and i don't need a bong rip, i've been dabbing all day, go learn a thing or two about computers buddy. trial and error is the way to go. obviously i was over exaggerating when i said 100, there's well over 40+ though. tons of chinese makers. and no the intel counterparts are not of higher quality, wheres your evidence to prove that?
trial and error OF WHAT???? also i do understand that AMD doesnt utilize all the cores and this is the part that makes it even stupider to buy AMD IMO. OP is making a gaming PC he says, Intel is his best option.... Let him make the choice. Also there probably isnt even 40 brands, maybe like 5 or 10 that even make their own boards, the rest are just sold under another name basically, like all other things these days. And there really is better Intel Mobo's... Where are all the AMD 4 way boards? exactly... lol theres like 2. Also im not gonna screw myself with a broom
of knowing what models are better then others? what're you talking about amd doesn't utilize all the cores? it's programs that don't utilize all the cores, they aren't coded to be ran on multi core processors and to evenly distribute it among all of them. and more and more games today are using them to there advantage ^^ are games that utilize 4+ cores. tell me again AMD sucks? intel is not his best option, nor is amd. if he made a educated decision that would be his best choice. and no there is about 20-50 there are so many chinese brands you would be surprised. and there aren't rebranded motherboards but theres rebranded motherboard pieces (north bridge etc) that are sold among to all of them.
Let me put in my 2 cents. Amd is slightly behind the lead in terms of architecture of the chip itself. The higher end i5s and all i7 in the last 2 to 3 years will beat an amd in video editing and anything that's processor heavy due to the architecture....and done games that utilize quad core technology such as bf3. This is not speculation, it is a fact with benchmarking behind it.gif the most part if you are a gamer on a budget go with amd. If you are an enthusiast and want the top of the line get Intel i7. I have had both and done benchmarking myself, Intel works a little better, not by a while lot but it is better. PS, I build my own computers so I know what I'm talking about, not talking out my ass.even some of the phenoms best the new fx processors do some research people.
[quote name='"DrazyHaze"']Nobody can prove intel is better than AMD lol[/quote] Except for the numerous benchmarks where even the Intel i3s are beating the higher end amd chips. I had an amd quad core on my gaming rig, switched to an i5 and the difference was night and day Amd is cheap yes, but in the end you will come around full circle and want something more just like I did
The only reason behind that is because the sandy bridge architecture is newer then the older AMD Quad core series (You didn't specify which model you even had) also, even then core i3's only beat the Quad cores in games that don't utilize all those cores, because if you look at bench marks of games that utilize it, the quad cores preform better then the core i3. And but in the end, not really, my X6 1080t preformed better then my buddies core i5, maybe not in games (because most of them are still only 2-core capable) but in most applications, it was faster. people need to stop comparing older architectures to newer architectures.. its like comparing apples to bananas, there both fruits, but far from the same thing. AMD Quad cores were never designed to compete head to head against a core i3/i5/i7
[quote name='"Dabbed"'] The only reason behind that is because the sandy bridge architecture is newer then the older AMD Quad core series (You didn't specify which model you even had) also, even then core i3's only beat the Quad cores in games that don't utilize all those cores, because if you look at bench marks of games that utilize it, the quad cores preform better then the core i3. And but in the end, not really, my X6 1080t preformed better then my buddies core i5, maybe not in games (because most of them are still only 2-core capable) but in most applications, it was faster. people need to stop comparing older architectures to newer architectures.. its like comparing apples to bananas, there both fruits, but far from the same thing. AMD Quad cores were never designed to compete head to head against a core i3/i5/i7[/quote] I had an athlon II 640. In games Intel wins hands down. He wants a gaming Pc so its only logical to get the better gaming processor There are plenty of benchmarks on Tom's hardware of the i5 vs the Zambezi processors and the i5 wins pretty much every game, sometimes as much as 10-15 fps. The 8 cores have the same result. Amd is a day late and a dollar short every time and gets beat by intel. Don't get me wrong, amd offers amazing value for the price, but when an i5 is only $220 ,then you might as well get that
Not true. Games that utilize multiple cores AMD will crush intel in. cept the i5/i7 of course (but not everyone is trying to spend 200/300 on a processor) also, that's your problem right there. athlon II 640? that processor was made FOREVER ago and is one of the worst possible AMD processors you can get that's a quad core, that processor was not meant for gaming, hell i wouldn't even through that against a intel core 2 duo, Athlon II architecture is horrible. and old as shit. obviously you haven't used any phenom II processors, which aren't even comparable to those Athlons. hahahahahaha don't even compare the Zambezi processors to a i5... A8's and the whole fusion line is a whole big fail for gamers. Phenom II x6 will beat a i5 in the long run because more and more games are utilizing more cores, and if you don't believe me go read a couple of forum threads.
[quote name='"Dabbed"'] Not true. Games that utilize multiple cores AMD will crush intel in. cept the i5/i7 of course (but not everyone is trying to spend 200/300 on a processor) also, that's your problem right there. athlon II 640? that processor was made FOREVER ago and is one of the worst possible AMD processors you can get that's a quad core, that processor was not meant for gaming, hell i wouldn't even through that against a intel core 2 duo, Athlon II architecture is horrible. and old as shit. obviously you haven't used any phenom II processors, which aren't even comparable to those Athlons.[/quote] Sigh. You are correct about athlons being old. How can you explain games like bf3 (which utilize multiple cores) running better on i5s than the new Zambezi processors? The benchmarks are all over Tom's hardware comparing amds NEWEST processors to the OLDER sandy bridge and they still fall behind. Numbers don't lie man
The whole fusion line was not meant for high end gaming if you didn't notice, i'm not talking about the zambezi because that's meant for the low budget gamer who wants integrated graphics with there cpu (dumb people) and isn't designed for raw CPU preformance, if you didn't not know.