Intel I5 or I7 vs AMD Bulldozer

[Fel]

I use an AMD 5800k quad core oc'd at 4.2 ghz. I got it during a sale so I paid about 100 bucks (excluding the heat sink for overclock) It runs shit just fine and I never have problems with lag. Great performance and great price. If you want 70+ fps with just about any game (except fable 3 because that game is an unoptimized pile of shit) then an intel processor, like the i5 or i7 would be an ideal choice. I was on a tight budget. So I went with something low in price but still significant in power. I don't know, though. A lot of people have mixed opinions in regards to AMD and Intel processor architecture. If I had enough money left over I would have gone with an intel motherboard and processor at the time. I plan to switch manufacturers in the future though.

 

[Arzalis]

AMD's architecture is pretty much a thousand miles away from Intel.

Intel's architecture is very, very good; the way the processors are designed, that is.

AMD's price-quality relation is better than intel, since it's very cheap, but if you're looking for big time performance, go for the i5 or the i7.

If you've got doubts, go look up a benchmark.

Do you want a more complex explanation?

Intel's cache levels are bigger (if not faster transference-wise, not sure on that), that means that it can store more instructions that the control unit can access stupidly quickly, that means a shit ton of performance gain.

There are probably more reasons, that's the only one I can come up with.

You mean there are more to CPUs than clockspeed and the number of cores? *gasp*

/sarcasm

 

[Phantasma]

AMD's architecture is pretty much a thousand miles away from Intel.

Intel's architecture is very, very good; the way the processors are designed, that is.

AMD's price-quality relation is better than intel, since it's very cheap, but if you're looking for big time performance, go for the i5 or the i7.

If you've got doubts, go look up a benchmark.

Do you want a more complex explanation?

Intel's cache levels are bigger (if not faster transference-wise, not sure on that), that means that it can store more instructions that the control unit can access stupidly quickly, that means a shit ton of performance gain.

There are probably more reasons, that's the only one I can come up with.

Here's the AMD beating i5 and i7, for $150 cheaper.(at games anyway)
[YOUTUBE]eu8Sekdb-IE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[posepsi]

There are some games that prefer AMD, some that prefer Intel. In my purely anecdotal experience there seems to be more games that work better with an NVidia+Intel combo and there are some that have major game breaking issues with AMD.

Also what's up with that video, the guy has tons of books in the way. Carl Sagan, Frank Herbert, Richard Dawkins, Shatner, Elder Scrolls- is he trying to impress nerds or something?

 

[Negative]

It's probably just for looks, Pepsi.

 

[Phantasma]

I'm starting to have my doubts about the supposed efficiency boost with Nvidia Intel pairs. This same studio went on to run more tests to sate the outcry over their last video, and this time tested with a GTX670; an Nvidia card.

Spoiler: AMD-FX trampled the i5 in almost every game.

 

[posepsi]

I'm sure either AMD or Intel will work for anything as long as it is paired with a decent GPU, but I do know there are a few games with poor AMD optimization and can't think of anything that has poor Intel optimization.

 

[posepsi]

I'm sure either AMD or Intel will work for anything as long as it is paired with a decent GPU, but I do know there are a few games with poor AMD optimization(such as Planetside 2) and can't think of anything that has poor Intel optimization.