How does a 4 ghz 6-core amd processor compare to a 3.3 ghz quad-core I5?
I'm thinking of building my brother a gaming computer for Christmas, and I know that for any given clock speed, amd processors won't be as fast as the same intel processor because of the different chipsets used in the processor, but just how do they compare? I'm sort of leaning towards the amd processor at the moment, because it would allow me to spend more on the graphics processor.
Comments
the i5-3470 beats the 4.0ghz fx-8350 in performance for both gaming, and multi-threaded tasks like video editing, and etc.
its also cheaper, and uses less power >.>
the i3-3220 beats the fx 8150 in gaming performance, but not multi-thread performance. So that means it will also beat the 6000 for gaming, but again not for multi-threaded performance.
its not that amd cpus cant play games, or cant max games or anything.
It maybe only be like 2-5 fps in the difference in cpu performance between the intel and amd cpus. BUT since they are better in every way, and cost the same (if not cheaper) then those amd cpus, why buy amd... 2-5 fps at a equal or cheaper price?
also pci-e 3.0 will also add more of an fps difference especially when running multi cards or a high end card.
EDIT: people below are just amd fanboys...
they are just like "derp amd has more cores, that means they are better zomg derp"
games only use 2 cores, having more does literally nothing for performance....
the 3rd gen intels are the ONLY cpus that support pci-e 3.0... even with a 912830981374028508 ghz fx-8350, you still will be bottlenecking a gtx670 with pci-e 2.0 bandwidth....
benchmarks dont lie, especially when EVER SINGLE intel benchmark in real life performance (not using benchmark software) beats amd cpus of similar price, or even higher priced amds...
amds only win in benchmark software, but how does that help you in any real life applications >.>
maybe when amd stops focusing on scamming stupid fanboys with paper specs like "more cores", they will actually be good again...
and all the amd fanboys overlook amds best gaming cpus completely >.>
the amd A8/A10 are FAR better then the fx-8350 or any other FX series in gaming. They are also cheaper, run cooler, use alot less power... (that really shows how ignorant amd fanboys are, they dont even look at all the amd cpus....)
the amd a8-5600k + cpu cooler + overclock = more cpu performance then the i3-3220s. But again intel has pci-e 3.0 so you will get full gpu bandwidth.
If amd gets their heads out of their asses, and get pci-e 3.0 support, and keep working on single/dual threaded performance cpus like the amd A-series. they might actually be ahead...
(minion is dumb... you dont multiple clock speed by cores to get performance....)
EDIT2: @minion
how am i an intel fanboy?
im a fanboy of logic and intelligence...
logic says the i3-3220 beats all amd FX cpus in gaming performance. Its cheaper, uses less power, runs cooler, pci-e 3.0 support, and ddr3-1600 support. EVERY SINGLE game benchmark places the i3-3220 above ALL amd cpus.
So by me not being retarded, makes me an intel fanboy?
you know why the amd answers got rated down? because they are retarded...
lets see shall we "amd = 32ghz intel = 12ghz" o yes, thats totally not a statement worth thumbs down you are right....
and the other ones, arnt any more true then yours... how does getting and amd cpu allow you to get a better graphics card? you are buying a $140 amd cpu(fx6300), or a $120 intel cpu(i3-3220)... o yes logic...
and then the other good one "get amd because amd kicks intels ***"
youre serious? you are questioning why those were rated down? really? my opinion of you was already next to nothing, but your retarded logic know no bounds does it....
and why would a intel fanboy go out of their way to mention the amd A8 cpus, and the fact mention its better then the i3 (especially when amd fanboys dont even acknowledge their existence?).
The amd A8 would be completely better then the i3-3220 IF they supported pci-e 3.0, but since they dont, well.... (and why they didnt i have no clue, as they were released after pci-e 3.0)
im sorry but you are just a retarded amd fanboy who doesnt know anything about computers....
the requirements for a fanboy is being retarded, and you have that in spades...
so lets see
i base my statements off facts, knowledge, math, real world testing
you base yours on, "amd is better" and lying
ya.... i wonder who the fanboy is....
Very poorly....
AMD processors are just cheap substitutes for Intel, for people that don't know or don't care about performance.
Also AMD allows their processors to run at 90 to 95% capacity, in order to be able to advertise faster clock speeds (GHZ). That accounts for higher temperatures and the processor being more exposed to failure. Intel protects their processors by limiting the clock speed (GHz) well bellow what the processor can actually handle (75 to 80% tops). This results in lower temperatures and more stable performance for Intel.
In fact, that AMD is just a dual core processor with 4 processing threads, but since AMD has literary redefined the definition of a processor core, they advertise it as a quad core.
Also, only completely uneducated people would judge a processor by its clock speed (GHz).
The quad core Intel i5 is much better.
the fact of the matter is unless its a phenom ii dont buy it i am using amd fx8120
the fact is there cheap but theres a good reason im using alot more electric then i should need too thus i am not even going to build a amd pc ever again due to the fact if you want a energy saving pc
i5 is the way to go the i5-3350P is the cheapest were i am in the uk at the moment on scan.co.uk
this is a simple processor its a cut down i5 slightly no intergrated graphics and a smaller cache
this doesnt hinder performance to badly in games
infact it handles games well due to being at 3.10 ghz
the main reason the fx series fails is just bad designing of there techology it is inbetween a athlon x4 and a phenom ii in gaming performance this is due to windows 7 doesnt reconise it
8 does a lil bit but this is only a 15 percent boost putting it closer to the phenom series with a upped cache overclocking seems no good as the techologhy today reconises the duel cores which is 3 in the 6100fx as a single core
it doesnt compare, the intel cpus are much much better processors, even if the amd seems to have a faster clock speed they still will not be as good, go with an i5 every time
AMD processors are worse for overclocking because they produce more heat, but if you don't plan to do an OC to the CPU it will work.
Intel Processors have an advantage because they have better quality at the same Clocking speed
so:
if you want to build a log-lasting computer you should take the I5 but if you need the power and you will risk to buy a new CPU in 3 or 5 years because of the tecnical progress you should buy the AMD
EDIT: i kinda talked crap in there... (thx Filenotfound) yeah, one does not multiply them...
but otherwise @filenotfound: you sir are an intel fanboy
I admit Intel CPUs are higher
quality but also at higher price... so my cpu at by intel would have cost 250 instead of 90 €
btw, noticing how every AMD answer got like 2-3 dislikes? intel fanboys....
Better tech inside the i5
With gaming, the graphics card is the determining factor. Therefore, I'd get the AMD and get the better graphics card.
I don't think that's true, in fact, I think it's the other way around. The AMD will certainly kick more *** than the Intel.