By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
disolitude on 12 September 2013
Edit Thread
CGI-Quality said:
Captain_Tom said:

SLI and everything wouldn't apply to a simple build, as you know, so I offer Intel as an option, because even the cheaper procs offer better performance than comparable AMD processors. Gaming rigs under $1K offer good cases for Intel, as well. With $500 just for his CPU, I don't see an issue with Intel, but if he wants to save, then no doubt, go with AMD.

Of course everyone doesn't buy top level gear, but I think price vs performance complaints toward Intel are vastly exaggerated.

You know what I will just jump in and try to end this debate right now with these two facts I think we can all agree on:

-Many people act like all of Intel's CPU's are crazy overpriced.   This is not true.  $120 for an i3 is fine, and $50 for a 2.9GHz Celeron is a steal!

-Many people act like AMD CPU's are crazy weak POS.  This is insanely not true.  Some AMD CPU's beat some intel and vice versa.  It depends on which ones we are talking about.

Overall just make sure you buy at least a quadcore or higher.  PEACE!

Nah, Disolitude knows his stuff, so I'm not meaning to come at him like he's misinformed. I just know this debate will never end if he and I go at it!

However, I agree that both situations can be exaggerated, but I was under the impression he wanted a newer CPU, in which case, I suggested Intel. Unless I didn't get the memo, later Processors tend to sway in Intel's favor, and this is confirmed in some of the tests that I've done on the newer hardware. Higher benchmarks and better gaming performance (even though, some AMD CPUs worked better in Tomb Raider, Crysis 3, and Far Cry 3).

I appreciate the comment above, but I do want to state that I enjoy debating. So yeah if the topic is repetitive, its most likely cause of that... :)

One final statement I want to make is that Intel only pulled ahead of AMD in terms of gaming performance with Sandy Bridge. With the old i7s, they were trading blows with cheaper Phenoms II X4s and getting beaten by the similarly priced Phenom X6 cpus. Sure they had their 1000 dollar i7 980X, but for gaming the price is a non starter. But after Sandy Bridge it was obviously better to go with Intel for high end...

I personally believe that if intel weren't such stingy fucks they could wipe the floor with AMD. They just don't want to set the bar too high but would rather milk every dollar they can out of incremental performance products.