Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Intel Vs Amd?
Which CPU should I buy?
Intel or AMD?
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-5960X-vs-AMD-FX-9590/2580vs1812
Looking for a good Gaming PC I have seen the bench marks say Intel is better all around even a 5930 Intel CPU beats the latest AMD Plus DDR4 memory was thinking more around the lines of a 5930 + Rampage with 32 Gigs DDR4 memory.
But at the same time I have a few friends telling me Intel Have a High Failure Rate (Talking non Over Clocking) and all my PC Builds up till now have all been AMD Based never had one CPU fry yet and have used my current cpu for 7 years.
Which is true should I go Intel or Amd?
Comments
The choice comes down to budget, if you can afford Intel then go Intel, if you can't then go AMD. The fact that you're even considering an X99 build shows that budget isn't a concern so it really shouldn't even be a question. Personally i'd be going down the Haswell route instead, there's no sense in spending so much money on X99 for gaming when a 4790k will have you covered for years to come. But if you insist on going X99 then perhaps opt for the 5820 which is half the price of the 5930.
I'd ignore your friends telling you Intel have a high failure rate, they don't. The CPU is one of the least likely components to die on you no matter which brand you go for.
Intel is better for more expensive gaming systems because it has better single core performance. In theory AMD delivers superior price/performance ratio, but in practice they do it by installing more processor cores and games can't take full advantage of it.
With that kind of budget there is no reason to consider AMD.
For gaming you are going way overkill and will be spending just for the sake of spending with an X99 build. Go with a Haswell build and if you just have extra money to spend then get a top of the line GPU ( or two), large SSD ( or two ), ect.
But you may have needs that warrant buying that CPU, gaming isnt one of them tho.
Well I am considering what to buy still Perhaps I might go down the Haswell build as well.
However here is what I am thinking about.
Currently I am running a AMD Phenom II X4 955 3.0 Ghz
8 GB DDR2 800
2GB 750 TI
Generally I find that I am running most games perfectly that I play but when it comes to games like Planet Side 2, Star Citizen, Ever Quest Land Mark, or Fire-Fall, I am running into issues with FPS, and Lag.
I can multi-box 5 EVE Online Clients, but I am looking for a Build that can Max 5-10 EVE Online clients without lagging, and at least 2 Dark Fall Unholy Wars clients without lagging DFUW is also memory intensive Generally I can run two DFUW clients on this computer without crashing as long as there isn't a lot of combat going on but the fps both runs at like 30 FPS on each client and around 60-80 when not in combat on a single client.
If I went down the route of buying a 4790k which is a LGA 1150 (Would this be fast enough) Based off the bench marks buying a 4930 would only get me 27% faster multi-core speed plus it does use DD3 Memory which is supposed to be some-what outdated now would it be better to shoot for something like 64 gigs DDR3 as it is much cheaper than DDR4, or perhaps maybe I should just run a X79 Route running a 4930 with DDR3, although the costs came out to about the same as running with a 2011-v3 build.
In general im looking for something that is fast all around faster transfer speeds which will no doubt be faster once I install a SSD but something that isn't going to get fps lag with anything I am trying to do.
Also is there really a huge difference between a DDR 3 and DDR4 memory build although DDR4 has higher latency based off some of what I have read it has other factors that make it faster?
For gaming, as of today, the Core i7 4790k is the fastest gaming CPU you can buy (at stock clocks). The Core i5 4690K is right on it's heels (and about $100 cheaper).
Yes, there is Haswell E (the Core i7 5000 series) - they have more cores. They also have a slower clock. Considerably slower at stock speeds. For gaming purposes, those extra cores don't net you nearly as much as the lower clock looses you. That's not to say the E chips are slow, by any means, or that games 3-4 years from now won't benefit from 6-8 core CPUs, but today they barely utilize a quad core.
Now if you decide to overclock, that probably evens the odds a bit. But I haven't really heard of anything still beating the 4790k in any gaming benchmarks (sure plenty of others, but not gaming at least), and that only beats the 4690k by just a hair on average.
As far as DDR4 vs DDR3 - right now DDR4 has more throughput, but higher latency. For gaming purposes, I would be surprised if this amounts to more than a single-digit percent difference in FPS.
As far as high failure rate: hmm. Personally, I've never had a CPU fry that wasn't because I did something boneheaded (put on a heatsink cocked, dumped a liquid cooling system on the motherboard, etc). I've also never seen a CPU that was installed and working just up and decide to quit - it's almost always the motherboard, PSU, GPU, or RAM and the CPU still works fine. That goes Intel or AMD.
If you're multiboxing and running as many as 10 clients at a time, then you'll need to build somewhat differently than normal gaming computers, and it might really be good idea to go with Intel's 8 core processor and DDR4 RAM if you have money to burn.
Remember that processing power isn't the only one that counts. If you run multiple games on multiple monitors, then you should also consider getting multiple graphic cards and that'll cost a lot too.
EDIT: You might also want to consider asking for help from a website that's dedicated to multiboxing. Many of us can build a great gaming computer, but we don't really have the experience of what's required to run 10 clients at once /EDIT
A lot depends on the type of game. Console type games run extremely well on both processors, while MMOs and RTS strategy games tend to be heavy on the CPU and not well optimised to use multiple cores, so favour Intel.
With a very high budget there's no reason to consider AMD. For a low budget it's by far the best option.
Newer games use multiple cores better than older ones - partly because the new consoles are based on 8-core AMD parts. Games are beginning to list an i7 (8 thread) or AMD 6-8 core CPU as recommended specs.
Don't worry about RAM. Unless you're using integrated AMD GPUs (the APUs) it almost always makes no perceptible difference to gaming performance.
Do you overclock your current CPU? When overclocked, it should be on-par with modern AMD CPUs for single-threaded performance.
Do you have a SSD in your current system? If not, get one and use it for your OS drive and games. The difference in loading speeds and overall system responsiveness will make you never want to go back to mechanical drives. Obviously, you will need a mechanical drive if you store terrabytes of media (movies, music, pr0n).
If you're trying to run 10 game clients at the same time, it might be better to build more than one system and have the keystrokes sent to the other computers. I know a program exists for doing that, but I have no idea what it is called.
If you want to match current consoles, I would not use AMDs current desktop CPUs. They are not the same architecture. The best match for the AMD console CPUs is the Intel Core i7 3970.
The AMD CPUs should not be considered for a gaming CPU. The only real application is parallel applications that use 6-8 cores well. Something like CGI rendering is done better with AMD CPUs and GPUs. CGI rendering is not the same thing as real time rendering.
The Piledriver or Steamroller cores that AMD will sell you in a desktop are much, much faster cores than what the PS4 or Xbox One have. An FX-8350 will at least double the performance of the console CPUs in just about everything, and sometimes do a lot better than that, even.
The reason the consoles went with AMD's lower end Jaguar cores is that they use much less power, take much less die space, and are much easier to port to new process nodes. All of those are a big deal in consoles, especially when you're trying to fit the CPU and GPU into a single die and don't want to burn 300 mm^2 and 125 W for the CPU alone.
Multithreading is not a good replacment for actual threads. If a game is made for PS4/XB1 it will be optimized for 8 threads, and 8 sets of cache. Running that on a 4ghz intel quad core would result in potential cache thrashing.
Look at BF3 comparisons as an example. While Intel had a framerate advantage the blind tests found overwhelming prefrence for AMD FX 8 core due to microstuttering from cache thrashing. It was noticable.
I would not reccomend Intel quad cores for the best performance on the newest console ports. Would be better to simply OC AMD FX and eliminate the IPC bottleneck.
I went intel cpu and amd gpu because I want to crossfire.
If I had no intention on getting 2 dicrete gpus, I would have gotten an amd apu and 1 amd gpu.
And what exactly is that supposed to mean? My best guess is that you meant, "Hyperthreading is not a good replacement for actual cores." But what you said is so far off from that that I'm not sure.
From personal experience of owning both Intel and AMD, I have to say that Intel's single core performance is what makes it the best gaming CPU. Personally, I wouldn't event consider AMD CPU unless I'm on very tight budget.
However, I think that i7 might be an overkill for gaming. i5 will do just as good, with much better price/performance ration (if that's your concern).
I'd like to point out that it's not the logo on the box, but the particular part you get that matters. I wouldn't want someone to buy a Pentium D that they find cheaply and think it must be a good chip because it says Intel Inside.
My current recommendation is that if you're willing to spend what it takes to get a Core i5-4670K or 4690 or better and build around it properly, then you get an Intel Haswell CPU (or possibly Haswell-E on a very large budget). If not, then you save some money by going with an FX-6300 or AMD A-series APU.
It all boils down to getting the best FPS in games or whatever you want to do with that speed, and the best way to figure out what is best for you, is taking a look at a couple of benchmarks on youtube and see actual FPS results in games with hardware you're interested in. Multiple other ways to go about this and find websites reviewing each CPU you are interested in.
Just do your benchmark research and everything will be fine
i7 4790k is the way to go. (2-Cents)
The 4790k is way too overpowered for gaming. Cpus have gone way past gaming requirements by a mile. Just go onto game debate and check by what percentage cpus out strip games.
An i7 4771 runs rome 2 at 400% of whats needed.
Cpus are not the limiting factor at all, they out power games by a mile. gpus are the more important thing.
I will echo what others have said - if you have a tight budget, AMD. If not, Intel is definitely the way to go.
i have a medium budget...not too tight, not too excessive...not sure which cpu suits me.
AMD in general sucks.
Even their top of the line is much more expensive than Intel and their 5k series (1 designed with 6 and 8 cores) destroy it, all of which are cheaper.
Intel for gaming is better too because they offer higher ghz.
For the price who cares. What are they down to now.. $250 maybe.
There's no one single answer, which isn't surprising given the breadth of the market.
For a low budget gaming PC, AMD's APUs are the answer. These can play most games very well at 720p, and reasonably well at 1080p. Very low cost and great performance for the money.
In the midrange, it's between AMD's FX 63xx/83xx CPUs and the Intel i5, mostly depending on what type of game you play. Console/FPS games you'll get better results with an AMD CPU and the extra spent on the GPU. With RTS games, you'll get better performance with a more expensive i5.
At the higher end, the i7. This is best used alongside the top end graphics cards, especially with SLI/Crossfire.
I agree with this with 2 additions:
Unless you get some fantastic deal, generally there are no Core i5's worth considering except the 4690. The K-edition is an optional ~$20 upgrade that can be skipped if you are on a budget, but generally is worth it. You lose a lot of performance as you drop from the 4690, but your still paying and a hefty premium for the chip as you look down the SKUs.
The difference for gaming between the i5 4690 and the i7 4790 (the only i7 I would really consider barring a really good deal) is ... about $120 US. There are other facets where there are more significant differences (video encoding, rendering, file compression, etc), but as far as gaming is concerned, the two chips are very nearly identical in performance. So I wouldn't automatically assume that a higher end budget needs to go with an i7 just because the budget is less constrained - there is usually still a budget, and that extra $120 could go toward something fairly substantial (that's close to the difference between a GTX970 or GTX980, for instance).
Other notes:
For gaming, Intel socket 1150 should pretty much always go with a Z97 motherboard. The H-series, generally, are not well suited for gaming (they artificially limit the turbo speed, among other things).
If you are looking apples to apples for similar features and build quality, a similar AMD motherboard will be about $20-40 less than a comparable Intel motherboard. That's additional savings above and beyond the price of the CPU itself that can be considered.
The Intel i7's on the X99 platform are really only going to outperform a Z97 platform once you get up to Tri/Quad graphics cards. They have more cores, but slower clock speeds in general, and DDR4 RAM right now doesn't really present any gaming advantage over DDR3.The extra PCI lanes on the X99 come in handy when your trying to push a lot of video cards around though.