AMD or Intel upgrade question

[leezard]

I'm about to start putting together a new rig, I really dont have an attachment to either AMD or Intel, I've been mostly an Intel user but have no problem going AMD. Been looking at a lot of mobo/cpu bundles today and leaning more towards AMD as it looks like the more bang for the buck choice. But i havent kept up with AMD since I had an Athlon 1700 so dont have any idea what CPU's from AMD would be considered equivalent to Intels. for example just buy going by $ amount on two bundles

Intel Core i5 4670 and Gigabyte GA-B85-HD3 Desktop Motherboard - Intel B85 Express Chipset - Socket H3 LGA-1150 for $300
or
AMD FX 8350 and GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard for $300

How do those CPU's compare performance wise?

current rig
e8400 stock speeds
4GB RAM
AMD 7750 GPU (Will still be using in new rig)
WD 500GB SATA HDD primary drive (will be re-used until I get an SSD)

I do some gaming but not looking for bleeding edge performance, currently playing BF4, Batman Arkham City and a few other older games.

Dont care much about overclocking anymore, just want something that works

Dont do a lot of "heavy lifting" with my PC...maybe rip a DVd every now and then to put on my phone.

 

[Kendle6661]

This is from an AMD fan boy, you will probably get a little better performance with an I5 than the AMD fx 8350 but not much. I prefer AMD because it usually a little cheaper than Intel , for comparable performance...........it always depends on what you want to do with it

 

[defaultluser]

Yup, gonna have to recommend Intel if the price is the same.

While AMD can get similar performance to the 4670 if all 8 cores are firing, it lags behind in anything that doesn't scale that high. While the 8350 only offers a 20% improvement in single-threaded performance over your E8400, the 4670k is TWICE as fast. Better to have all that extra zip for programs that can't use more than 2-3 cores.

If we were talking more in the price range of the FX 6350 I'd give the edge to AMD...just barely. But when Intel whips-out their quad core with turbo to 3.8 GHZ, there's nothing like it in AMD's catalog

 

[Dangman]

Yup, Intel hands down.

 

[uOpt]

Performance for what?

AMD is more competitive in some areas and less in others.

Keep in mind good boards can be cheaper.

 

[Dreamerbydesign]

Another vote for Intel. Even going the 1155 route would make more sense than AMD with the current 1155 pricing.

 

[tiraides]

Performance for what?

Intel processors perform better than AMD's in single-threaded tasks and gaming. Even the dual-core Intel Core i3 processors have some performance wins over most AMD quad-cores.

 

[leezard]

Thanks for the info, looks like I'll be sticking with Intel for now

 

[uOpt]

Intel processors perform better than AMD's in single-threaded tasks and gaming. Even the dual-core Intel Core i3 processors have some performance wins over most AMD quad-cores.

It is a lot more complicated than that. Just for my uses, AMD does well for compiling things but badly for some image processing.

 

[leezard]

It is a lot more complicated than that. Just for my uses, AMD does well for compiling things but badly for some image processing.

Yeah I'm not doing anything like that at all, I'm at my computer a lot but no serious computing. rip an occasional DVD, do some gaming, streaming video stuff like that.

I'm gonna go with an intel bundle with an i5 4670 but going to spend a little more and not get the one with the Gigabyte board, found one for $30 more with an ASRock Fatal1ty Z87 Killer board that will give the ability to go crossfire if I want and supports faster RAM