I'm looking to buy a new PC, mainly for gaming, but also for general use. I have heard many arguments for both Intel and AMD, and every time I read an article I change my mind! My budget is around 3K (for the whole PC). So would Intel be a better choice or AMD? Which specific version would be the best choice considering my modest budget?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Should I go with Intel or AMD?
- Thread starter TheJimmy
- Start date
Bandalo
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,660
If you're buying it today, Intel is your best bet in that price range. If you're gaming primarily, stick with a Z170/Skylake combo, skip the X99 route and spend the extra cash on GPU horsepower. I'd only go AMD if I was working under a much more strict budget.
If you're buying it in a few months, AMD will be releasing Zen, and there's still no [H]ard evidence on how it will perform. It might be a rock star and blow Intel out of the water at that price point. Or it might be a complete turd. No way of knowing right now.
If you're buying it in a few months, AMD will be releasing Zen, and there's still no [H]ard evidence on how it will perform. It might be a rock star and blow Intel out of the water at that price point. Or it might be a complete turd. No way of knowing right now.
the_servicer
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2013
- Messages
- 2,094
Do you have any preferences regarding the method of cooling?
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
Intel, easy one. Look for a 6700K.
Not really. I have never had a liquid cooling system. Had some problems with cooling fans in the past, but they can be easily replaced. How reliable are liquid cooling systems?
Bandalo
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,660
Most of the brand-name AIOs are very solid performers these days.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
Do you have a Microcenter near by of within a reasonable driving distance?
Edit: This is the cooler I would pick up: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...re=Predator_cooler-_-9SIAC8W4Z05667-_-Product
Either the 240 or 280 would work well. Since you are waiting, I think that is a good idea. However, you can still upgrade your cooling, case and power supply and transfer everything into it until you do a full upgrade.
If Intel, a 6850k or 5930k with the X99 platform would be just right. Most games are being produced with multi core ability now more than ever. However, what do you have and own right now?
4330thgink
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2001
- Messages
- 659
I was a long time AMD user until this past spring. From 1999 to earlier this year, the only Intel's I had were a laptop, an older Pentium 233 SMP rig and PIII SMP rig. ALL of the rest were AMD..
When I was comparing platforms for my next "5 year system" base upon what was immediately available at the time, the Intel won hands down. I ended up with a 5820K X99, nVidia 960GTX, 32GB ram, and a 256GB Samsung 950(plus 6 of my SATA spinners that I had prior in a couple RAID arrays). ....and the overall price wasn't much different from a top of the line AMD system - yet, the 5820K smokes anything that AMD has released to date. Then I was fortunate to get 5820K that overclocks stably to 4.5HGZ at 1.19v on all 6 cores(will probably do more at higher voltage, but this system has to last).
Now, one thing considered - my case(Thermaltake X9) and water cooling system were Christmas gifts from last year - so I didn't figure them into the cost of my build.
When I was comparing platforms for my next "5 year system" base upon what was immediately available at the time, the Intel won hands down. I ended up with a 5820K X99, nVidia 960GTX, 32GB ram, and a 256GB Samsung 950(plus 6 of my SATA spinners that I had prior in a couple RAID arrays). ....and the overall price wasn't much different from a top of the line AMD system - yet, the 5820K smokes anything that AMD has released to date. Then I was fortunate to get 5820K that overclocks stably to 4.5HGZ at 1.19v on all 6 cores(will probably do more at higher voltage, but this system has to last).
Now, one thing considered - my case(Thermaltake X9) and water cooling system were Christmas gifts from last year - so I didn't figure them into the cost of my build.
Last edited:
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
I am a long time AMD user and will not be switching ever unless AMD goes away. However, I do not keep my systems for 5 years either but the fact that you do makes that 5820k an excellent decision. For the budget he has, I figured the next one up might be better if he needs me PCIe lanes. Truth is, I went from an FX8350 to a 6700k and back to an FX 8300 at 4.5 Ghz. (I saw little to no day to day difference let alone at 4k.) However, had I actually stuck with what I saying originally and that the only worthwhile upgrade was a 5820k or higher, I would probably still be on that.
Last edited:
4330thgink
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2001
- Messages
- 659
I used to change my systems more often than I changed my underwear back in the day. .....countless thousands of dollars out the window(probably close to $30K) in 10 years time on PC parts. The system that I recently replaced is still working(AMD Phenom II 945 - which I'm posting from right now) - it has been in service since May 2010 and now is primarily a file sharing/storage system.
Then one day I realized I already had a big dick and didn't need to compete in the latest and greatest overclock pissing contest. lol I only play BF1942, Diablo 3(when I like the patch), and maybe I'll play BF1 some day. The rest of what I do on a computer is mostly email, spreadsheets, big PDF files, and your typical internet stuffs - sometimes all at the same time.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,634
Lol.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
It won't.
Speaking as someone who built a ton of AMD machines back in the day. They've been shit for years on the high end and aren't coming back any time soon. Intel is too far ahead.
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
You are just wasting your time. Same for those that thought AMD would sell a Titan killer in the shape of Polaris at 250$. How did that turn out. We know the price range of Zen, i7 killer is the last it is. AMD isn't a charity company. They price it exactly as high as they think it can sell, perhaps a bit higher as we have seen a few times.
Presently for Gaming and general use with that kind of budget INTEL!
Zen may give you more cores and threads for processing but for games and general use it would virtually be a waste. Also AMD already indicated the improvement expected of 40% increase per thread, which puts it behind the current Intel lineup per thread. If you did a lot of video work, 3d rendering other multi-threaded orientated programs then waiting for Zen maybe in order if on a stricter budget - you have 3K - why wait?
Waiting on Zen maybe a rather long wait - we don't know exactly when it will be available, nor if readily available, growing pains or new platform issues which could last for months. If you are ready for a new computer to get back into more serious gaming, grab an I7 6700K which are on sell now at NewEgg for $299, read up on the motherboards here using Z170 chipset and go from there.
PliotronX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2000
- Messages
- 2,070
Well put, ordinarily you know the default answer is just buy particularly with GPUs because there is always something better "just around the corner." But as you put it simply, analyzing the situation, AMD is going to crank out the first truly new design of theirs in a very long time so it might pan out to hang on for a bit. Everyone knows its not going to smash KL but it just might hit the sweet spot.
SomeGuy133
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 3,447
3K build? Intel 6700K period. get a binned silicon lottery chip while you are at it.
if you must have PCIe lanes or extra gores 68xx than but otherwise better single thread will serve you better. Everything uses single thread. (games, programs, OS, everything in single thread limited)
unclutchable
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 26
I don't even think it's possible to spend $3k on an AMD build lol
edit: I've built AMD systems my whole life (strictly out of budget) and have always been pleased with the performance per dollar. However, mid-range Intel chips from 3-4 years ago are still outperforming brand new "high-end" AMD chips. I've got an A10-5800K system that I will be swapping out for an i7-3820 (LGA2011) setup shortly. It's an older chip, but it will still outperform my current setup.
I just recently built an FX 8370 system for a co-worker. Only reason was he already had the board and memory.
All I did was transferring it to a new case, give him a new hard drive (and OS) and installed a new GPU. The funny thing was, testing it I had forgotten it was an AMD set up, I mean those AMD boards are atrocious but the system performance wasn't absolutely terrible. Still probably couldn't ever justify building one today unless I already had the parts.
All I did was transferring it to a new case, give him a new hard drive (and OS) and installed a new GPU. The funny thing was, testing it I had forgotten it was an AMD set up, I mean those AMD boards are atrocious but the system performance wasn't absolutely terrible. Still probably couldn't ever justify building one today unless I already had the parts.
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
No they are not. See datacenter as example.
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,825
I can answer this question. Intel. I can even tell you what to get. The i5 6600k. I can tell you where to get it, Microcenter if you have once close to you. It's only $159 dollars. If you get a motherboard, you can take an additional $30 dollars off. This makes the Skylake i5 6600k only $129 dollars.
AMD will never ever touch this price wise or performance wise. This is not a fight about who is better, AMD or Intel. It's about what's the cheapest and most powerful. If it was AMD, I would be telling you AMD. But it's not. It's Intel.
the 6600k at 4.4 to 4.7 is a beast for the money.
AMD will never ever touch this price wise or performance wise. This is not a fight about who is better, AMD or Intel. It's about what's the cheapest and most powerful. If it was AMD, I would be telling you AMD. But it's not. It's Intel.
the 6600k at 4.4 to 4.7 is a beast for the money.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
Since when are those AMD boards atrocious? The performance is actually quite good and usually indistinguishable for day to day stuff that Intel has. I mean, did he have some $40 crap board or something?
If you can't wait until Zen comes out there is no reason to even consider an AMD build with your budget.
The only reason to wait for zen at this point is if you want to support it as a way of sending a fuck you to Intel for the product releases of the last few cycles.
It's doubtful at best it will be anywhere near the current i5/i7 at a price performance level. You obviously have the budget, no reason not to get the top end i7 now
It's doubtful at best it will be anywhere near the current i5/i7 at a price performance level. You obviously have the budget, no reason not to get the top end i7 now
unclutchable
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 26
I've been out of the loop for a while - what's up with Intel's latest releases? Not much of a performance increase over previous generations?
KL uses the same SL cores, so performance is the same. There are a few additions but the biggest is the iGPU and 4k (DRM) support.
Shintai
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,678
Look at servers and mobile. Huge progress. The problem is on the desktop and the software.
Kaby Lake on mobile gives up to 25% more performance over Skylake on tested laptops at notebookreview.
SomeGuy133
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 3,447
thats because intel got around to actually optimizing turbo voltages and tweak speed shift. That is where all the gain was.
I wish notebookcheck and other places would have recorded votlage and TDP so we could see why there was such a big boost. I wager it was voltage reductions.
I don't think that Zen will be able to match Intel's current or future offerings anytime soon in regard to raw performance. It remains to be seen but AMD may have options that are a better value propositions at certain price points offering more performance for less money in certain segments. Until Zen is released and we know more about the Zen lineup and the motherboard platform we can't really say. If it is raw performance you are after or your budget allows for it then I agree that there is no reason not to buy the Core i7 today.
Since the introduction of Sandy Bridge we've never seen more than a 3%-11% performance increase in most applications per generation. Most application performance improvements are the type of increase that shows up in benchmarks alone. For gaming things are even more depressing as actual game performance is far more GPU limited than CPU limited and as a result the performance improvement in games is even smaller than that per generation. Post Sandy Bridge CPUs also tend to have lower overclocking headroom from one generation to the next. With each IPC improvement we've seen roughly 100-200MHz less clock speed over the previous generation until roughly Devil's Canyon. At which point we've seen 4.7GHz on the high side in most cases with subsequent generations offering nothing more than that. Some of the memory controllers have been extremely fickle. Haswell-E, Broadwell, Skylake and Broadwell-E have all been kind of a pain in the ass with memory compatibility. Yes, clock speeds for RAM have improved but these are more difficult to stabilize with certain modules than Devil's Canyon and Haswell were.
I agree with all of the above. Expanding on these points, I have a few thoughts.
On the server side, Intel has proven quite adaptable since the real start of x86 platforms in the server world which happened in the early to mid-1990's. Sure X86 servers existed previously, but they were never high end. Intel offered a solution that wasn't faster but was far cheaper. A bonus is that X86 servers could use a version of Windows which made it easier for people in the IT industry to learn and use. Back in the early days, Intel had a huge deficit to overcome with regard to raw performance as MIPS, DEC Alpha and other solutions were much higher performing options. Granted those server platforms were much more expensive which is another point in Intel's favor. Over time Intel closed the performance gap while keeping costs down. There was a certain synergy with Microsoft Windows NT and its successors as well. The OS was familiar enough and Microsoft kept making huge strides with each version. Once the "wintel" platform achieved the necessary cost / performance and scalability ratios it needed to succeed the platform became the dominant one in many businesses if not most of them.
As software multithreading improved the need for processors with raw single threaded performance and higher clock speeds dwindled. With virtualization and platform scalability the market demand shifted to a point where customers had the performance they needed and the focus began to shift towards saving money. In huge datacenters with thousands of systems, power savings across a few hundred or a couple of thousand servers greatly reduces datacenter operating costs. When power consumption and heat production drops, the cost of cooling those servers does too. Sure there is still a need for performance, but again the hardware is way ahead of most software demands. Today we need more cores and RAM for performance given the requirements for larger virtualized infrastructures.
The mobile market is a different beast but the needs of that market mirror that of the server market to a point where there is a big overlap in requirements. In that market you want more performance with greater battery life. As is the case with the server market, the solution is performance per watt, not raw performance. As a result technology developed for one market translates well enough to the other. We get less cores on the laptop / mobile market but that market has slightly different single vs. multicore performance ratio that most would consider optimal. You need a bit higher clock speed and less cores because of the software that market uses. So Intel can satisfy both the server and workstation markets through scaling the same product to meet the needs of those two diverse groups because at their core, performance per watt is the goal in both places.
The desktop market is another beast entirely. This market is frankly a niche market these days. High end gaming and content creation are the largest reasons why you need the power which mandates this form factor. Here performance rules as energy costs concerns are negligible in the grand scheme of things. Sure some of our games and applications do require multiple cores which, thanks to the server market is easily done. This is another area where market overlap allows great economies of scale with its products for Intel. This market can obviously benefit from greater single threaded performance but even so GPU performance is more of a concern the way modern games are written. This leaves content creators as the primary consumers of high end multicore CPUs. Its a niche within a niche. As a result, Intel doesn't do much to cater to this crowd. Adapting server CPUs to fit their needs is good enough as they are the only game in town. So we the gamers and content creators essentially get the server market's leftovers.
In other words, that's why Kaby Lake isn't a big deal for the desktop and why it's a huge improvement in the mobile and server markets. It's arguably a bigger deal for the mobile market as the iGPU is a massive leap forward over what was packaged with Skylake.
whateverer
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2016
- Messages
- 1,815
No, it's not. Only the 6700k is on sale at Microcenter, and it's only 20 bucks less than their usual discount.
You can see the 6600k is $200 right here, just like it's always been. If it was less, it was for a quick Black Friday sale.
http://www.microcenter.com/product/451885/Core_i5-6600K_SkyLake_35GHz_1151_Boxed_Processor
Scheibler1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
Up until about a week ago the 6600k/6700k were both much cheaper. Wasnt just bf. 6700k was 260...now it's 300 again
whateverer
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2016
- Messages
- 1,815
NO, it's not $300 again. It's been this same price since the end of November. I JUST TOOK THIS PICTURE.
http://www.microcenter.com/product/451883/Core_i7-6700K_40GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor
There are two deluded people in this thread. Do I hear a third? I can do this all day. Show me a picture of the 6700k price lower than $279. Or the 6600k lower than $200.
Scheibler1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
Lol it was 260 for a while here in stl. I thought about buying it
Maybe they are including tax in their $300 price? Here in Dallas, it would put it at $303 with tax. I wish I had bought one when they were on sale for $240 before tax for 2-3 weeks. I am hoping it will go back on sale for $240 by end of month or next month. I'm finally building new machine for myself.
Back to original poster's request, if you have up to $3K, that can buy you a really good PC and monitor(s). I'm going to assume you are buying monitors since $3K budget for a only a PC sounds high to me. My recommendation would be to wait until middle of next month and see what reviews say for Zen. If going to buy one by end of month, then I would recommend Intel CPU. In the meantime, I would recommend at least start buying your main parts, hard drives, case, and power supply.
3k for a PC alone without monitors isn't high. I've got 3k in the graphics cards and CPU alone. There are at least a few people on the forum with even better machines than mine. While few people drop that much coin on a PC alone anymore, there are lots of people who still do. In other words "high" is relative.
Presbytier
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2016
- Messages
- 1,058
If you are just looking at gaming i recommend the SEGA Dreamcast even comes with a built in 56k modem and the japanes version had banking software to take care of any investment needs. Plus it can't run blender so there won't be any meaningless benchmarks to argue about.