The AMD and Intel Dilema

[xK1LLSW1TCHx127]

Hey guys, I'm having a bit of A problem choosing a processor here. In about a month and a half i will be ordering parts for a new PC that i will be using for
Browsing teh interwebs
messing with android applications and the SDK
doing homework
image and video editing, nothing too fancy but high quality is good
and a a bit of gaming in the future

my problem is that the more i read about the AMD vs Intel battle, the harder it is to choose a processor.
i am torn between the i7 2600k/2700k, the i5 3570k and the i7 3770k (if i go with the ivy bridge chip it's really to use the integrated graphics for a few months till i have money for a discrete card) and the FX 8150.

everyone seems to think that the intel processors are better no matter what, is this true? or are there areas where the FX can match/surpass them? Is there ever really any reason that anyone should ever choose AMD over intel?

i will be putting either a gigabyte z77 or z68 board on the intels, and an asrock extreme on the FX, both would have 8GB of 1600 Mhz G.Skill Ram, 2TB of seagate barracuda's (4x500GB) in RAID 0+1, and eventually (hopefully) either an AMD Radeon HD 6870 or a Nvidia GTX 560ti, which would you choose?

Thanks guys i really appreciate it. BTW, this is the site i based my decision (so far) from
PassMark Software - CPU Benchmark Charts Seems Legit, right?

 

[C0RR0SIVE]

Intel is the king currently with the highest end processors in just about everything. AMD is more suited to low end and mid-range builds for cheap. If you are doing video editing an Intel chip would be far superior to AMD when talking about current generation processors.

If you give a budget someone here can help you piece together an exceptionally nice machine that meets your requirements and budget.

 

[xK1LLSW1TCHx127]

OK, thank you very much! I think that in about 2 months my budget will be limited to around 600 bucks, then by the end of the year i plan on having another 600 bucks to spend. Right now I'm mostly worried about CPU, Board, Ram, Case and a PSU. I will use the integrated graphics from now till December this year since i won't have any time for gaming or video editing fun (college applications and preparation for IB exams will take up all of my time)
so for the first 600 bucks i was thinking:

an i7 (Amazon.com: Intel Core i7 3770K processor 3.5 4 LGA 1155 BX80637I73770K: Computers & Accessories) or the i5 3570k

Amazon.com: Gigabyte Intel Z77 LGA1155 AMD CrossFireX W/HDMI,DVI Dual UEFI BIOS ATX Motherboard GA-Z77-D3H: Electronics

Amazon.com: Corsair Vengeance Blue 8 GB (2X4 GB) PC3-12800 1600mHz DDR3 240-Pin SDRAM Dual Channel Memory Kit CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B: Electronics

Amazon.com: Cooler master Power Supply 240-Pin 600 Power Supply RS600-PCARE3-US: Electronics

Amazon.com: Cooler Master Cooler Master Elite 430 Mid Tower ATX Case with Window (RC-430-KWN1): Electronics

What do you think? Suggestions please
by december i plan to add a GTX 480 or a Radeon HD 7850, and either an SSD or more RAM, or perhaps a new monitor. I am making this money all by myself, so a better deal for similar performance would be great =) Thanks!

 

[PP Mguire]

I would not buy a GTX480, rather put that money towards a 560ti or something.

3770k was a good call if you don't have any plans of overclocking. It will rock all your programs good though.

7850 would be a great card to have.

 

[xK1LLSW1TCHx127]

I would not buy a GTX480, rather put that money towards a 560ti or something.

3770k was a good call if you don't have any plans of overclocking. It will rock all your programs good though.

7850 would be a great card to have.

Thank you very much for that about the graphics card, I was really stuck between the two, nut why do you prefer the radeon to the gtx? Thanks again! I plan on overclocking when it is necessary, and I know that'll require water cooling, but I'll cross that bridge when I get there

 

[office politics]

i've read several web pages stating that amd has better integrated graphics than intel and a lower price point. if you're buying a external card and have the money for parts compatible with intel, then its best to go with intel.

GameSpy: AMD vs Intel: Gaming with No Graphics Card - Page 1

First off the rank is StarCraft II. It's not the newest game around, but like the original StarCraft it's going to be around for a long, long, long time. (Well, at least until Diablo III comes out, 'cause all bets are off after that. You won't see me, that's for sure.) Realistically, both the AMD and Intel chips -- without the help of any dedicated graphics card -- are capable of playing StarCraft II at a HD resolution with all the eye candy set to medium. Yes, that's rather impressive for a graphics card-free system. We'd class the AMD chip's performance as good, playing nicely with a minimum of jerkiness. The Intel chip wasn't quite as compelling, being noticeably jerky compared to the AMD setup beside it.

We repeated the same tests with the graphically demanding Metro 2033, just for a bit of run and gun action, and got a pretty poor performance from both. It was only when we dropped the resolution to 1024 x 768 that it was finally playable, with the AMD offering wiping the floor with Intel.

There is one game though that both chips smashed through; Blizzard's World of Warcraft: Cataclysm. The AMD Fusion A8-3850 was noticeably smoother, but the Intel isn't a slouch either. It's no surprise really, as WoW is an older game which doesn't present much of a challenge in the graphics department. If all you want to play is WoW - and that's actually a big percentage of PC gamers - either chip will be fine to do the job, with the AMD being the preferred solution.

So that's two from three that are quite playable, and as we tried more games we noticed a few trends. First and foremost, the AMD chip is far better than the Intel offering - to be blunt, we wouldn't recommend the Intel chip for any gaming purposes at all. The second conclusion, and it's a biggie, is that the AMD chip is fine for gaming provided you run at a low resolution (1024 x 768), and you run at minimum graphical detail settings. Yes, it's a big sacrfice to make - most PC games look worse than the console versions when run at this detail level.

 

[PP Mguire]

Thank you very much for that about the graphics card, I was really stuck between the two, nut why do you prefer the radeon to the gtx? Thanks again! I plan on overclocking when it is necessary, and I know that'll require water cooling, but I'll cross that bridge when I get there

Because the GTX480 is 2 gens old and the 7950 will run circles around it.

i've read several web pages stating that amd has better integrated graphics than intel and a lower price point. if you're buying a external card and have the money for parts compatible with intel, then its best to go with intel.

GameSpy: AMD vs Intel: Gaming with No Graphics Card - Page 1

The HD4000 isn't that bad for a "get me by". No point switching the baseline of the rig for better IGP to only have it a short amount of time.

 

[xK1LLSW1TCHx127]

Okie dokie, so Intel it is =) Now, i know that graphics wise there is a big difference between the 22nm i7 3770k and the 32nm i7 2600k, performance wise there isn't such a large difference. Is the Ivy bridge chip worth the extra 60 bucks? or would i be better off getting a i5 2500k or a 3570k? oh, and what is the cheapest video card i can buy that will run me Crysis and battlefield 3 on high or better at 1080p? From what i've heard it's like a 400 dollar card, which is a bit pricey. Is this true? Thanks!!!

 

[PP Mguire]

Okie dokie, so Intel it is =) Now, i know that graphics wise there is a big difference between the 22nm i7 3770k and the 32nm i7 2600k, performance wise there isn't such a large difference. Is the Ivy bridge chip worth the extra 60 bucks? or would i be better off getting a i5 2500k or a 3570k? oh, and what is the cheapest video card i can buy that will run me Crysis and battlefield 3 on high or better at 1080p? From what i've heard it's like a 400 dollar card, which is a bit pricey. Is this true? Thanks!!!

Question 1, the 3770k stock for stock is better than a 2600k. When OCed the slower 3770k is still better than the 2600k BUT you need sufficient cooling for the IB chip. For this, I have been telling people to get SB because they can clock higher with more comfortable heat levels. Bottom line though, the 3770k is still better.

Crysis doesn't take a very expensive card to max, but BF3 does. The cheapest card you can probably buy to max BF3 is either a 7870 or 570.