The Best CPU for the Money: AMD FX vs. Intel Budget Shootout

This article makes no sense. It's called "Budget Shootout", yet it uses a high-end GPU to emphasize AMDs weaknesses.

A "budget" oriented buy would also use this budget CPU with a bugdet GPU. So none of this 980 nonsense. The gaming benches should've used an R9 270X or the GTX 760/960.

Budget gaming setups usually max out GPU performance way before CPUs even matter.
 
I'm puzzled by the encoding benchmarks. Every one I've seen before this shows the AMD processors absolutely fly ahead over the i3 and can even sometimes outperform an i7. Were they all set to single thread encoding? Most other recent gaming benchmarks put the FX on par or above the i3 too, with the exception of some titles (Company of Heroes is one of the main examples).

I'd also have used 4.4 or 4.5GHz on the AMD CPU. Power use rises massively above 4.5GHz with only a small increase in performance.
 
I was asking myself the same question. Why in the hell do they test old single threaded crap games like Company of heroes 2?? Where are multithreaded games which can use more than 4 cores like BF4, Crysis 3 or Dragon Age Inquisition??
 
I'm puzzled by the encoding benchmarks. Every one I've seen before this shows the AMD processors absolutely fly ahead over the i3 and can even sometimes outperform an i7. Were they all set to single thread encoding? Most other recent gaming benchmarks put the FX on par or above the i3 too, with the exception of some titles (Company of Heroes is one of the main examples).

I'd also have used 4.4 or 4.5GHz on the AMD CPU. Power use rises massively above 4.5GHz with only a small increase in performance.
Lol at how mad you are getting over the truth. ANd the fact they didn't use intel quick sync makes you damn lucky. If they did, it would be x10 faster in encoding then amd cpus.
 
Lol at how mad you are getting over the truth. ANd the fact they didn't use intel quick sync makes you damn lucky. If they did, it would be x10 faster in encoding then amd cpus.

Er, ok. I've got a 4770K, so I'm not sure how that'd make me lucky. Using a low quality hardware encoding vs high quality software encoding wouldn't be a fair comparison, by the way.
 
cliffordcooley,
do you really think peoples buy same price AMD cpu instead of Intel because its slower?
Did you know AMD means CPU as CPU because the APU contains Graphically units?
 
Er, ok. I've got a 4770K, so I'm not sure how that'd make me lucky. Using a low quality hardware encoding vs high quality software encoding wouldn't be a fair comparison, by the way.
Thats what every newb crying about amd scores says.
 
This article makes no sense. It's called "Budget Shootout", yet it uses a high-end GPU to emphasize AMDs weaknesses.

A "budget" oriented buy would also use this budget CPU with a bugdet GPU. So none of this 980 nonsense. The gaming benches should've used an R9 270X or the GTX 760/960.

Budget gaming setups usually max out GPU performance way before CPUs even matter.

Yeah, this is a very good point. Using a 980 in a budget comparison is a bit odd.

With a 770 we get results that look a lot better for the FX CPU:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8864/amd-fx-8320e-cpu-review-the-other-95w-vishera/5
 
This article makes no sense. It's called "Budget Shootout", yet it uses a high-end GPU to emphasize AMDs weaknesses.

A "budget" oriented buy would also use this budget CPU with a bugdet GPU. So none of this 980 nonsense. The gaming benches should've used an R9 270X or the GTX 760/960.

If you read it all the way to the conclusion, in the end the comparison is between the 8XXX series of AMD vs Intel i3 and i5.

Budget gaming setups usually max out GPU performance way before CPUs even matter.
It never said budget gaming setups, it went for the best bang for the buck -and then again read all the way through- and it made the differences in the conclusion. Also I've played some not so new games that are heavy cpu dependant.
 
This article reflects nowhere near the reality of this processors. Truth be told, I know have a nice 4790K coupled with a ASRock Z97M OC Formula motherboard, however, just before I had a system that had an AMD FX8350 with a motherboard ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3 (Proof https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgq7IAkcETo as this motherboard has issues with an R290x hence I made that video),

The processor was even undervolted and boost disabled in order to avoid throttling (because that motherboard was already on the limits :) ) yet, I can tell you that the processor has atleast 2/3 the power of the 4790K, I tested this with my own developed programs, as I'm working on vision.

I did indeed upgrade to the 4790K, but only because I needed raw performance per core, but 2/3 of this processor with the FX8350 it ain't bad even when I did not have boost...

Note however, I will complain about the motherboard selection for the FX8350, whereas the ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3 did indeed the job, it had problems with newer GPUs like the R290x, since I also use OpenCL for vision, I needed something more upgrade-friendly, hence why I ended on the Z97 platform.

I could go to full ATX size, however I wanted an small computer, hence mATX, that's where a lot of manufacturers plain ignore AMD, which in my opinion, it is anticompetitive (max 4 phases in my previous motherboard whereas now I have 8 with the same form factor), and let us not talk about mini ATX...
 
While Piledriver has some terrible cache results, Steamroller has improved on that front. It's a pity it didn't get FX variants.
 
Note, even with this motherboard I really did not care about power consumption, the noise is about the same with the 4790k as I use an Scythe Samurai ZZ Rev. B, that thing is small and silent, the fans on the case do even more noise! truth be told, once in full power you can heard it roar a bit, but that's about it, it is nothing really bothersome. (my MSI TwinFrozr II R7950 still makes more noise than the CPU)
 
I have to agree with another poster.

Simply put, if this was going to be a budget build, let it stand alone. Take the extreme gaming GTX980 GPU out of the mix and re-run the tests.

Having 8 computers myself, all of my gaming rigs are Intel. However, I have 4 HTPCs all of which are AMD cause I can't build anything remotely close for the price with Intel. None of these systems have GPUs, etc. And all of them can actually play games, albeit not super fast or high res, etc. But that is not their purpose. As a bonus, they are also all tiny in size, put off almost no heat, etc. Though they aren't overclocked either. But when these systems are literally, a powersupply, case, board, memory, minimal storage and APU, the cost of the chip becomes far more magnified. And they each cost less then just one GTX 980 in total.

So take the GPU out and re-run it. I don't expect CPU specific benches to change but things like gaming and anything that uses the nVidia I surely do. That would be far more interesting to me as a 'budget' build. My gaming rigs make many people jelious but that doesn't mean I throw expensive money items around where it's just not needed. The AMD and Intel lineups both have chips with built in GPUs, build a respectable, yet very budget build for each and see where they sit. I'd like to see that comparison. Then break it down to total performance per dollar (simple math). I'd very much like to see that.

You could do two for each, one extreme budget, cheapest possible, and one spending more on the APU, better board, memory, etc. to get more punch perhaps, etc. But still sans GPU. I.E. one of my newer HTPCs barely ran over $300... I couldn't touch that with Intel, but then what could Intel's cheapest alternative do? I'd like to find out.
 
I did not make any popcorn for the spectacle I just read... Too bad. Lots of salty guest commentators with little to nothing to stand on with their arguments, though I guess I understand they might feel like they're being told they made the wrong decision running the AMD camp. Remember, it's all about choice, and if your choice makes you happy, then leave it at that?

Or you could go back to the good old days and read some Athlon reviews on this site, as they are mostly "slanted", as detractors would put it, towards AMD. =p
 
Whoa, look at that i5, power usage on par with this higer-clocked i3. Although I would hardly recommend this cpu as it's hard to get and it's basically the same price as i5 4440 or 4460 (in europe).
 
Long time reader here but hardly ever post. Just have to say that when an i3 can beat a highly over-clocked 8 core AMD cpu in any games or tests it is quite disturbing. This is coming from an AMD fan. They really need to catch up, especially in the power usage front where its just as shocking.
 
The problem when buying computers is that people think that "bigger is better" and you see obscenities like people with laptops running i7's to use web browsers and email (!?!?!). I always recommend an i3 for budget computers, heck you can even game in "HD" with that thing with almost no performance impact if you get a decent GPU.

Another thing I recommend if you're more enthusiast-oriented is buying the cheapest i5 of the latest generation, Intel charges quite a premium for 0.1Ghz increments
 
Long time reader here but hardly ever post. Just have to say that when an i3 can beat a highly over-clocked 8 core AMD cpu in any games or tests it is quite disturbing. This is coming from an AMD fan. They really need to catch up, especially in the power usage front where its just as shocking.
As a primarily intel user, I too hope AMD catches up or better yet, gets ahead of the game like they did in the good old athlon days, competition begets inovation (in a perfect world anyways).
 
Thanks for the article. I really like these kinds of comparisons to avoid bottlenecking to save me money.
I've used intel & AMD cpus for years and still rock a overclocked phenom 2 at stock voltage to keep watts and heat in check. It still holds up well with most of todays games with a older midrange gpu thankfully.
An i3 looks like the best bang for the buck at the moment though. Just imagine a unlocked i3 at around $100. Wowser. The most I've ever paid for a CPU is $130 and I never pay more than $200 for a GPU. I dont see that changing anytime soon.
Articles like this are very helpful regardless. I would like to have seen a gtx 960 or r9 285 thrown in for comparison too. Maybe next time?
 
Many games/applications these days use threads/cores however they can get them.
While only some new specific games like Tribes show a significant difference from an i5 to an i7, its easy to find i3 chips with HT keeping pace with i5's even in games that use 4+ cores/threads.
The whole "HT doesn't help gaming" is officially hogwash (and has been for years but now its concrete) so anyone who says different is just butthurt or simply living in denial.

Sorry i5 owners, i7's have always been and will always be the kings.
A game or two that shows different is nothing more then an indication of that games programming limitations to not use more threads/cores.
 
Excellent article @Steve , I see there is a lot of negativity on your article but it seems spot on to me. Its really become to a point where buying a high clocked i3 even makes a lot of sense from a budget perspective since you get hyper threading and the higher clocks especially to those who are not great/want to overclock.

Its no surprise the results, does not mean AMD is bad for gaming in any way as many of those tests still were beyond the 60FPS threshold or pretty close in performance overall with one major exception in these tests. I would though safely say the dated platform though does inhibit it even more which is where I would see more reason than any to suggest an Intel CPU and motherboard over that of an AMD.

Though it would be nice to also see the newer FM2+ with for instance the 860K since its pretty darn cheap if you get a chance on another budget showdown. Still an excellent perspective and test!
 
Back