Are AMD processors really that terrible?

Question

I'm currently building a cheap gaming rig, and when I asked my friends for recommendations for cheap yet reliable CPU's for low end gaming, they all told me to get Intel, not AMD. One claimed that their friend's AMD cpu burned out after two months, and another just told me it was a piece of *****. However, AMD offers six core cpu's with 3.3GHz or higher clock speeds at very cheap prices, and I don't understand why people hate AMD and choose Intel, which is undoubtably more expensive. Can you guys please clarify the AMD vs Intel cpu debate for me?
Thanks, much appreciated.

Answer 1

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that AMD's APU series of processors (A4, A6, A8, A10) all come with integrated graphics onboard which easily wipes the floor with Intel's "HD Graphics" awfulness.



If you're after a cheap gaming computer, the A10-7850K is a good option to get a processor and dedicated-level integrated graphics in one package. It's around £130, or $175, which gets you four cores @ 3.70 GHz, with very good multi-threaded performance and single-threaded performance. The integrated graphics chip is based on the Radeon R7 250 and you can also utilize the Dual Graphics technology to pair this integrated GPU with a dedicated card from the Radeon R7 series - the best choice being the R7 260X, and you may even be able to pair it with an R9 270. Another technology called HSA reduces the processor load by allowing the graphics chip to take care of audio processing. This is new, and don't forget that AMD's Mantle API is also supported.



In comparison to Intel's HD Graphics atrociousness, the Radeon R7 level graphics built into AMD's APUs are definitely better. For example, the highest-end Intel GPU is the Iris Pro 5200 and is only found in the high-end Core i7 processors, which cost at least twice as much as the A10-7850K. You'll also be surprised to hear that the A10-7850K's integrated GPU performs (at the worst of times) around 3% below the Iris Pro 5200, and (at the best of times), 2% above. In gaming, you can be sure it'll be on-par, if not better. All other Intel GPUs like the HD 5100, HD 4600 and HD 4000 are severely worse.



If you're after more of a power horse processor, I can say the FX-8320 and FX-8350 by AMD are very good value for money. For example, the FX-8350 is currently going for £135, or $190, and is an 8-core @ 4.00 GHz. It's perfect for multi-threaded tasks and gaming. Performance is similar to the Core i7-3770K when you're undertaking multi-threaded applications (or multi-tasking). In single-threaded performance, the Core i7 is definitely better, but then it costs twice as much.



Also, don't forget that you'll want to pair the FX-8320 or FX-8350 with a dedicated graphics card. I'd suggest the Radeon R9 270 or R9 270X (specifically the Gigabyte version), if you can get one.



If Minecraft is of a concern, both the A10-7850K + its integrated GPU and FX-8320/8350 + R9 270 will play it on its highest settings without problems. Naturally, the FX combination will get you better frame rates, but the APU configuration will still play it on maximum settings at 1080p, 35+ fps. No Intel GPU will handle this.



In terms of Battlefield, the APU configuration will play it on medium settings at 720p, while the FX configuration will play it at 1080p, maximum settings, no problem.



I hope this helps.

Dylan

Answer 2

You friends don't have a clue. There is no reason for an AMD processor burn out in two months except for user error such as an improperly placed heat sink or such.



The top Intel processors perform faster than the best AMDs, however, the AMDs always provide more bang for the buck. They typically cost about 30% less than a comparably performing Intel processor as do the AMD motherboards.



Addendum:

Both processors do the same things but in different ways. For example, AMD was the first to provide some enhanced instruction sets for multimedia processes. Intel's processors tend to require less power than AMDs, but not that much. I was looking at an article that compared benchmarks between the AMD A8-7600 and the i5-4670. The article was looking at the performance increase of various thing when adding a discrete graphics card to a system. Interestingly, the AMD A8 system generally performed almost as well as the i5: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2139341/tested-why-almost-every-pc-could-use-a-video-card-upgrade.html



Pricewise, the i5 runs about $230.

I couldn't find a price listing for the A8-7600 but its close siblings, the A8-6600K is $110 and the A10-6800k is $135.That's a huge price difference for a very small difference in performance.

Answer 3

No! amd are good processor though they draw some wattage the 6 core and 8 core are good for gaming the amd apu are fair for gaming, they are cheaper to compete with intel , performance wise intel are the best but a little more expensive for gaming all in all more bang for your bucks

Answer 4

I feel i can answer this question as ive been on both amd and intel side of the fence i have owned a old athlon x 64 and owned a fx series cpu 8120 and i5 3330





your friends cpu shouldnt have burned out unless hes a complete noob and used the amd stock cooler which is crap and if he gamed on the stock cooler thats his own fault lol,



now intel is

better in terms of power consumption

and performance per watt

and quicker at applications there also quite more expensive for this.



amd are budget orientated

they tend to draw more power then intel

and tend to be slower

however for the price there well priced for what you get.



fx 6300 am3 plus or if you can find it fx 8300

or 760k athlon are the best for gamers fm2 plus platform

Gigabyte 970A-UD3P is board id recomend for fx 6300

and any a88x with heatsinks will be fine for the 760k





people seem to forget though amd had the performance crown for years with there phenom.



now which is best budget amd cpu is the fx 6300



due to its low power and performance per watt also more games are getting more cpu heavy as proof with thief and bf4 and titan fall.



simple reason why is the consoles now have 6 cores they can use for gaming granted these consoles dont have powerful cores but we will see amd chips start to shine more in games then there intel parts so a 6 core amd isnt a bad investment.



amds fx 6300 is a good investment as its on par with a i5 3470 in gaming in applications its not as powerful



though this article is old it shows that in terms of gaming performance isnt huge gap like your friends would have you believe



gaming test

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_6.html#sect0



power consumption

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_8.html#sect0





people choose intel because they want a bit better performance per watt however if you pair this with a low power performance card like 750 ti nvidia the power worrys vanish in my opinion



people complained because the 8 cores draw way to much power for a gaming rig apart from fx 8300 which is hard to find.



you really only need a fx 6300 and a 750 ti id recomend evga superclocked ( 1 fan model only not duel fan for evga as the duel fan uses a power connector) or palit 750 ti duel fan no power connector as these are low powered cards just came into being recently and will work well with a fx 6300 as the 750 ti is on par with a ps4 graphics however the fx 6300 is cores by far are way more powerful.

Answer 5

Yes they have terrible reliability, and perform slower even with higher clock rates. That is why many people are willing to pay much higher prices for Intel CPU s