Tomtom111,
If given the choice the i5 is a stronger platform but more expensive across the board. I love AMD and had supported same and still do with my bulldozer rig, but my 3770k rig is really impressive and even if you have to get down to an i3 platform for budget reasons you can always upgrade later to the i5 or i7.
That's a good point, but if I were to go Intel I'd probably go straight to the i5. Does it justify the £60 premium though? (including the extra for the motherboard) Also, the other parts I selected will be compatible regardless of the brand of CPU i pick, right? (ie GPU, HDD, power buttons on the case, etc.)
As much as want to tell you the AMD is as good and in real world terms it is but benchmarking and extreme audio/video editing and such the i5 will out perform the AMD. The AMD will yield way more fun overclocking and exploring the limits of your AMD chip.
And yes the choice of mobo and chip is totally independent of the rest of your components.
Right, so disregarding editing and benchmarks as neither would be important to me, would AMD be the better bang for the buck in the real world? I get that Intel is better but I'm just not sure if its worth the extra money.
In my humble opinion yes ! But either way you'll be very pleased, but when on a tight budget then I say AMD still has the bang for buck advantage but this still requires good street level discounts. What I mean is if you by the AMD at higher street discount costing then a highly discounted Intel then the gap narrows. I've found that discounts on Intel never go as deep as AMD for the smart and patient buyer !
If you are thinking of going Intel, and aren't going to overclock, go Haswell. Makes no sense to stick with Ivy Bridge if you have no intentions on OC'ing. Here is a very rough, general guideline when comparing Intel and AMD CPU's: AMD prices their CPU's according to what model Intel it is comparable to. A $150 AMD CPU might look much better on paper but will only turn in performance on par with a $150 Intel CPU. That's why AMD's top of the line FX-8350 was about the same price as the Intel I5-3570K, because at the end of the day, they performed about the same. AMD couldn't charge $1000 for the 8350 when a $2-300 CPU could turn in the same numbers, or better numbers. A bit off topic, but if you are ever curious about how "X" processor compares with "Y" processor.....just look at the price equivalent.
Alright, that being said, even though the Intel platform is more expensive, you do get the Intel chipset and all the greatness that comes with it. I would get a socket 1150 I3 or I5 and an H87 or Z87 motherboard and call it a day. If you are thinking you may upgrade to a CPU that you can overclock later on, then start out with a Z87 board so you don't have to change it later. If you never have any plans on overclocking, go with a good H87 motherboard.
OK, so what you're saying is that if I do go with the FX6300, I'm getting the equivilant of an i3? , as they're at the same price point? And yet the FX6300 comes out on top. De-mystify please. :)
Oh, and I have no intention for OCing, but trust me if I had enough I would look straight at a 4670, but its almost £100 more.
Over several benchmarks, an I3 will turn in similar numbers to an FX-6300. Don't discount those I3's......they are some very good performers. It's not straight dollar-to-dollar, but you can say an AMD is equivalent to an Intel that is within $10-20 of it.........give or take. There are some things an I3 will do better and there are some that the 6300 will do better........it all pretty much evens out.
OK, I think I understand. So would it be a better choice to go with a similarity priced i3 instead of the FX6300, and then leave the door open for a CPU upgrade in the future, like to an i5? That as opposed to getting a FX6300 and then ditching both motherboard an CPU when I want an upgrade. The first option could be more cost effective and make the board last longer. Bearing in mind I would have less cores and a slower clock. What do you think?
Quote