Hate to bring up this question, but recently, i've been trying to build my own gaming desktop, and all I keep seeing is go intel, intel's better, but for the same price as a dual core intel processor clocked at 3.4 gHz, I can get a quad core AMD cpu clocked at 3.2 Ghz. I don't get what it is that makes intel better. I am aware of the Hyperthreading technology that allows windows to see a dual core as a quad-core, but still, the cache is better, the clock is nearly Identical and seemingly, I can get twice the cores in an AMD processor. Also, please leave some good graphics cards for gaming battlefield 3 at medium to high settings, and if it's fairly cheap, but slightly more, please leave a GPU that can also run it on ultra. (i'm on a $1200 budget) Thanks for any compliant replies, and have a great day!!!
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
", but for the same price as a dual core intel processor clocked at 3.4 gHz, I can get a quad core AMD cpu clocked at 3.2 Ghz. "
Here's the kicker, core count and clock speed aren't everything. That i3-3xxx will outperform AMD's quad core (Phenom II and FX chips)
"I don't get what it is that makes intel better."
Superior design/architecture mainly.
"I can get twice the cores in an AMD processor. "
Twice the cores, but the actual performance is slower than an Intel dual core. That speaks volumes for how far AMD is behind right now. It would be pure folly to judge a CPU solely on the number of cores it has. Furthermore on the FX chips, those "cores" are really only half-cores, their architecture is modular, which makes production cheaper, but sacrifices are made in computational power.
"Also, please leave some good graphics cards for gaming battlefield 3 at medium to high settings,"
A GTX 650 ti Boost or Radeon 7850 will run the game comfortably at 1080p
Also keep in mind that the single player campaign in BF3 is not very CPU heavy. but the multiplayer component of the game is quite demanding on the CPU. The source that the other guy cited is for the single player campaign, so don't read too much into that, if you plan to play online.
$1200 is actually a great budget with Battlefield 3 in mind, its a beautifully developed game that runs great on almost any modern cpu meeting its requirements so in this case I say save the money and get an AMD chip. As for a card that'l play it in ultra, the GTX 660ti plays bf3 in 1080p 100% maxed settings at a pretty solid 60fps and easily fits into your budget.
Might sound strange but on this partiuclar game you can even use a dual core with no significant loss of performance, I was reading this just last night http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-... Give it a breeze through yourself before you make a decision
Edit: Despite the common assumption bf3 multiplayer is more cpu intensive I have battlefield 3 premium and play 64 player maps and to my suprise the difference in requirements and bottom line fps is minimal.
To further support my point " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2Voo5h3eU " the $100 FX6100 vs the $300 i7 3770k both using a HD7970 The $200 extra brings about 5 more frames into play.
If this question is still open later tonight I will benchmark both singleplayer / intensive multiplayer maps and give you the actual fps difference using the fx6100 + gtx 660 ti. Both are 60 fps with v-sync on though, so maybe 63 - 65 fps with an i7? lol
AMD gets you more for your money. The performance difference is not that significant for most people. If you want to game on the high end, $1200 isn't going to cut it anyway.
...
Intel the other chips run hot.
AMD gives you more speed, less money.