Currently, games are developed on consoles and then ported down to PC the vast majority of the time. In the instances where this doesn't occur, CPUs which support multithreadsing, whether they're Intel or AMD, tend to see a big improvement in performance if the time was put on that in development.

'Next-gen' consoles are coming within a year, and they'll all be using x86 AMD hardware. This means that due to the consoles being the bottleneck in a scenario where they can start development on any platform, it makes sense to develop for PC and then port to consoles. This will result in less sh*tty ports and more optimization and one of the places where that will show itself will inevitably be multithreading.

With that in mind, unless you can afford a 3770k/4770k, AMD FX CPUs provide superior performance to the equivalently priced Intel alternatives.



No you don't. Intel have positioned themselves as a 'premium' CPU brand through marketing, so unless you want to spend more than £140-160 on your CPU AMD provide better value. If however you wish to exceed that price point like I did, then by all means go Intel. AMD have no competition at the higher end of the scale.



This is the sort of thing that displays your fanboyism - an unbiased person would note that overclocking is dead easy on both Intel (unlocked) & AMD CPUs, but you've only made the case for Intel.



I'm aware of this. My 3770k has 4 physical cores but 8 logical cores.



Benchmarks, please.



Again you're only listing the Intel positives. Here's a fairer overview (up-to £140-160):

AMD - Much better performance in multithreaded applications, cheaper CPUs, cheaper motherboards in terms of socket compatibility.

Intel - Much better single-threaded performance as you said, so this benefits primarily in instances where multithreading isn't utilized. Lower power consumption.



Good job choosing a game that doesn't scale well with multithreading and cores.

PC Part Picker is also telling me that the CPU is £2 more expensive, the motherboard over £15 more expensive and the memory almost £10 more expensive. On-top of that, the total for the above (ignoring the dodgy prices) is actually over £160... With that in mind, here's an equal alternative at significantly cheaper than yours is with actual prices:

You must login or register to view this content. / You must login or register to view this content. / You must login or register to view this content.


CPU: You must login or register to view this content. (£83.99 @ Aria PC)
Motherboard: You must login or register to view this content. (£38.54 @ CCL Computers)
Memory: You must login or register to view this content. (£33.92 @ Dabs)
Total: £156.45
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-05-16 14:26 BST+0100)

Although if I were suggesting a build for someone I'd probably get an ATX motherboard and 1866MHz memory, the above is equivalent to your build a much cheaper.

Was I talking about Overclocked CPU's, no I wasn't.
So why Da fuck you bringing up OVERCLOCKed cores... the power cusumpition goes out the door the moment you OC anything. Only idiots would say either AMD or Intel would have better power usage... Stock cores, Intel wins hands down period. You don't OC, you save some money down the road to use on steam sales.:FU:

Oh I know voltages that's why I don't believe in that 500mhz OC with 3% max voltage increase.
If you really are using a Core i7-3770k, that's overclocked to 4.4ghz. Than its a major lie.
Especially when the stock voltage on a 3770k is around 0.984 volts. So to reach 4.4ghz you would have to have the voltages between 1.185 and 1.250, which is not 3% guy. 21% increase.. ah snap.