I agree, what if AMD's next CPU really kills the next Intel CPU and uses a AM3 socket. But that's the problem, we don't really know what next gen chips will bring.
Well said - that seems to sum things up in a straightforward way. If you're gaming and/or rendering, of course...but which one will bring world peace more efficiently?
Get the 8350 with a good motherboard, you will have a cheaper upgrade path. Since the next two upcomming generations will be using the same socket, each generation will offer 10-15% performance boost. If you get the i5 you will be stuck on the ivy bridge generation, unless you replace both cpu and mb.
How do you know that next gen amd cpus will use the same socket?
Sorry, looks like it might only be one more gen :(
http://hexus.net/tech/news/mainboard/45889-amd-looks-standardise-sockets-am3-fm2/
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2208525/amd-sticks-with-socket-am3-for-steamroller
Its just improvem,ents over the 8350, its not a new CPU just a better optimized one as was the difference between the 8150 to 8350, still will be awesome but well have to see. Im personally excited for Haswell, but thats because ill be Oc'ng on a custom loop.
Good to know I'm not alone. I can't choose, beasue in reality the are both so close.
i have a UD3H, its one of the best boards to OC on, so if you have good cooling go the Intel route and get that and oc it, because graphics cards and higher Resolutions and Textures keep making use of more and more bandwidth so in a generation or two we may see PCI-E 2.0 finally become a limiting factor.
Its different for everyone, currently though i choose AMD all the time.
Why? its simple Price.
I play games and have done for years, in some games i have played at what you would call semi proffesional (not getting paid to play but getting prizes from tournaments etc).
In all the games ive played i have always set the graphics to a point where it "feels" fine to play. Alot of modern games are mostly eye candy, ooo that looks pretty etc etc but in a game where winning is everything, feel out matchs looks, i wanna be able to spin round 180 degrees and stop the mouse on that exact point where their head is etc, the last thing i need is some stupid feature deciding that the corner of that box isnt quite right and using up valuable performance to make sure it looks pretty.
So to that respect it is very very rarely that i ever have anything running on Ultra or High details, i have them set at whatever runs a smooth stable 60+ FPS. Now both CPUs will do that 100% fine (depending on GPU), so the only thing seperating the two chips is price hence my choice for AMD.
This is obviousely a personal choice but reading forums all over the way people talk about these CPUs is if there a massive void between them when in reality there isnt unless you running things is huge resolutions at max details with all the bells and whistles.
From my exsperience (lans and competitions) alot if not all players who wish to do well have game details turned down. Its hard to explain really and i hope my attempt too might help some people come to a decision.
(this viewpoint is for a compeditive multiplayer gamer)
I see, thank you.
Yes, like Namix is basically pointing out, it depends on what you want to do.
What I want to do is the following: Play games at highest possible FPS while also having highest possible resolution available with ALL the eye candy turned on. I love my games looking gorgeous. Mainly because it helps with immersion. I want immersion. I want to feel like I'm in another world. I haven't truly felt that since I was little in the PS1 days and 3D was the new thing.
I have the i5 3570k right now because I had heard that AMD's new line of chips were bad in comparison. Logan's videos obviously changed that, but it's a little late.
The i5 does what I want. Eventually, I would like to record games and the like, and I believe it will do fine with that, but I know the 8350 would do better. 4 cores dedicated tog ames, 4 dedicated to streaming/recording. Everything will have all it needs to perform the best in other words.
AMD motherboards often have more SATA 3.0 as someone else pointed out while Intel's boards have PCI-e 3.0. Honestly, considering that, I would rather have Intel because I will be going SLI GTX 680's eventually. That wouldn't saturate a PCI-e 3.0 x 16 bus, but it would either get close to, or actually saturate a PCI-e 3.0 x 8 bus since that's the equivalent of PCI-e 2.0 16x bus.
My point is, I can buy a motherboard that has PCI-e 3.0 x 16 on one slot, and x8 on another slot and not worry about the GPU's getting hindered. Whereas, on an AMD board, PCI-e 2.0 x8 might hinder my cards a little bit.
Anyway, as for the PSU, even an overclocked 8350 with a GTX 680 wouldn't touch 750 watts. SLI GTX 680's might get close, but I would imagine it would be fine. There wouldn't be much overhead though.
Without overclocks, with the i5 3570k and SLI GTX 680's, my system would use ~600 watts according to pcpartpicker.com. With an Overclock equivalent to the one in the new video, it would be ~650 watts. If I OC'd the SLI cards, I might be pushing my PSU too much, but yeah... I have a 750 watt PSU and I know that is perfect for it.
And my build has a sound card, and 4 SSD's (though that's a moot point as SSD's are so power efficient). My point is, I'm good. So you should be too if you never go SLI. A GTX 680 and an overclocked i5 3570k will never touch 750 watts. Maybe a GTX 690 would get close, but still, you'd have about 100 watts overhead. Which is plenty.
My build for reference:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/v1T8
Yeah, kind of pointless to see only PCI-E 2 on so many modern AMD mobos, I don't think I've seen a single AMD mobo with pci-e 3. That's really putting me off from buying AMD since I'll later have to buy new mobos and cpu's when the next gen stuff comes out since there will be a better chip than the i5 3570k that won't use socket 1155 and then on the AMD side, newer gpu's will be limited by pci-e 2.0.