Heres two PCs for roughly the same price with the components sizing up at the same price ranges, one's AMD CPU and AMD GPU the other Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU:
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZoA8
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/user/An_Anry_Hobo/saved/1C7B
Now the GPUs are resonably matched but that CPU is going to bottleneck the GPU like a bitch.
What is your opinion?
they taste minty
The 6300 isn't that much worse than the 8350 really.
Maybe 10% worse than it and it should definitely be better than the i3 in the other one not to mention the 7950 is quite a bit better than the 660ti. It's mainly just fanboyism towards intel and Nvidia because they are popular and have lots of advertising.
First off, those are two completely different builds.
You don't need to use Nvidia with Intel and AMD with AMD. You can mix and match.
And who told you that people favour Intel and Nvidia? Lots of people prefer AMD CPU's and GPU's over Intel CPU's and Nvidia GPU's.
For CPU's, I prefer Intel, as it has more performance per core than AMD does, but AMD's graphics cards are cheaper and more powerful than Nvidia's, apart from the single GPU card, the GTX Titan, which is un-matched in single-GPU performance.
there are many people that bought intel when amd was badly behind in performance.
now their egos defend said choice .
why do they call em fan boys, when they get so hot ??? :+{
Yeah, the AMD build is a much better value. People generally prefer Intel either because they don't know any better or for higher end builds. The reason for this is because the FX-8350 performs about the same as an i5 3570K when it comes to gaming, but the FX-8350 pulls ahead in things like video rendering.
At that price point, the FX-8350 is cheaper and a better value, but once you start getting into the Intel Core i7's things start to change. In general, the i7 3770K should perform better than the FX-8350, and the i7 3930K (and anything above that) is going to completely slaughter the FX-8350. This extra performance also comes at a much steeper price, however.
On the other side of the fence, a lot of people prefer Nvidia either because they get caught up in the hype of all the marketing gimmicks (things like PhysX), or because they thing Nvidia is going to be less of a headache than AMD. There are also those who are just Nvidia fanboys, or those who haven't done enough research and just assume Nvidia is superior (Nvidia seems to do a better job at marketing for whatever reason).
A lot of people think AMD cards are a headache because, for the longest time, AMD was putting out rather lack luster drivers in comparison to Nvidia. Nvidia cards were considered more stable because of this, and they'd also usually get a larger performance boost from drivers later down the road. More recently, it seems AMD has finally figured out their driver coding, because current AMD cards have gotten huge performance boosts from new driver releases, which has propelled them ahead of most of Nvidia's offerings. This is a very new development though. Before the 7000 series of cards, AMD drivers were widely considered lack luster and, in many cases, unstable.
Another reason people usually go with Nvidia cards over AMD is because AMD seems to have a worse issue with micro stuttering when put in a Crossfire configuration. I personally can't confirm that, because I've owned both Crossfire and SLI rigs and never really had a problem.
Also, I don't know how this holds true for the current generation of cards, but Nvidia generally does a better job handling filters like Anisotropic filtering, Anti-aliasing, and Tesselation. I have no idea whether or not this still holds true though.
Out of those two builds, though, the AMD build is going to give you a lot more performance. It's also just a decent gaming build as opposed to a super high-end enthusiast super computer.
Well most people do prefer intel CPU's and Nvidia GPU's as reflected by the sales of each..
I was always a bit into intel, till i saw Logans movies about the amd fx8350. i build my self my first amd rig that time, and woow the bang for your buck you get with amd, on a gaming rig, is just fantastic. The FX8350 is realy a good opponent on the i7-3770K but its half the price. about Radeon cards i have allways used them. AMD offers just a great bang for youre buck in gaming. and i am realy happy with my amd build.
but my look on hardware is totaly unbiased. im not a amd or intel fan. i just want to make builds that are the best for the job.
AMD has crosfire issues.
Aside from that it is because intel and Nvidia generally having higher performance parts on the market (maybe not Nvidia depending on how you use you card). However slightly higher performance from intel and Nvidia usually come at a steep price
Aside from micro stuttering, which doesn't happen in most games and if it does most people don't notice it anyway, what other problems are there with Crossfire. Because as far as I'm concerned it's pretty much perfect besides that very minor defect.
Why do people favour Intel over AMD? Because they can't use Windows 8 on Intel Ivy Bridge of course, because it's like a guarantee that your computer will be hacked big time if you have a modern UEFI motherboard with American Megatrends UEFI BIOS:
http://adamcaudill.com/2013/04/04/security-done-wrong-leaky-ftp-server/
With linux however, there is no security leak, because UEFI compatible linux distros that use the Fedora Shim, will immediately add a unique hardware dependant key on top of secure boot.
So that's the big advantage of Intel Ivy Bridge over AMD, you HAVE to use GNU/Linux! lmao
The issue with crossfire on Amd card is that the scaling isn't usually as good as it is with Nvidia cards
You're kidding right? AMD has had better scaling for years now. AMD's scaling is in the upper 90th percentile, and it has been that way since the 6000 series.
it really depends on the game in question, actually.
Also Amd tends to condume more watts
It does depend on the game, but the majority of the time AMD scales better.
As for power consumption...I don't really care about that. I'll just take whatever gives me better performance.
Maybe that used to be the case, but recently, AMD on the whole has better scaling than Nvidia when it comes to dual GPUs.
I think one reason people like Nvidia is the way they often partner up with game developers to create "the way it's mean to be played" games. This usually means better performance on release and generally less bugs. Having said that though, AMD is doing great with their never settle reloaded bundle.
I think Nvidia tend to produce quieter and more energy efficient cards these days. At least I know the GTX 500 series were a lot quieter than the HD 6000 series rivals. But then you could buy a non reference AMD card to sort that problem out anyway.
People make a big deal out of this "more watts" thing. It's not a big deal. We did the math and it's only a few extra dollars per month depending upon your usage.
Who cares about electricity, its paying later anyway not now.
I Think a lot stemsfrom the early 2000s where one had the stigma of running hotter the other horid drivers.
Because in things more complex than gamin intel is better and nividia has evga who make nice looking cards if evga made cards for amd too it wouldnt be as tough of a decision to me