Originally Posted by CravinR1
AMD play all current games just fine, and as BF4 illustrates; are better at future games. The 3570/4670k are great cpus, but in all honestly I quickly see a FX 6300 or 8320 doing better as games are more and more multithreaded to take advantage of the additional cores AMD offers. Continuing to recommend a quad core intel over a 6-8 core AMD reminds me of when people were recommending the E8400 over the Q6600 because the E8400 overclocked higher and no game will ever need more than 2 cores .... right ?
its not even close, this would have been like recommending a Pentium 4 over an Athlon 64 because the P4 had hyper-threading and would be more future-proof.
Bulldozer architecture is practically a marketing scam built into the hardware, not unlike Intel's hyperthreading; we should judge AMD's parts based on their modules, not their cores, because that's closer to how they perform (well, ideally we'd judge them strictly on their real world performance; giving any weight to how many cores/threads between similarly priced chips has been ridiculous for years now), and that's only with properly optimized software... (ie Intel cores + HT still end up faster than AMD modules and "cores", but at least it isn't so lopsided when put in that perspective).
Mantle and multithread optimized games only help AMD to catch up
to Intel, not beat them
...for the 99% of games that do not have mantle and are not optimized for more than 4 threads, you're much better off with Intel if you can afford it (also have to keep in mind that Mantle is mostly an advantage for AMD GPUs, because offloading CPU work can actually help out intel CPUs just as much as it helps out AMD CPUs; the i3 becomes surprisingly viable when we're considering Mantle, and there's no way I'd recommend an i3 as the basis of a gaming rig unless it was just a place holder for a quick upgrade to an i5 or better)
I'd go as far to say that only practical
reason to go AMD at this point is if you're budget is so inflexible that you simply cannot afford to go Intel (and you still need to overclock the AMD build for that move to make sense, otherwise there are cheaper i5 options, or even better, buy a previous gen i7 used).
It also doesn't help that AMD's FX platform is getting long in the tooth; 990FX is almost 3 years old...
Also, AMD being better for future games is absurd when we consider that AMD is now only ever "as-good" as intel parts when we're largely, if not completely, GPU limited
and/or as CPU optimized as we ever have been
All that being said, from what the OP has divulged it does sound like AMD could be a good choice for him, although if his budget is flexible enough that he can afford an i5 4670K, I would very much recommend he go that route, as that platform at least holds the promise of dropping in a 4770K, 4790K, or possibly even Broadwell when the time comes, and it will likely never be slower than AMD even with the 4670K.Edited by bojinglebells - 4/10/14 at 5:54pm