AMD vs Intel, Nvidia vs Radeon
Probably everyone who has or is going to build a computer is wondering whether he should purchase either AMD or Intel CPU, to get GPU from Nvidia or Radeon. The short answer is to get Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU. AMD has some edges over it's competitors but those areas where AMD outshines Intel and Nvidia are situational, which means unless you're building your PC for specific tasks/games Intel/Nvidia is the way to go. Someone is probably going to say that AMD is a budget option, but that isn't the case. Even in budget builds (not for situational use ofc) Intel/Nvidia do outshine AMD and when I say outshine I really mean it.
Intel vs AMD
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1367
That is a comparison between AMDs "flagship" CPU AMD FX-9590 and Intels i3 4130T (4130T is a energy efficient model of 4130, so it has less performance). What you need to do is to go down and look at the performances between those two in games. A 150$ more expensive, 4.7GHz Octa-core performs on equal level to a energy efficient low end i3. Obviously AMD does outshine i3 in some categories but the gap isn't even that big and remember we are comparing AMDs flagship CPU to a low end i3. So unless you're building your PC for really specific use there's no reason to go for AMD (and if you are you probably have enough knowledge that reading this guide is completely pointless).
The difference between a low end AMD FX and a high end is really small (in game use).
Comparison between i3 2100 and FX-6300 for those who are interested: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=289
AMD Apu is a thing that can be worth sometimes but only if you have building a PC without GPU. Benchmarking i3's and Apu's is pointless due to the fact that Apu's have integrated GPU in them. But then again gaming PC without GPU is a really situational. You save some money but have really awkward upgrade paths, if you want to upgrade graphics you can buy a GPU but that often results into a bottleneck. Meaning you have to replace also a CPU which means you just wasted money on a CPU. But for living room use it could work.
Nvidia vs Radeon
This topic is pretty simple. In some games Radeon cards have better performance but overall Nvidia has better. Also it's worth noting that Nvidia cards tend to have lower TDP and lower noise.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1559?vs=1595
GTX 970 vs R390X. Flagship Radeon card performs on similar level overall to a 100$ cheaper 970. Across the games they do really similar. If you compare a GTX980 and a R390X the results start to a bit into 980's favor.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1591?vs=1596
GTX 960 vs R380, it doesn't matter which price range you go the results are still similar. In some titles Radeon performs better but overall Nvidia still has the edge.
It's worth noting that Radeon has some options that Nvidia doesn't yet have, a high end nano card. R9 Nano is card that is really good for some builds. Althought average user shouldn't be looking that R9 Nano due to the bad price to performance.
TL;DR: If you don't know what you're doing get Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU. AMD's options are situational and if you're at that situation you shouldn't be reading this.
Intel vs AMD
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1367
That is a comparison between AMDs "flagship" CPU AMD FX-9590 and Intels i3 4130T (4130T is a energy efficient model of 4130, so it has less performance). What you need to do is to go down and look at the performances between those two in games. A 150$ more expensive, 4.7GHz Octa-core performs on equal level to a energy efficient low end i3. Obviously AMD does outshine i3 in some categories but the gap isn't even that big and remember we are comparing AMDs flagship CPU to a low end i3. So unless you're building your PC for really specific use there's no reason to go for AMD (and if you are you probably have enough knowledge that reading this guide is completely pointless).
The difference between a low end AMD FX and a high end is really small (in game use).
Comparison between i3 2100 and FX-6300 for those who are interested: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=289
AMD Apu is a thing that can be worth sometimes but only if you have building a PC without GPU. Benchmarking i3's and Apu's is pointless due to the fact that Apu's have integrated GPU in them. But then again gaming PC without GPU is a really situational. You save some money but have really awkward upgrade paths, if you want to upgrade graphics you can buy a GPU but that often results into a bottleneck. Meaning you have to replace also a CPU which means you just wasted money on a CPU. But for living room use it could work.
Nvidia vs Radeon
This topic is pretty simple. In some games Radeon cards have better performance but overall Nvidia has better. Also it's worth noting that Nvidia cards tend to have lower TDP and lower noise.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1559?vs=1595
GTX 970 vs R390X. Flagship Radeon card performs on similar level overall to a 100$ cheaper 970. Across the games they do really similar. If you compare a GTX980 and a R390X the results start to a bit into 980's favor.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1591?vs=1596
GTX 960 vs R380, it doesn't matter which price range you go the results are still similar. In some titles Radeon performs better but overall Nvidia still has the edge.
It's worth noting that Radeon has some options that Nvidia doesn't yet have, a high end nano card. R9 Nano is card that is really good for some builds. Althought average user shouldn't be looking that R9 Nano due to the bad price to performance.
TL;DR: If you don't know what you're doing get Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU. AMD's options are situational and if you're at that situation you shouldn't be reading this.
Originally Posted by CatArtist
