AMD v Intel

[Razanir]

So I'm in the market for a new laptop. I kinda overestimated the default graphics on my old one. Apparently Intel HD Graphics 4000 isn't meant for running Civ V. Also, I'm convinced there's heat damage. I should not be used to numbers in the 70s °C.

Anyway, I have it down to two laptops. One's more expensive with Intel, one's a bit less expensive because it uses AMD.

Laptop 1:
Price: $599, which is definitely within my budget
CPU: AMD A8-5550M
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 8750M + AMD HD 8000 Series

Laptop 2:
Price: $719, which would probably be pushing my budget
CPU: Intel i5-3230M
GPU: GeForce GT 740M

My question: If they both seem to be more than capable of running Civ V which is some of the only gaming I do (reference), is it worth it to push my budget and actually get Intel/NVIDIA, or should I stick with the AMD processors?

[Erloas]

The GT 740M is a better graphics card, but you are right that either of them will do what you need it to do, and long term there probably isn't much difference in them in terms of longevity of the system. Especially given the fact that certain games prefer AMD's graphics cards to Nvidia's and vis versa, so depending on the exact game you might see better performance from one over the other, and I just don't know where Civ V lands on GPU bias.

But it is hard to say if it is worth the extra cost. That really is a personal, case by case, type of question that can't clearly be answered. Without any more information on the laptops it is hard to say; there could be other aspects of each system that makes it better or worse, in terms of gaming, general use, and reliability.

[Razanir]

Yeah, I'll probably just go with the AMD system. According to Game Debate, the GPUs are just as qualified to play Civ, so either is really all I need.

[noparlpf]

Yesterday I ran into trouble with an AMD card and spent like an hour and a half finding and implementing a fix, but if I were you I'd probably go with the cheaper one anyway in this case.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Actually around $700 would get you a half not-bad gaming desktop + cheap-ish monitor and peripherals and would let you play higher end games too.

But, if you need a laptop, I'd go for the first one (AMD). The second one would get you around 10-15% better performance. And while it seems like a good number, chances are if something is playable on one, it'll be playable on the other at similar settings. If you're getting low FPS, you'd still get similarly low FPS on another.

20% price increase for that (which also seems to push price out of your budget) just doesn't seem worth it to me. It's probably easier to just turn down AA or do something else like that.

Honestly, choose the laptop that fits your needs better. I.e., if the second one is a pound lighter and you need to lug it around school all day, it's much easier to justify the cost increase. Or, if it's just going to sit on your desk and be taken somewhere on rare occasions, perhaps choose one with a bigger/better screen. Either should be fine for CivV, which after the basic needs are met is way more CPU than GPU hungry. This Intel is likely to give you better battery life, though.

[Razanir]

A detail I suppose I should add– It's the same laptop. The difference is AMD v Intel and the Intel one also has 2 GB more RAM and 250 GB more ROM

[thubby]

ram is dirt cheap, to the point it's not even worth considering as a factor. 250gig isn't worth 100 dollar.

while the intel has more horse power, you really don't need a great deal of it.

intel chipsets perform better in bad conditions (hot, moist, etc) but unless you plan to play civ 5 in some jungle in south america, it's not really something to concern yourself with.

[JoshL]

I've been pretty happy with AMD chips. The last Intel I owned was a 286, so I've been AMD for a long time. So I can't say I'm an impartial judge, the bang-for-buck definitely keeps me leaning AMD and I've never had a problem with reliability.