The argument is not "intel is better for gaming" , it's the fact that most current games do not utilise say all 8 cores from an 8 core processor , they utilise 2 cores ! And intel is well known for having better performance when comparing core-core with AMD! Now , the evolution of gaming is going in such a way that newer games will be utilising more than say just 2 or 4 cores , and these newer games will perform "better" with an AMD processor! But for now in my honest opinion Intel takes the lead when it comes down to pure gaming performance.
I understand what your saying, and I dont mean for this to devolve into an AMD v Intel argument. But I feel I must also mention that Bulldozer and newer AMDs perform best core for core when their entire module (= 2 cores) is saturated, so a game only utilzing 2 or 4 cores will perform best when that workload is properly assigned to cores of the same module (0&1 + 2&3). Assigning the workload liek this, as I understand it, was/is their weakness as Windows doesnt necessarily assign work like that.
in addition, having cores in excess of what a game can utilize provides free resources for background processes from the system and other stuff you may have open, like Skype, TS, web browser, AIM, etc etc which would demand shared resources from a 2/4 core Intel.
So while Intel may have the core-for-core and clock-for-clock raw processing power crown, I feel it balances out.
Edited by JBags, 27 January 2013 - 09:08 AM.