JBags Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) 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 January 27, 2013 by JBags Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberburnout Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) I personally use AMD for my builds. All of the comments before mine make the arguement on why I choose AMD. Intel does make a nice product but I cant justify spending the extra money when I will not see that much of a difference in real world usage. Dont think you will notice your browser opening 1ms faster or 2 FPS slower in real gaming. Benchmarks that are already geared towards intel intruction sets dont show a complete picture of AMDs processor performance and benefits. Its the same way in Game benchmarks, some game performs much better on a AMD platform then Nvidia and Vice versa. The AMD vs Intel debate will rage on as long as both are making cpus. I will continue to use AMD as long as they dont make a completely usless product. I wish te best for those that choose Intel. Enjoy it. Edited January 27, 2013 by Cyberburnout Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarWeeny Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 @enalaynceratt: well spoken as a true advertiser lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
red1776 Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 I see the misinformed "Intel is better for gaming" argument all the time. Even here the other week someone tried to argue this with red1776, the guy who reviewed the FX-8350 right here at OCC. (OCC Review, referenced thread) The GPU is most important is such scenarios, and as the review shows, there is little to no difference between the FX-8350 and i7 3960x/3770k. This is why I'm an AMDer. I use my PC primarily for gaming, so I'll get similiar performance for less $$ compared to Intel. 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. This is a common misconception. Most games (actually very few ) only use one or two threads. We here at OCC do not review games (on a regular basis) , but over at Techspot they do and do a great job of it. This quote by Steve Walton about sums it up: Like most of today's games, Far Cry 3 can use four cores or threads, so it's no surprise that dual-core chips suffer, Look back at the major releases of the last two years and you will find most games need at least a quad core to perform properly. and with only a dual core game-play suffers, if not becoming unplayable. http://www.techspot.com/reviews-software.shtml A few examples: Dirt 3 BF3 I have graphed just about every major release and you would be hard pressed to find more than a few games that only use 2 cores. as far as as the FX 8350... I'm good thanks OCN Top 30 Heaven 3.0 scores (#10) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBags Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Yeah, that 2/4 core utilization claim seemed a little antiquated to me but I didn't know any specifics on what current games can make use of. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVIYTH0S Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 I see the misinformed "Intel is better for gaming" argument all the time. Even here the other week someone tried to argue this with red1776, the guy who reviewed the FX-8350 right here at OCC. (OCC Review, referenced thread) The GPU is most important is such scenarios, and as the review shows, there is little to no difference between the FX-8350 and i7 3960x/3770k. This is why I'm an AMDer. I use my PC primarily for gaming, so I'll get similiar performance for less $$ compared to Intel. 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. This is a common misconception. Most games (actually very few ) only use one or two threads. We here at OCC do not review games (on a regular basis) , but over at Techspot they do and do a great job of it. This quote by Steve Walton about sums it up: Like most of today's games, Far Cry 3 can use four cores or threads, so it's no surprise that dual-core chips suffer, Look back at the major releases of the last two years and you will find most games need at least a quad core to perform properly. and with only a dual core game-play suffers, if not becoming unplayable. http://www.techspot.com/reviews-software.shtml A few examples: Dirt 3 BF3_Ultra_CPU_GPU_quad.JPG BF3 BF3_Ultra_CPU_GPU_quad.JPG I have graphed just about every major release and you would be hard pressed to find more than a few games that only use 2 cores. as far as as the FX 8350... I'm good thanks OCN Top 30 Heaven 3.0 scores (#10) Top 30 heaven-gw-10.JPG You posted the BF3 twice but I agree either way Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
red1776 Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 I see the misinformed "Intel is better for gaming" argument all the time. Even here the other week someone tried to argue this with red1776, the guy who reviewed the FX-8350 right here at OCC. (OCC Review, referenced thread) The GPU is most important is such scenarios, and as the review shows, there is little to no difference between the FX-8350 and i7 3960x/3770k. This is why I'm an AMDer. I use my PC primarily for gaming, so I'll get similiar performance for less $$ compared to Intel. 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. This is a common misconception. Most games (actually very few ) only use one or two threads. We here at OCC do not review games (on a regular basis) , but over at Techspot they do and do a great job of it. This quote by Steve Walton about sums it up: Like most of today's games, Far Cry 3 can use four cores or threads, so it's no surprise that dual-core chips suffer, Look back at the major releases of the last two years and you will find most games need at least a quad core to perform properly. and with only a dual core game-play suffers, if not becoming unplayable. http://www.techspot.com/reviews-software.shtml A few examples: Dirt 3 BF3_Ultra_CPU_GPU_quad.JPG BF3 BF3_Ultra_CPU_GPU_quad.JPG I have graphed just about every major release and you would be hard pressed to find more than a few games that only use 2 cores. as far as as the FX 8350... I'm good thanks OCN Top 30 Heaven 3.0 scores (#10) Top 30 heaven-gw-10.JPG You posted the BF3 twice but I agree either way Fixed! thanks IvI Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now