Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Narcotic

AMD Chips vs Intel Chips

Recommended Posts

Well the i5 didn't do much better, and I used Wow because thats the mmo that most people play.

And the little google searching i did it seems that FF is more dependent on the gpu than the cpu.

Edited by slick2500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind getting max usage from my 7950 for once... not sure AMD will provide that

 

the 7950 is not bottlenecked by your processor lol, it is the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wouldn't mind getting max usage from my 7950 for once... not sure AMD will provide that

 

the 7950 is not bottlenecked by your processor lol, it is the other way around.

 

 

Then why do I always see 70% gpu usage apart from KSP when I sometimes get 90%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wouldn't mind getting max usage from my 7950 for once... not sure AMD will provide that

 

the 7950 is not bottlenecked by your processor lol, it is the other way around.

 

 

Then why do I always see 70% gpu usage apart from KSP when I sometimes get 90%?

 

 

If you get 70% usage on your card, then something else is wrong.

Try running the heaven 4.0 benchmark and see if you still get 70%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I wouldn't mind getting max usage from my 7950 for once... not sure AMD will provide that

 

the 7950 is not bottlenecked by your processor lol, it is the other way around.

 

 

Then why do I always see 70% gpu usage apart from KSP when I sometimes get 90%?

 

 

If you get 70% usage on your card, then something else is wrong.

Try running the heaven 4.0 benchmark and see if you still get 70%.

 

 

Am getting 90+% and jumps to 60% on extreme, but I never see 90+% in game usage, the main culprit seems to be the cpu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't mind getting max usage from my 7950 for once... not sure AMD will provide that

 

the 7950 is not bottlenecked by your processor lol, it is the other way around.

 

 

Then why do I always see 70% gpu usage apart from KSP when I sometimes get 90%?

 

 

If you get 70% usage on your card, then something else is wrong.

Try running the heaven 4.0 benchmark and see if you still get 70%.

 

 

Am getting 90+% and jumps to 60% on extreme, but I never see 90+% in game usage, the main culprit seems to be the cpu

 

 

I really think something else is going on, might be a good idea to make a topic about this because i highly doubt a six-core phenom could bottleneck a card like the 7950.

Might not be a bad idea to overclock it to 3.2 GHz and see what it does then, if it is still 60/70% then you know for sure it isn't the processor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vsync is probably on...

 

Never thought of V-sync lol, good point xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most definitely not as I check the settings as soon as I install a game and disable vertical sync. It just sucks :/

Well just because your GPU isn't maxed doesn't mean it's bottlenecked.

 

If you're getting smooth framerates it's entirely possible you just aren't running things that would max it out anyway. I don't think I'd put KSP on the list of anything "graphically intensive". It chokes on ALL CPUs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been a fan of AMD, I like their products and their price accordingly.

However, there are tons of people that choose Intel over AMD. 

 

To start I'll compare my CPU that I've owned for almost 3 years now, to an Intel chip that runs at just about the same speed. Here.

 

AMD Phenom II965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz (OC'd to 3.8 GHz) - $99.99

vs.

Intel i7-4820K Ivy Bridge 3.7GHz (Turbo 3.9 GHz) - $324.99

 

Why is there such a huge price difference if supposedly they run approximately at the same speed?

 

note; I've played on some Intel Core built PCs that are way more powerful than I imagined. What am I missing here?

There is alot more to CPU's now then just looking at the clock speed as others have noted. That variable of measurement seemed to of died with the single core CPU era.

 

 

Intel is the more superior CPU, but not always the best for the budget. Case and point, if building a PC and you need the best CPU under 130$ that would be the FX 6300. If you need more horses then that, then I almost always recommend bumping up to the i5's. I personally would pretty much always take an I5 over an FX 8 core, simply due to the real world performance of the Intel architecture outweighs that of AMD's. Per core and Per clock performance of the i5's well outperform AMD's. I ve built more Intel and AMD rigs then I can shake a stick at and my Intel rigs are usually noticeably faster, more responsive and just overall smoother to operate. Not saying AMD is bad, as I said it always boils down to getting the best bang for your particular buck.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×