AMD is Not Better at Gaming!

[TheGreatSatan]

I'm tired of these guys and their "expert" buddies who tell them they have to buy AMD because they are better at gaming. Bullcrap. Even Intel's i5 2500K, spanks AMD's 8 core FX8150. AMD makes good chips, but nothing about them is better than Intel

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

[luciusad2004]

I'm tired of these guys and their "expert" buddies who tell them they have to buy AMD because they are better at gaming. Bullcrap. Even Intel's i5 2500K, spanks AMD's 8 core FX8150. AMD makes good chips, but nothing about them is better than Intel

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

Almost everyone I work with gets all hot and bothered over AMD chips. Everytime it comes up they are all like "Why are you looking at Intel, you should be looking at AMD!!!!" It actually makes me want their processors less. Now I know that i'm horribly out of date when it comes to what the best processors are but I rememeber when the Core Series started coming out and and all the reviews were coming in saying they were really competitive with the AMD stuff.

/Rant

[blueonblack]

...nothing about them is better than Intel



Except the price.

[OvRiDe]

Except the price.
Most of the time .. but not always.

If you look at http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

The highest scoring AMD cpu is the AMD Phenom II X6 1100T and its priced at $339.00 Yet all the Intel CPU's above it, all the way up to the Core i7-2600K are priced less, and score considerably higher.

There is no doubt that the AMD X4 965 is a great deal at 109.99, but bottom line seeing a 965 run next to a i7 920 (which is clocked almost a ghz less then the AMD) I could see a noticeable difference, and it was in the i7's favor. Granted the 920 is 150+ dollars more, it just seem like you might pay more but you really get alot more.

[Stonerboy779]

Isn't it funny how you have to compare old Gen amd cpus because comparing to new Gen amd is just unfair :D
2500k is the all around king of the hill for me and for those in America and near or in some peoples cases working at a microcenter there is always great deals and often combos with mobos. That make the 2500k superb value.

[xr4man]

amd sockets are easier to understand. :/

[Fuganater]

amd sockets are easier to understand. :/

Not at all! Different sockets are compatable with different ones...

Intel. 1156 fits 1156... 775 fits 775...

[Kayin]

Since when was an 1100T $339? Last I checked it was around $199, maybe lower. Yup, (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=X6+1100T&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ZEY&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsfd&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1920&bih=1076&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=14678895150520375047&sa=X&ei=uuIGUKWIC4L68gSo_bX-Bw&ved=0CFYQwhUwAA) definitely lower.

The whole deal comes from back in the days of Athlon XP and the original Athlon 64, all the way up to the X2s. Back then AMD was ahead by sometimes 300%. If you wanted to game, you got AMD. Intel's superdeep pipeline was much more suited to workplace tasks, while the relatively short but rather fast AMD pipeline fared much better in gaming loads, without giving up much in desktop performance at the same time. The statements today are mostly just remembering that time and not realizing that the world moves on rather quickly in computers.

That said, my wife's 1090T does very well against my i5-3570K.

As for sockets, not all 775 processors work in 775 boards. 1155 vs 1156, and why did they need to keep changing sockets? Currently there are three supported sockets that we would call "mainstream" with one that may be retired but is just as fast and an old one that people still readily use. AMD has two, FM1 and AM3+.

[OvRiDe]

Since when was an 1100T $339? Last I checked it was around $199, maybe lower. Yup, (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=X6+1100T&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ZEY&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsfd&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1920&bih=1076&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=14678895150520375047&sa=X&ei=uuIGUKWIC4L68gSo_bX-Bw&ved=0CFYQwhUwAA) definitely lower.


I was kind of wondering about that.. Apparently they primarily use Newegg and Amazon for pricing. Since neither of them have that CPU available it must just list the last price they had.

Unfortunately the 2 vendors that have it priced at 160ish dollars kind of looke a little fly by night if you know what I mean. But from the others on the list it looks like you can get one for a few bucks less or right around the same price as an i5 2500, depending on shipping and tax.

[TheGreatSatan]

We sell the 8150 for $199 and the 2500K for $179. It's annoying that people will spend more money to get less of a Gaming level CPU. Usually it's because their "Expert" (Stupid) friend tells them that AMD is better.

We have a guy working for us who bought a new Z77 board and a 2500K because we told him that it's a great chip. Then his "Expert" (Stupid) friend told him that he should have bought an AMD because. . . . . . . .Why??

It's better at gaming......

Mind you, I have two computers in my office. One with an 1090T and the other with a 2600K

[OvRiDe]

Come on Ken.. you don't have to hold back.. Tell us what you really think! Keeping it all bottled up is not good for your health!

:P

[artoodeeto]

LOL...maybe I'm weird (and maybe it's cuz I usually have a good video card and my screens are 1600x1200, so I'm not running games at ultra-high res), but I usually go for whichever chip is priced better. I've been on AMD for years now, and thanks to a great deal from Ken a number of months ago, I have one of the FX8120 or 8150 (I forget which). And guess what...it runs games like Mass Effect 3 perfectly fine, all detail stuff is up all the way, no hitches. And that's enough for me.

[TheGreatSatan]

That's part of it. It doesn't matter what chip you're using, if you pair it with a Radeon 5450 or a GeForce 8400 it will suck at gaming. Real beautiful gaming will come from a high end GPU and enough RAM. The chip is actually not that big of a deal. A Dual core proc from either manufacturer will be more than enough

[farlo]

im cheap, thats why i usually go amd.

[slaveofconvention]

a high end chip from either manufacturer is fast enough nowadays to run just about anything - sure if you put them head to head and run tech tests you may find a difference, but if you'll see that difference in real-world terms is another matter entirely.

I've always been AMD - up until I built a Core 2 Quad Q6700 system a few years back - last few have been AMD - as of now, my main PC is an 8120, my son, wife and the media centre are all dual core AMD Athlon II around the 250 point - all of the laptops in the house are intel based so I no longer have any loyalty at all - it's all about bang-per-buck where AMD does still reign until you get to the higher price points. For pure performance, Intel does still have the edge though

[Bopher]

#1 reason I bought AMD last time I built a system, we're talking 5 years ago at least here now, was because of price. When I updated my dads system years and years ago to make it so my brother could play Ultima 5, or what ever he needed the upgrade for, I could of upgraded MB to take an AMD chip, but stuck with the Intel board because it performed better then the AMD chips at the time. For the price of the Intel chip yeah I could of bought the MB and AMD chip but if the performance wasn't going to be there I wasn't going to bother. I have every intention, with the chips that are out currently and probably in the future, to build my next gaming PC with an intel chip because they are really making AMD work for the gaming market. And TGS is right. You mostly need a good GPU and a good amount of RAM now to run a game like it is suppose to.

[crenn]

I recently bought an AMD APU and it's my first CPU where the memory controller is on the silicon die of the CPU, so far I'm enjoying using the new computer, but when I do certain things, I can occasionally feel it struggle, but it's not meant to be a performance machine, I still have my Intel Q6600 machine for that very reason.

[mDust]

I agree that AMD is not superior to Intel chips in terms of performance. Intel has held the crown across the board for the better part of a decade now. AMD is almost always cheaper. Want a top of the line AMD cpu? $200-400...Intel? Usually $500-1000. Are Intel chips 3x faster? Never that I've seen.

Currently, on Newegg, AMD's 8150 flagship is <$200, Intel's 3960x is >$1000. 70-80% the performance for 1/5 the price? (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-sandy-bridge-e,3071-7.html) Put my vote down for AMD this round. I've owned a PentII, PentIII, PentIV, some core 2 that I've forgotten, Q6600, and currently a 1090t. I bought the PentIV and Core 2 for rendering 3D stills and video because they were better for that task than the AMD alternatives. The Q6600 was on sale...then so was the 1090t.

For gaming, AMD is a much cheaper alternative that doesn't result in a huge performance loss in the real world. If all you do is render/encode/etc, then I would recommend Intel at the moment. I could definitely see why 'stupid experts' would recommend AMD over Intel for gaming. On the other hand, if one has a large budget, Intel would perform slightly better.

[Cale_Hagan]

That's part of it. It doesn't matter what chip you're using, if you pair it with a Radeon 5450 or a GeForce 8400 it will suck at gaming. Real beautiful gaming will come from a high end GPU and enough RAM. The chip is actually not that big of a deal. A Dual core proc from either manufacturer will be more than enough

^this^ both are great for gaming... if that is what you plan on doing mainly. but AMD is insanely cheaper... if you have an extreme budget, go for the extreme chips... :D


I agree that AMD is not superior to Intel chips in terms of performance. Intel has held the crown across the board for the better part of a decade now. AMD is almost always cheaper. Want a top of the line AMD cpu? $200-400...Intel? Usually $500-1000. Are Intel chips 3x faster? Never that I've seen.

Currently, on Newegg, AMD's 8150 flagship is <$200, Intel's 3960x is >$1000. 70-80% the performance for 1/5 the price? (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-sandy-bridge-e,3071-7.html) Put my vote down for AMD this round. I've owned a PentII, PentIII, PentIV, some core 2 that I've forgotten, Q6600, and currently a 1090t. I bought the PentIV and Core 2 for rendering 3D stills and video because they were better for that task than the AMD alternatives. The Q6600 was on sale...then so was the 1090t.

For gaming, AMD is a much cheaper alternative that doesn't result in a huge performance loss in the real world. If all you do is render/encode/etc, then I would recommend Intel at the moment. I could definitely see why 'stupid experts' would recommend AMD over Intel for gaming. On the other hand, if one has a large budget, Intel would perform slightly better.

^this too.... Love AMD, but went intel for a variety of reasons. when i revamped my system, money wasn't an issue. plus, i am a freak about waiting. i want zero lag EVER, insanely quick boot times, and an unstoppable comp for any game in the next 4+ years... so thats what i got. :D

[mDust]

... i am a freak about waiting. i want zero lag EVER, insanely quick boot times, and an unstoppable comp for any game in the next 4+ years...

Look into ramdisks and SSDs...or at the very least 'short stroking' and RAID0. Modern CPUs are not going to bottleneck typical games and programs. If anything, the lag is the CPU waiting for more data to crunch from that antiquated HDD that we all still have. Even the atom in my netbook has to wait on my HDD when loading things.

[DemonDragonJ]

I am a strong supporter of AMD, because their products are typically less expensive than are Intel's products, but usually can provide comparable performance for a lower price. However, to say that one company is overall superior to the other is rather harsh and unfair, in my mind, as I am certain that each company can provide products that shall meet the needs of their customer. My current computer has an AMD Phenom II X4 945 processor and an AMD Radeon HD 6850 video card, and both function very admirably for my uses; I play games only infrequently, but I do watch movies and television series frequently on my computer, and its CPU and GPU are more than sufficient for that purpose.

Of course, I am certainly aware that AMD is faring poorly in comparison to Intel at the present time, so I am very much hoping that they can return to providing strong competition to Intel, as they are the only other major manufacturer of CPU's in the world and thus the only entity preventing them from having a complete monopoly on the CPU market. I do hope that their next line of processors, the FX-based "Piledriver" processors, are better than their "Bulldozer" processors and thus provide better competition for Intel's products.

[TLHarrell]

I'm holding out for "Freight Train" processors. :whistler:

[AmEv]

Well, my look at it:
The refresh rate on 75-95% of monitors is 60Hz. The rest are 65, 75, or 120. No matter what, once you hit the refresh rate of the monitor, it's physically impossible to display it faster.

IMO, any FPS faster than 120 is overkill.

[mybadomen]

I like them all but when using both brands in real life i notice no difference between my older 1090t or my 3960x besides the 3960x is dead already and the 1090t is still running strong. Also have the I5-2500k and i7-2700k and i7-3930k . My favorite of them all right now is my 2700k. Thing overclocks and benches like a beast. Lol the 3960x died not overclocking but installing windows. But that was a defective motherboard because the board ran great till i bought a new board and tried installing windows.So i wont blame the CPU for that problem. But hell My i5-2500k is more then enough and the one i use the most. And was dying to get an 8150 but just not in the budget at the moment as i have 2 more builds lined up to do with deadlines. But i am also hoping Pile driver has something to push me back to AMD. I tell people building Gaming builds get an i5-2500k ans AsRock Extreme 4 and some cheap priced corsair Vengeance Ram . Every one of them saved huge money and love there builds. But for people that just web browse and play small games occasionally i aim them towards the AMD APU as that's all they really need.

My opinion also for benchmarking is there is no Intel 3960x going to reach 8.4Ghz like AMD Pulled off with their 8150 so for Dice or something like that i would go 8150 over 3960x Higher clocks and if you fry it is 200 bucks versus 1000.

This is just my opinion only.

MybadOmen

[TheGreatSatan]

I posted in Intel's retail forum that I'm tired of training that says you don't need a graphics card to play games because 3rd Gen Intel chips can do it with onboard video. Are you kidding me.

[Kayin]

I tried that. Couldn't even play Guild Wars, the first one not the second.

[AmEv]

I posted in Intel's retail forum that I'm tired of training that says you don't need a graphics card to play games because 3rd Gen Intel chips can do it with onboard video. Are you kidding me.

You know what my IT teacher says? Having a (modern) dedicated graphics card is ALWAYS better than onboard video!

[mDust]

I posted in Intel's retail forum that I'm tired of training that says you don't need a graphics card to play games because 3rd Gen Intel chips can do it with onboard video. Are you kidding me.
Well, bejeweled and snood are games.:whistler:
In another year or two, maybe more, it will likely be true. We won't need a dedicated card, we'll still want one though. We'll always want one. Our grand-kids will make fun of us for our relic computers that don't fit neatly on a single chip. Their battery-powered wristwatch uni-chip computers will make today's super computers look like toys. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_701)

[DemonDragonJ]

I'm holding out for "Freight Train" processors. :whistler:

Are you being condescending toward AMD? Do you doubt that they can recover from their current situation and once again provide serious competition to Intel?


You know what my IT teacher says? Having a (modern) dedicated graphics card is ALWAYS better than onboard video!

Saying that is akin to saying that "the sky is blue;" it is an obvious and logical conclusion to make. From my experience, it is always a wise decision to have a dedicated graphics processor in one's system, so that the CPU does not need to handle the tasks of graphics alone. I also have found that dedicated sound card are far superior to onboard audio, yet not as many computers have sound cards as they have video cards.

[TLHarrell]

Are you being condescending toward AMD? Do you doubt that they can recover from their current situation and once again provide serious competition to Intel?

Certainly not. I am optimistic they will gain the upper hand in processor tech again, and do it for cheaper than Intel. For now, I'm unimpressed with their specs.

[DemonDragonJ]

Certainly not. I am optimistic they will gain the upper hand in processor tech again, and do it for cheaper than Intel.

I am very glad to hear that, as AMD is vital to the consumers as a competitor to Intel and Nvidia; they are the underdogs in the microprocessor market, the Rebel Alliance to Intel's Galactic Empire, the John Connor to Intel's Skynet, if you consider those to be suitable metaphors and/or comparisons.


For now, I'm unimpressed with their specs.

I see; the reason that I thought that you were being condescending in your earlier post is that you said that you were "waiting for [AMD's] 'freight train' processors," when there are no processors with that code name in their current plans, but I am glad to learn that you were being sincere.

[Twigsoffury]

Really... What's the difference between 68 and 72fps when your already getting above 60fps in the first place.

[TheGreatSatan]

Nothing. 30 Fps is smooth to the eye

[Twigsoffury]

Nothing. 30 Fps is smooth to the eye

Then at least to me I can't really justify spending that extra amount on a intel i7 series, when I could scoop up a cheaper AMD and spend the money on a better power supply or get the next series up of graphics card and get a overall better balanced computer.

But man, intels have always and probably will always be of a higher quality then AMD's just for the fact intel hand picks its processors out of the dies,and rejects the damaged ones all together... and AMD just reclassifies each core of the die to a class based on the quality of the die that comes out.

Which i mean nothing is wrong with that, that's cheaper prices to us out here but when you buy a X4 965 it's a roll of the dice, it could clock to the moon on a low voltage. or it might s@#t a brick when you even try changing any of the settings regardless of you attempting to pump 1.21 jigawatts through the regulators.

But when you spend double that of a AMD on a intel i7 series, you already know your getting a Cadillac of processors so to me it's really what your willing to spend on your computer, if you need balanced performance without breaking the bank, shoot for AMD processors and ATi Graphics (I'll never not call it ATi, i don't care if they take the logo and name away, ill still call them ATi's lol) But if your looking for peak performance and capability across the board then shoot for a Intel/Nvidia set up and let's stay up night trying to hit 86 miles an hour in your living room with the DMC computer we've just assembled.
=)

[xr4man]

ok first off, cadillacs are pieces of GM crap so that's a bad analogy. second, even if you could get your dmc computer to 86 mph in your living room, you'd still be two mph short of time travel.

seriously though, hasn't intel been known to do the same thing. i seem to remember something about chips that couldn't pass the pentium tests being sold as celerons.

[Twigsoffury]

ok first off, cadillacs are pieces of GM crap


http://generationbass.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/1959_cadillac_deville_automobile_great_condition.j pg

[xr4man]

ok, you got me on that one.

let me qualify and say any cadillac built after the 70's is GM crap.

[Twigsoffury]

ok, you got me on that one.

let me qualify and say any cadillac built after the 70's is GM crap.

Caddilac Sixteen?

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-abc/Cadillac-Sixteen-Concept-Engine-1024x768.jpg

[OvRiDe]

Saw this article and it reminded me of this thread... thought some of you might be interested in reading it.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/134999-measuring-the-impact-of-cpu-choice-on-gaming-performance

which is based on this article.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/23246

[mDust]

Saw this article and it reminded me of this thread... thought some of you might be interested in reading it.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/134999-measuring-the-impact-of-cpu-choice-on-gaming-performance

which is based on this article.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/23246

That's meaningless for both chips without at least an average time for offending frames. 16.68ms > 16.87ms and ticks that counter up without a visible performance hit.

Let's say a counter ticks up each time your car gets less than it's rate mpg (30mpg for this example). This happens pretty much every time you accelerate from a stop. It is meaningless if you're getting 29mpg for a short period and then 30mpg at speed. It's much more concerning if you're getting 1-2mpg for a while before returning to 30mpg at speed. Either way, the counter ticked up.

What they are trying to show is why min/max fps is included in reviews next to averages.