For gaming

N

nutxo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2001
Messages
1,715
Im building a new computer.

As far as gaming how does AMD compare to Intel these days? Oh. Overclocking is a must as well.
 
Really dependent on a number of factors actually.

If the games is Mantle-enabled, AMD CPUs can perform quite close to if not better than Intel CPUs.
If the game is not CPU-limited at all, AMD CPUs can hold their own against Intel CPUs.
If the game is heavily multi-threaded, AMD CPUs have a decent chance against Intel CPUs. But this can swing either way.

If the game is the opposite of the above, Intel CPUs are far and away better than AMD CPUs for gaming. Even the latter is debatable as the significantly better IPC of Intel CPUs does make up for the relative lack of cores/threads among the lower-end Intel CPUs.

Personally though, I generally recommend Intel for gaming systems. The price increase isn't all that high and the sheer IPC is huge advantage for many games out there. In addition, once you get past the $180 price point, it just doesn't make much sense to go AMD at that point since that gets into the mid-range territory of Intel CPUs.

For heavy virtualization though, AMD FX CPUs are definitely a major viable option.
 
As someone who recently built a pc for gaming with an AMD cpu, I would advise against it. Like many others, I did it to save a few bucks. I used a fx6300 but bought a fairly decent motherboard, I went into this build knowing that I was going for as big of an overclock as I could get, cool for, and keep stable, but also something I could upgrade from in the future when I had more money to play with.

I did a bit of research, compared various amd and intel cpus.. this one was commonly compared to the i3 cpus. In my head I just couldn't imagine a dual core that I couldn't overclock being better than a 6 core that I could.. And whether it is or not I will probably never know.

I have my fx6300 running cool at 4.5ghz, and I'm using a gtx970. I am happy with the computer. It plays all new titles that I have tried with all settings maxed, at decent frame rates. This is exactly what I wanted...

Almost.
My options to upgrade the cpu now are not all that great. Had I gone the i3 route to upgrade later.. I could be looking at i7 when I am ready, instead now my best options compare with i5 cpus.
So, when it's upgrade time, I won't be upgrading like I had hoped, I will be building a new pc again.
 
I have both and still game on my AMD setup. Works fine for me.
9370/sabertooth @ 4.7 and 2x GTX 770s
 
Go with Intel, but if you insist on AMD get one of those FX8310/FX8320's for around $100. Its the same chip as an FX8350 but cheaper.
 
Intel all the way. In the previous year I've built quite a few setups, all with Intel chips (i3, Pentium Dualie, 2700K etc.) excluding one I stuck in a Phenom X4 I had. Coupled all setups with SSD's and the only setup that didn't boot instantly, and got higher CPU usages in Windows alone was the AMD setup.

If the chip can't even unleash the full potential of an SSD, then it'd surely bottleneck in games as well.

Story in short, I'd simply avoid AMD for the fact of the inferiority of their chips.
 
Intel is ideal but the 8310-8320 can be had frequently on sale under $120 and does OK.

We build a lot of custom gamers at my work with them and they run everything well. We used to try to explain to customers that the i5s performed better in the most games but it gets old arguing with newbs all day. So now when "OMG MOAR COARZ!" customers come in we just sell them the damn 8 core they wanted and hold our tongues.
 
I agree with the majority. If you have a flexible budget, then i5-K or i7-K no question. If you are a bit constrained in your budget, then an 8310/8320 is a great value.
 
X72 said:
If the chip can't even unleash the full potential of an SSD, then it'd surely bottleneck in games as well.
Click to expand...

This comment makes my head hurt.

But back on topic - depends on budget and intended use.
 
Track Drew said:
This comment makes my head hurt.
Click to expand...

You make my head hurt.

With a Corsair Force drive loaded on a rather crappy laptop with a Pentium Dual Core I've gotten significantly lower boot times than I did with the same drive loaded onto a Phenom X4 940 setup.

Was using a RAID card, too. No other component could have been slowing down the machine. It was clearly the CPU because I then switched the drive to my 2700K machine and have seen WAY lower CPU core usages across the board just while doing Windows tasks.
 
X72 said:
You make my head hurt.

With a Corsair Force drive loaded on a rather crappy laptop with a Pentium Dual Core I've gotten significantly lower boot times than I did with the same drive loaded onto a Phenom X4 940 setup.

Was using a RAID card, too. No other component could have been slowing down the machine. It was clearly the CPU because I then switched the drive to my 2700K machine and have seen WAY lower CPU core usages across the board just while doing Windows tasks.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Something else was wrong.
 
Disposed said:
Bullshit. Something else was wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. The entire setup was fresh.

A CPU can very well slow down a machine. I've coupled SSD's with P4's as well (for test purposes before selling old stuff) and have seen the same type of behavior, it was just way worse.
 
We need Kyle and Co. to do a review of various AMD and Intel setups with a plethora of SSDs (with a variety of controllers) in order to determine if there is a noticeable difference when using the same SSD on different computing platforms.
 
X72 said:
You make my head hurt.

With a Corsair Force drive loaded on a rather crappy laptop with a Pentium Dual Core I've gotten significantly lower boot times than I did with the same drive loaded onto a Phenom X4 940 setup.

Was using a RAID card, too. No other component could have been slowing down the machine. It was clearly the CPU because I then switched the drive to my 2700K machine and have seen WAY lower CPU core usages across the board just while doing Windows tasks.
Click to expand...

It was the RAID card. Each additional component that you add would need additional time to load and boot. Your laptop had a direct connection (no RAID card to boot). If you had removed the RAID card and connected it directly to the motherboard, you should have seen similar boot times.

Well, with the exception of UEFI boot being faster than AMI boot in general.
 
Can you afford to buy a $220 CPU, >$150 motherboard and still have enough left over to get a good video card? Buy Intel.

Do you need to cut it down to a $100CPU and <$100 motherboard to afford a good video card? Buy AMD.
 
You can buy perfectly good Z97 mobo for 110-120$

Driving Vertigo said:
Terrible benchmark that scales to clockspeed. Even the jump to quadcore didn't cause a significant boost to framerate. Reminds me of Guild Wars 2.
Click to expand...

There's 20 other pages of benchmarks in that link and they all show the same thing.

But if you are buying cpu for hypothetical perfectly multi threaded games then AMD is good choice. If you are buying for real world existing software then AMD is waste of money.

And yes MMOs are rarely well optimised. Games like WoT make it painfully obvious why FX is sad joke.
 
See this is the issue. I hate it when people use blanket statements. Acting as if AMD is a bad idea everywhere, when in fact only when running EXTREME setups does the difference between Intel and AMD really show. I play WoW and have been since it released(with the last year off, just recently playing again) and I never had the issues that so many in forums claim AMD has. I have done 40 man raids and never did the game become a slide show. I played GW2, Diablo3 and a host of others most use as some lame excuse for why AMD is bad.

FACT: for 60hz/fps setups as the vast majority are any current CPU will do fine. When you start looking at 120hz/fps or more then one has to be a bit more particular and likely Intel is the better wiser option. But this acting as if AMD cant perform at the lowest level is a great disservice to the community and a great indicator of the ignorance of some posters to the facts.

You want to know how any particular CPU does: ASK A USER. Benchmarks tell you jack, more so because the reviewer seems to be clue-less how to setup the test bench. All any reviewer has to do is make the clock just slightly unstable and the results will look insanely terrible. I remember when the 9590 released. They locked the clock to 5.0Ghz using faster ram and a SSD to my 4.6Ghz slower ram and a HDD and on Cinebench I got better results = BAD/UNSTABLE OC.

Look if you have any amount of disdain for said product keep the criticism relevant and within reason, and for the love of God, no more blanket statements. Try to be more specific.
 
durquavian said:
See this is the issue. I hate it when people use blanket statements. Acting as if AMD is a bad idea everywhere, when in fact only when running EXTREME setups does the difference between Intel and AMD really show. I play WoW and have been since it released(with the last year off, just recently playing again) and I never had the issues that so many in forums claim AMD has. I have done 40 man raids and never did the game become a slide show. I played GW2, Diablo3 and a host of others most use as some lame excuse for why AMD is bad.

FACT: for 60hz/fps setups as the vast majority are any current CPU will do fine. When you start looking at 120hz/fps or more then one has to be a bit more particular and likely Intel is the better wiser option. But this acting as if AMD cant perform at the lowest level is a great disservice to the community and a great indicator of the ignorance of some posters to the facts.

You want to know how any particular CPU does: ASK A USER. Benchmarks tell you jack, more so because the reviewer seems to be clue-less how to setup the test bench. All any reviewer has to do is make the clock just slightly unstable and the results will look insanely terrible. I remember when the 9590 released. They locked the clock to 5.0Ghz using faster ram and a SSD to my 4.6Ghz slower ram and a HDD and on Cinebench I got better results = BAD/UNSTABLE OC.

Look if you have any amount of disdain for said product keep the criticism relevant and within reason, and for the love of God, no more blanket statements. Try to be more specific.
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense. If you want to know how a CPU performs you look at benchmarks they tell you everything you need to know. You want a persons biased opinion then ask users.
 
durquavian said:
See this is the issue. I hate it when people use blanket statements. Acting as if AMD is a bad idea everywhere, when in fact only when running EXTREME setups does the difference between Intel and AMD really show. I play WoW and have been since it released(with the last year off, just recently playing again) and I never had the issues that so many in forums claim AMD has. I have done 40 man raids and never did the game become a slide show. I played GW2, Diablo3 and a host of others most use as some lame excuse for why AMD is bad.

FACT: for 60hz/fps setups as the vast majority are any current CPU will do fine. When you start looking at 120hz/fps or more then one has to be a bit more particular and likely Intel is the better wiser option. But this acting as if AMD cant perform at the lowest level is a great disservice to the community and a great indicator of the ignorance of some posters to the facts.
Click to expand...
AMD can provide acceptable levels of gaming performance. However, once you drill down with actual benchmarks and look at pricing, I've only seen a handful of situations where AMD makes sense for a gaming PC. Even for those with low budgets, you could still cram in a solid faster Intel system for almost the same price as an AMD setup. I do exactly that every day over in the General Hardware forum.

Even if the person can't tell the difference due to inexperience or whatnot, I'm still going to recommend the fastest CPU for that person's price range based on real world performance tests. At the end of the day, a person is still going to want the best they can get even if it may or may not be noticeable. I'm not going to recommend inferior products just because they're "good enough" yet costs the same as a superior product. That doesn't make sense.
durquavian said:
You want to know how any particular CPU does: ASK A USER. Benchmarks tell you jack, more so because the reviewer seems to be clue-less how to setup the test bench. All any reviewer has to do is make the clock just slightly unstable and the results will look insanely terrible. I remember when the 9590 released. They locked the clock to 5.0Ghz using faster ram and a SSD to my 4.6Ghz slower ram and a HDD and on Cinebench I got better results = BAD/UNSTABLE OC.

Look if you have any amount of disdain for said product keep the criticism relevant and within reason, and for the love of God, no more blanket statements. Try to be more specific.
Click to expand...
As I have noted in another thread, I don't put much stock or faith into user run benchmarks and performance metrics. That's due to their lack of impartiality, placebo effects, data manipulation, improper methodologies for testing, use of synthetic benchmarks, lack of technical know how, crap analysis, etc. Yes many of the above plague some actual tech sites as well but users aren't as accountable as a tech site would be.

Let me end this by saying that if you look at my sig, you'll notice that I do have an AMD system. That AMD system use to be my main gaming PC up until the beginning of last year. So it's not a case of anti-AMD bias on my part. I'm biased towards bang for the buck value which many AMD CPUs do not have.
 
durquavian said:
See this is the issue. I hate it when people use blanket statements. Acting as if AMD is a bad idea everywhere, when in fact only when running EXTREME setups does the difference between Intel and AMD really show. I play WoW and have been since it released(with the last year off, just recently playing again) and I never had the issues that so many in forums claim AMD has. I have done 40 man raids and never did the game become a slide show. I played GW2, Diablo3 and a host of others most use as some lame excuse for why AMD is bad.

FACT: for 60hz/fps setups as the vast majority are any current CPU will do fine. When you start looking at 120hz/fps or more then one has to be a bit more particular and likely Intel is the better wiser option. But this acting as if AMD cant perform at the lowest level is a great disservice to the community and a great indicator of the ignorance of some posters to the facts.

You want to know how any particular CPU does: ASK A USER. Benchmarks tell you jack, more so because the reviewer seems to be clue-less how to setup the test bench. All any reviewer has to do is make the clock just slightly unstable and the results will look insanely terrible. I remember when the 9590 released. They locked the clock to 5.0Ghz using faster ram and a SSD to my 4.6Ghz slower ram and a HDD and on Cinebench I got better results = BAD/UNSTABLE OC.

Look if you have any amount of disdain for said product keep the criticism relevant and within reason, and for the love of God, no more blanket statements. Try to be more specific.
Click to expand...

The only disservice to community is telling people to buy inferior products.

And since I made a mistake of owning Phenom II X6 in the past I'll tell you my user experience.
That was biggest mistake in my enthusiast life - it was barely faster than core 2 quad it replaced and when i upgraded to Sandy Bridge it was biggest jump in performance in games I've ever seen from CPU upgrade.

3,5 years later and top AMD cpu is maybe 20-30% faster than that X6 and still can't even get close to that Sandy.

So my advice is to not make false savings when you can get i5 instead that will last you much longer than any current AMD cpu
 
Then let me say it like this: (or rather pose a few questions)

1) Can AMD achieve and maintain 60 fps in the majority of titles?

2) Can one surf the web effortlessly with AMD?

3) Have you ever only achieved the exact same results a benchmark on some review showed?

Truth be told:

1= never had a single issue maintaining 60fps in any game even a highly modded Skyrim or WoW in 40 man open world boss raids. SO YES AMD CAN ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN 60FPS IN A MAJORITY OF TITLES.

2= Logging into windows takes only a few secs for me with Windows7. And surfing the web and reading such inane comments is as fluid and effortless as can be. SO AMD CAN SURF THE WEB EFFORTLESSLY.

3= And this has to be the one thing about forums that irks me the most. They tout reviews and benchmarks like they are the absolute truth and accurate for all processors benched. I have always gotten far better results, maybe I am just that good, though honestly I feel I am only a decent OCer and knowledgeable about my setup so not likely too good or the best. Most benchmarks are done at stock and never reflect what most of us here would achieve when we OC for that extra bit and most of the time because we can. SO I HAVE ALWAYS ACHIEVED BETTER RESULTS THAN ANY REVIEW AND BENCHMARK.

Just because you like to follow the flock don't assume you know it all. And don't assume you know how my setup operates. I wont condemn you for your choices but to out right lie and not even comprehend my original post just shows how little you know and your own bias. I know the truth and have never stated otherwise nor made any over zealous comments just because I like what I have.
 
durquavian said:
3= And this has to be the one thing about forums that irks me the most. They tout reviews and benchmarks like they are the absolute truth and accurate for all processors benched. I have always gotten far better results, maybe I am just that good, though honestly I feel I am only a decent OCer and knowledgeable about my setup so not likely too good or the best. Most benchmarks are done at stock and never reflect what most of us here would achieve when we OC for that extra bit and most of the time because we can. SO I HAVE ALWAYS ACHIEVED BETTER RESULTS THAN ANY REVIEW AND BENCHMARK.
Click to expand...
There's the problem right there: Not everyone will achieve the overclocks that a reviewer may get. Dud overclockers are a thing. In addition, there are plenty of enthusiasts who don't actually overclock whether due to not willing to put in the extra time and effort, not having the extra cash, or finding it quite unnecessary. If you go over to the General Hardware forum, a lot of the people we help out there don't overclock. So tests done at stock are still extremely valuable to the enthusiast community.

In addition, unless you have the exact same configuration as reviews do, your all caps statement means little.

durquavian said:
Just because you like to follow the flock don't assume you know it all. And don't assume you know how my setup operates. I wont condemn you for your choices but to out right lie and not even comprehend my original post just shows how little you know and your own bias. I know the truth and have never stated otherwise nor made any over zealous comments just because I like what I have.
Click to expand...
Show me exactly where I lied in my posts.
 
durquavian said:
Then let me say it like this: (or rather pose a few questions)

1) Can AMD achieve and maintain 60 fps in the majority of titles?

2) Can one surf the web effortlessly with AMD?

3) Have you ever only achieved the exact same results a benchmark on some review showed?

Truth be told:

1= never had a single issue maintaining 60fps in any game even a highly modded Skyrim or WoW in 40 man open world boss raids. SO YES AMD CAN ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN 60FPS IN A MAJORITY OF TITLES.

2= Logging into windows takes only a few secs for me with Windows7. And surfing the web and reading such inane comments is as fluid and effortless as can be. SO AMD CAN SURF THE WEB EFFORTLESSLY.

3= And this has to be the one thing about forums that irks me the most. They tout reviews and benchmarks like they are the absolute truth and accurate for all processors benched. I have always gotten far better results, maybe I am just that good, though honestly I feel I am only a decent OCer and knowledgeable about my setup so not likely too good or the best. Most benchmarks are done at stock and never reflect what most of us here would achieve when we OC for that extra bit and most of the time because we can. SO I HAVE ALWAYS ACHIEVED BETTER RESULTS THAN ANY REVIEW AND BENCHMARK.

Just because you like to follow the flock don't assume you know it all. And don't assume you know how my setup operates. I wont condemn you for your choices but to out right lie and not even comprehend my original post just shows how little you know and your own bias. I know the truth and have never stated otherwise nor made any over zealous comments just because I like what I have.
Click to expand...

No offense but your argument is so ignorant and biased there's no real way to even respond.

Bottom line is just because your amd chip can maintain 60fps in your specific games don't mean it's not inferior to the Intel chips. Also use better games as your example ffs.
 
Disposed said:
No offense but your argument is so ignorant and biased there's no real way to even respond.

Bottom line is just because your amd chip can maintain 60fps in your specific games don't mean it's not inferior to the Intel chips. Also use better games as your example ffs.
Click to expand...

just don't feed trolls, u know.. just ignore it and add to the ignore list. All of us who really have both kind of AMD and Intel system know how they really perform in the real world... I've just stopped to read that guy and add to the ignore list when I saw he can sustain 60FPS with a heavy modded skyrim.. as I can't even do that with my FX8350 at 4.8ghz, or 4.9ghz or 5ghz with a GTX 780. So i know he should just be ignored.. =)..
 
lord_emperor said:
Can you afford to buy a $220 CPU, >$150 motherboard and still have enough left over to get a good video card? Buy Intel.

Do you need to cut it down to a $100CPU and <$100 motherboard to afford a good video card? Buy AMD.
Click to expand...

This is the worst of the worst. This line of thinking. You can put a 4790k with a 60$ mobo and it will work just fine. You cannot do that with a high end amd CPU. Even the 125w ones require some beefy motherboards with decent vrm/cooling, especially if you wish to get the value by over clocking.

The Intel setup will run all day long on the stock cooler between 4.0-4.4 GHz, or stock clocks.

If you prefer amd because of brand loyalty fine, but if you are saying its for value, that's just a misconception. The i5 and mobo can be had for less than an 8350 and mobo. The i7 might be ~ 80$ more, maybe. Much less if you wait for the sales of ~280$ i7s.

And the devils canyon at stock will wipe the floor with the AMD setup. I just cannot see the reason people would recommend them at this point. Power hungry, slow, expensive.

Edit:

And this is coming from someone who desperately wants to purchase a competitive AMD product. There hasn't been one since nehalem, circa 2007-2008.
 
Araxie said:
just don't feed trolls, u know.. just ignore it and add to the ignore list. All of us who really have both kind of AMD and Intel system know how they really perform in the real world... I've just stopped to read that guy and add to the ignore list when I saw he can sustain 60FPS with a heavy modded skyrim.. as I can't even do that with my FX8350 at 4.8ghz, or 4.9ghz or 5ghz with a GTX 780. So i know he should just be ignored.. =)..
Click to expand...

Then you did it wrong. I had 80+ mods mostly visual not quest and on 2 7770s ran 75 fps(capped) nearly 98% of the time. I tweaked in riften where the FPS would be lowest. And now with a R9-290 I can run 75FPS (capped) 99.___% of the time. It isn't that hard if you know what to do.
 
Last edited:
Disposed said:
No offense but your argument is so ignorant and biased there's no real way to even respond.

Bottom line is just because your amd chip can maintain 60fps in your specific games don't mean it's not inferior to the Intel chips. Also use better games as your example ffs.
Click to expand...

Try reading more or paying attention, at least the previous post where I mention Intel is the superior CPU. At no point in the post you linked did I mention AMD being better than Intel just the marks it can hit.

Seriously you guys need to take a course in conversation. You keep trying to put words in my mouth or irreverently take any post out of context. Hardly worth the time attempting a rational debate.
 
I'm a big AMD fan (just look at my sig) Other than my laptop I haven't owned an Intel desktop since 2000 which was a P133 (or maybe it was a P200MMX). If my Mobo took a dump tomorrow I would get an Intel system because AMD just doesn't have anything very competitive out at the moment.

I always loved AMD because even when they were not the fastest they were significantly cheaper and the performance difference was little. As it stands now, the more reading I have done and casual glancing at prices while the AMD chip/mobo combo will be cheaper (higher end mobo/higherend cpu) you might pay 10%-20% more for the intel cpu/mobo combo that will perform better and you will save money on not needing a monster heatsink as well as using less power.

Since I am older and I am more of a casual gamer now I don't have the need for serious horsepower so I have no need to upgrade yet despite wanting to build a new system. Not going to lie but I have waiting until 2016 to see what AMD comes out with next but if it doesn't come within 10% of intel performance then my next system will be blue powered
 
TMCM said:
I'm a big AMD fan (just look at my sig) Other than my laptop I haven't owned an Intel desktop since 2000 which was a P133 (or maybe it was a P200MMX). If my Mobo took a dump tomorrow I would get an Intel system because AMD just doesn't have anything very competitive out at the moment.

I always loved AMD because even when they were not the fastest they were significantly cheaper and the performance difference was little. As it stands now, the more reading I have done and casual glancing at prices while the AMD chip/mobo combo will be cheaper (higher end mobo/higherend cpu) you might pay 10%-20% more for the intel cpu/mobo combo that will perform better and you will save money on not needing a monster heatsink as well as using less power.

Since I am older and I am more of a casual gamer now I don't have the need for serious horsepower so I have no need to upgrade yet despite wanting to build a new system. Not going to lie but I have waiting until 2016 to see what AMD comes out with next but if it doesn't come within 10% of intel performance then my next system will be blue powered
Click to expand...

Intel systems that are overclocked require the same cooling solutions that AMD systems do. The truth is that when you up the voltage to both camps they become fire breathing dragons that love more power. If left at stock both systems are cool and quiet. You can run the stock heatsink on the AMD chips if you aren't overclocking. But who would buy an Intel K chip and not overclock it. :)
 
cageymaru said:
Intel systems that are overclocked require the same cooling solutions that AMD systems do. The truth is that when you up the voltage to both camps they become fire breathing dragons that love more power. If left at stock both systems are cool and quiet. You can run the stock heatsink on the AMD chips if you aren't overclocking. But who would buy an Intel K chip and not overclock it. :)
Click to expand...

Not true at all. On many Intel chips you can attain some pretty good speeds on stock cooling without bumping voltage at all. That is not the case with AMD.
 
durquavian said:
Try reading more or paying attention, at least the previous post where I mention Intel is the superior CPU. At no point in the post you linked did I mention AMD being better than Intel just the marks it can hit.

Seriously you guys need to take a course in conversation. You keep trying to put words in my mouth or irreverently take any post out of context. Hardly worth the time attempting a rational debate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we need a course in conversation... The guy that said everyone should ignore benchmarks and listen to anecdotal crap from users is bitching about having a rational debate. The irony is real.:rolleyes:
 
Dangman said:
Really dependent on a number of factors actually.

If the games is Mantle-enabled, AMD CPUs can perform quite close to if not better than Intel CPUs.
If the game is not CPU-limited at all, AMD CPUs can hold their own against Intel CPUs.
If the game is heavily multi-threaded, AMD CPUs have a decent chance against Intel CPUs. But this can swing either way.

If the game is the opposite of the above, Intel CPUs are far and away better than AMD CPUs for gaming. Even the latter is debatable as the significantly better IPC of Intel CPUs does make up for the relative lack of cores/threads among the lower-end Intel CPUs.

Personally though, I generally recommend Intel for gaming systems. The price increase isn't all that high and the sheer IPC is huge advantage for many games out there. In addition, once you get past the $180 price point, it just doesn't make much sense to go AMD at that point since that gets into the mid-range territory of Intel CPUs.

For heavy virtualization though, AMD FX CPUs are definitely a major viable option.
Click to expand...

This is what I consider to be the simplest, concise, and intelligent post I've read on the subject.

You cleanly illustrated why my choice was AMD. And why others might go Intel.

Bravo!!
 
Disposed said:
Yeah, we need a course in conversation... The guy that said everyone should ignore benchmarks and listen to anecdotal crap from users is bitching about having a rational debate. The irony is real.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No again you infer too much. A review does not tell you every thing. And to be honest I can give a number of FACTS on reviews over the past 2 years where the results were skewed either by ineptitude or intentionally that made the reviews invalid. Reviews give a baseline and something to compare. Any rational unbiased poster knows that the real world difference is small and no where near what most reviews make it look to be. The difference is in Intels favor and only becomes an issue at High extreme setups where that difference does become noticeable. My original point was that blanket statements do not reflect real world user experience across the board. Many AMD users Game and function well with in the low thru middle end. High end it falters a bit and becomes a much less desirable option.

And none of it changes what I do with my system and the results I see. And trust me no review can reflect the performance I have attained (well there are a small number that do).
 
Disposed said:
Not true at all. On many Intel chips you can attain some pretty good speeds on stock cooling without bumping voltage at all. That is not the case with AMD.
Click to expand...

Well I always switch out the cooling system to something more robust when I build a system regardless of if it's Intel or AMD. I do know that I can overclock my CPU and lower the stock voltage on this AMD FX-9370. That's probably why the new identical AMD E processors 8 cores have so much headroom.

Honestly I couldn't imagine a person buying an Intel K processor and using the stock cooler. What would be the reasoning for doing that?
 
Yeah, we need a course in conversation... The guy that said everyone should ignore benchmarks and listen to anecdotal crap from users is bitching about having a rational debate. The irony is real.
Click to expand...

Rely on benchmarks? You mean the things that many so-called tech sites can barely even do properly? The things that said sites oftentimes intentionally mis-label various things in order to push an agenda or omit certain information to do the same? Synthetic benches that have little to no actual correlation to real-world performance?

Nope. Bullshit. The best way to go about judging a product is to look at BOTH a large swath of "professional" reviews AND look at a ton of user-reviews. You can hardly just slag off user reviews as being "anecdotal" when many "pro" reviews often are terribly done and/or full of bullshit. Yes, there are tons of users who are blatantly biased and trying to spin their favorite brand as the one true savior, but that's why you keep reading more info from different users and sites to come to a conclusion.

You can look at various sites who will run the same benches with the same gear, yet somehow get wildly differing results. That alone should tell you that you shouldn't just blindly take any website's word as bond.

I'm not sitting here trying to say that Intel is barely better than AMD at the moment when it comes to CPU's, in fact if anyone could ever think of me of all people inferring such a thing, they're a fucking idiot. But the fact is, unless you're playing games that literally use a single thread and are on poorly-optimized engines (like Starcraft 2 and Skyrim before they moved from outdated nonsensical x87 instructions to the more modern SSE ones) then AMD won't magically make your game unplayable like some people like to suggest. If you're running a single GPU setup and you're not trying to play at 4K or some shit like that, AMD will do you just fine for the vast majority of games out there.

When it comes to other apps, the same applies for the most part -- AMD can handle it just fine. Of course something like video rendering will see an appreciable boost with something like a quad/hex/octocore Haswell, but that doesn't mean a comparable AMD will be a slug, either.
 
I don't wish to fuel the fire but I have a question, keep in mind i'm not against amd. Amd seems to be a great value and APU seems like the future.

That being said, if you can afford intel and amd will fit your needs just fine right now why wouldn't you just go intel? IF intel has a slight FPS advantage at your price point right now that means it will 2 video card upgrades down the road and might allow you to run an older system just a little longer. This was the case when i had my 920 which i retired only a few months ago. the amd systems of it's era probably couldn't play modern games like it could today. Maybe i'm wrong. I haven't ran AMD since conroe was released.

seems like way too serious of a topic on the internet, get what makes you happy and don't worry about others opinions. maybe i just had too many beers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top