• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Is there really a differance between AMD and INTEL?

M

menace2society

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
231
I know this might seem like a dumb question but bare with me please. I like to run games at 1920x1200 with as many graphic features turned up as high as posable. I don't care about burning a DVD faster or unpacking a file faster ect,ect. I just want to play games at the hightest resolution posable. THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY REASON TO UPGRADE. At 1920x1200 would there be at least a 10% increase or more in frame rate going from a AMD x2 4600+ to a INTEL Q6600 with all other parts being equal?
 
If you're GPU bound (which at 1920x1200 and highest settings settings you might be), you probably won't notice any difference between a fast AMD or very fast Intel CPU. If you have some insanely fast SLI/CF set up the GPU limits may not have been reached yet and you could possibly squeeze out faster performance with a higher end CPU depending on the game(s).

Generally, gaming is not the reason for getting the fastest CPU possible.
 
above post is what i was going to say. If you are going to build a computer right now, theres no reason not to go intel. They are not more expensive. In fact they are probably cheaper if you take overclocking in to consideration. The motherboards are slightly more expensive.
 
So if I understand correctly, there is no reason to go INTEL for gaming at high resolutions? I,m just trying to figure how best to spend my money. Should I go INTEL or SLI. Buy the way to graphic card is 8800 gtx. Thanx
 
If you have a limited budget, I would say that you can save a bit from the CPU side and spend more towards the GPU side. If you don't overclock, I think that a 2.6GHz X2 would be enough for a 8800GTX.
 
menace2society said:
So if I understand correctly, there is no reason to go INTEL for gaming at high resolutions? I,m just trying to figure how best to spend my money. Should I go INTEL or SLI. Buy the way to graphic card is 8800 gtx. Thanx
Click to expand...

I have a single 8800GTX and game 2560x1600rez, looks at system in signature. I love my new Intel setup = very stable, I should have gone QuadCore, we see how Christmas goes maybe get the QX9650. But even with a single 8800GTX I can play QuakeWars, Team Fortress2 and WoW all 2560x1600 highest in-game options
 
Zorachus said:
I have a single 8800GTX and game 2560x1600rez, looks at system in signature. I love my new Intel setup = very stable, I should have gone QuadCore, we see how Christmas goes maybe get the QX9650. But even with a single 8800GTX I can play QuakeWars, Team Fortress2 and WoW all 2560x1600 highest in-game options
Click to expand...
Have you tryed Bioshock or the new Crysis demo if so what ahs been your ex. with those games. Crysis looks great a tmostly medium settings would love to be able to play at maxed out settings. Thats why I"m thinking about SLI. And I do overclock both my CPU and GPU. Thanx
 
menace2society said:
Have you tryed Bioshock or the new Crysis demo if so what ahs been your ex. with those games. Crysis looks great a tmostly medium settings would love to be able to play at maxed out settings. Thats why I"m thinking about SLI. And I do overclock both my CPU and GPU. Thanx
Click to expand...

Aha, Crysis at 1920 chokes even with a single 8800GTX... You need all the processing power you can get.

Bioshock is smooth as butter with pretty much any dual core cpu.
 
menace2society said:
I know this might seem like a dumb question but bare with me please. I like to run games at 1920x1200 with as many graphic features turned up as high as posable. I don't care about burning a DVD faster or unpacking a file faster ect,ect. I just want to play games at the hightest resolution posable. THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY REASON TO UPGRADE. At 1920x1200 would there be at least a 10% increase or more in frame rate going from a AMD x2 4600+ to a INTEL Q6600 with all other parts being equal?
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on the game, and of course your choice of GPU. A 8800GTX may show some CPU scaling at that res, a slower card probably would not.

Some games are also more CPU bound than others, Flight Simulator X and Supreme Commander springs to mind. In general, simulation and RTS games that involve a lot of AI tend to be more CPU bound, as well as certain online multiplayer games like CS:S, BF2/2142 on large 64p servers, as well as MMORPG games like WoW during big raid scenes.

In predominantly GPU bound games the gains between a slower X2 and a faster C2D would be minimal, though there may be certain segments where the minimum framerate may be a bit faster.

Just FYI, I did a FRAPS run of NFS:Carbon, which is mainly a GPU bound game comparing my E4400 @ 2GHz and 3GHz, with a 8800GTS 320 overclocked to 660c/1060m (pretty close to stock 8800GTX performance). The resolution used was 1680x1050 max details and 4xAA/16xAF.

The difference?

3GHz - 56fps avg, minimum 40fps
2GHz - 53fps avg, minimum 35fps

As you can see, the difference between 2GHz and 3GHz isn't all that much. A minimum framerate boost from 35fps to 40fps is nice, but only barely noticeable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top