Why Intel, or Rysen when what I use works

L

_l_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
1,151
I found that running a FX-6300 on a 760G based Gigabyte u-ATX mobo with a GTX 1070 FTW using K button OC on Precision OCX for some safe OC on the card - runs the most demanding games smoothly @ 1900 x 1080 and if I turn down some settings that I really don't notice during gameplay, I can get ok gaming on UHD res and all of this without any CPU OC

So I'm not seeing why too spend what will be a rather large chunk of money (for me anyways) to upgrade to Rysen or switch over to Intel

According to stats I've seen online, approx. 80% of gamers use Intel. Considering Intel cost 2x too 3x as much as AMD, I'm wondering why folks have been gravitating to Intel hardware when, as I stated at the top, I can run the latest game titles smoothly and settings almost maxed out on 1080p using AMD and a GTX 970 (GTX 1070 or higher for UHD)

How do you Intel user gaming folks see it?
 
If it works for you, that's all that matters.

I'm running Intel because when I look at the 5+ years that I expect to get out of my system, the price per day isn't much more. I do perform tasks (dev work) where the higher IPC is noticeable and worthwhile to me. Additionally, I use Client Hyper-V on my desktop, and there are documented issues with AMD processors and Hyper-V when using Unix guests, that Intel processors don't have. Having used AMD in my previous system and run into those issues, it's nice to run a system that lets me do my work without needing to troubleshoot problems that may or may not be able to be worked around. Those are my reasons.
 
you can also get an i3 or one of those fancy new hyperthreaded Pentiums that outperforms the FX-6300 across the board and costs about the same, and have better single-threaded performance and solid gaming performance.
I have a 6700K in my personal system because honestly the $200 premium isn't that much money in the grand scheme of things, especially after the $400 GPU, $150 RAM, $150 SSD, $400 monitor, etc.
 
it really depends on the game
in a new game like rainbow six siege which has small enclosed maps my 6 your old intel 2600k is capable of over 200fps and the only way it dips below 60fps is if i crank up gpu dependent details like resolution

in a open world game like fallout 4 my 6700k @4.7ghz 3866 ram only manages ~40fps in some places or ~37fps with cpu at stock or ~29fps with and cpu ram at stock
in arma3 the more cpu power i have the further i can increase the view distance

if you look at this review you will see a number of game running under 60fps
http://translate.googleusercontent....4.html&usg=ALkJrhjh1vtlLDovoYv5UKYNaz3mKkbxjA
but then i know some people in the past claim to have been ok with ~25fps buggered if i know how
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top