Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

AMD faster in gaming than Intel with memory OC?

 Share

So I was watching an old Gamersnexus video and I noticed there could be huge differences in performance from RAM timings and OC. Does Intel benefit as much from this? Also one of the last things Intel still has AMD is generally gaming, but if Intel doesn't benefit as much, would AMD + fast RAM be faster than Intel also with fast RAM? I know 10th gen is right around corner but just saying for now. image.thumb.png.0166bed84e1aa1c35b98f002425ba204.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends heavily on what you play, but in most games the i9-9900KS still beats anything AMD can offer.

But who really cares when about these small performance-differences when the price difference is much much larger.

05Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 1 (USB 3.0, 3.1 Gen1)

10Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2 (USB 3.1 Gen2)

20Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 

40Gb/s - USB 4.0, Thunderbolt 3, Thunderbolt 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Depends heavily on what you play, but in most games the i9-9900KS still beats anything AMD can offer.

But who really cares when about these small performance-differences when the price difference is much much larger.

I mean normally I would think something similar but 91 fps to 132 is a huge difference to many. I haven't really seen many charts showing Intel with different memory comparing to AMD. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's tough comparison.

 

Intel 8th Gen and up 4000mt/s at Cas 16 with B-grade samsung is no problem.

 

AMD Zen+ IMC isn't going that high. 

AMD Zen2 on average OC is 3600mt/s

 

Overclocking and Max possibilities need to be looked at with a grain of salt.

Average users typically don't run AMD or Intel at 4000mt/s memory frequency.

My 8700K runs XMP 4267mt/s quite well, but at the top of the IMC capability of this particular chip. 

 

Also, Cpu frequency aids in System memory latency reduction and faster read, write, and copy times. 

So comparing one system to another, differences in IPC between AMD and Intel also makes it rather difficult.

 

Most of your triple A titles are GPU intensive. System memory speed differences of 200mhz (effective speed) are minimal impact on FPS because of this. 

Older games and engines that run 1-2 threads/cores are heavily Cpu IPC and frequency dependant.

 

Currently Intel holds an average higher memory frequency capability as well as Cpu raw frequency. 

However 14nm has got to be coming close to the bleeding edge of capability squeezed. 

300w and up is not a problem, AMD has them by the nuts on efficiency however, just lacks the speed.

- If it ain't broken, don't fix it! - - Your post codes and beep codes in the drop down below -

Competitive Benching Team - Warp9-Systems 

Save the old OC forums just by reading old school tec

https://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/index.php

They have the best F@H stats too. 

Spoiler

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

That's tough comparison.

 

Intel 8th Gen and up 4000mt/s at Cas 16 with B-grade samsung is no problem.

 

AMD Zen+ IMC isn't going that high. 

AMD Zen2 on average OC is 3600mt/s

 

Overclocking and Max possibilities need to be looked at with a grain of salt.

Average users typically don't run AMD or Intel at 4000mt/s memory frequency.

My 8700K runs XMP 4267mt/s quite well, but at the top of the IMC capability of this particular chip. 

 

Also, Cpu frequency aids in System memory latency reduction and faster read, write, and copy times. 

So comparing one system to another, differences in IPC between AMD and Intel also makes it rather difficult.

 

Most of your triple A titles are GPU intensive. System memory speed differences of 200mhz (effective speed) are minimal impact on FPS because of this. 

Older games and engines that run 1-2 threads/cores are heavily Cpu IPC and frequency dependant.

 

Currently Intel holds an average higher memory frequency capability as well as Cpu raw frequency. 

However 14nm has got to be coming close to the bleeding edge of capability squeezed. 

300w and up is not a problem, AMD has them by the nuts on efficiency however, just lacks the speed.

Couldn't explain it better 

Pretty much what he said :)

PC: Motherboard: ASUS B550M TUF-Plus, CPU: Ryzen 3 3100, CPU Cooler: Arctic Freezer 34, GPU: GIGABYTE WindForce GTX1650S, RAM: HyperX Fury RGB 2x8GB 3200 CL16, Case, CoolerMaster MB311L ARGB, Boot Drive: 250GB MX500, Game Drive: WD Blue 1TB 7200RPM HDD.

 

Peripherals: GK61 (Optical Gateron Red) with Mistel White/Orange keycaps, Logitech G102 (Purple), BitWit Ensemble Grey Deskpad. 

 

Audio: Logitech G432, Moondrop Starfield, Mic: Razer Siren Mini (White).

 

Phone: Pixel 3a (Purple-ish).

 

Build Log: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest thing to me is "Am I happy with what I paid for and do I think it was worth it"?

If yes, that's what counts.

Some make a really big deal out of a few more FPS, in some instances when you can't really tell the difference between the two.

In my mind it's not all about max FPS but rather how well it holds minimum FPS. Dips in FPS can ruin a gaming experience, I'd rather have a good all around FPS than something that yo-yo's between screaming FPS and then going to it's knees.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
 Share


×