Intel VS AMD, the final answer.

[harrynowl]

Its fun to argue:D

 

ppl makes debates and stuff.. Thats fun, ppl also learn alot in AMD vs Intel debates, they learn how to argue with words, they learn new tactics to make their opponent answerless...

 

Its fun:D

But sometimes blood crazed fanboys will spread misinformation and cause new readers to get the wrong information

[Trik'Stari]

I always thought that AMD had more issues with compatibility in games. For instance me3 won't play on just an AMD apu, need a gpu with physx to play it.

[harrynowl]

I always thought that AMD had more issues with compatibility in games. For instance me3 won't play on just an AMD apu, need a gpu with physx to play it.

Well that's a GPU problem, so AMD vs nVidia.

 

But in Mirrors Edge I can turn off PhysX and all issues go. 

[Faa]

I'm not sure why people still go nuts when they see cores. Most people dont even know how many cores you actually need, disabling 6 cores in taskmanager for a game gave me in cpu limited situations no performance hit at all until I started to disable another or two cores.

Have no ideas how you guys compare cpu's but please monitor your gpu loads and stop comparing cpu's if the gpu is running at its max on both platforms, thats not a cpu comparison anymore. Most cpu benchmarks you see on the net are all gpu bound, 800x600 made atleast more sense than what we have now, soon they'd be testing in 4K >.<

In general Intel does barely do better in games if we believe reviewers because they can't benchmark cpu's in middle of combat due to too many variables everytime something different happens it's not synthetic enough to make it fair & accurate. 95% benchmarks you find are all gpu bound. If you look at this benchmark:



Everyone will just go ahead and claim the AMD is the way to go for WoW because Intel is only 10% faster but honestly 100 fps isn't what you're going to get from a 4670k@5GHz in a 40vs40 battleground/25m raid will be like 35 fps at best and AMD would be around 15 fps due to its outdated IPC -> this benchmark simulates this: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/09/SC2HotS-pcgh.png

Anyone who got convinced by that tomshardware benchmark literally got fooled. If you'd google the recommend specs for wow they list cpu's that can't even handle 25m raids lol

Don't bother with reviews if they can't simulate cpu bound scenario's properly so you could atleast have an idea how much the better cpu performs better. I don't bother googling them, I rather just keep it simple and check the cinebench singlethread score and be done with it.
 

 

we get identical FPS (within margin of error) (min 22, max 72)

Pretty much what I've said, identical fps would mean gpu limited and a 6770 doesnt surprise me it limits you. You've upgraded your gpu and you gained performance means you were gpu limited, if you upgraded your cpu and you gained performance means you were cpu limited. If you upgraded your cpu and you didn't gain any performance means obviously you were gpu limited, upgrading gpu and no performance means you were cpu limited.

I can link you tons of screenshots where I'm having troubles getting 50 fps in all of my games with the gpu's sitting at 20% orsomething not even needing to leave its first clock state 324MHz, so it does matter what cpu you have

If I really have to generalize everything; you should go with Intel at any costs for heavy multiplayer games because they all are cpu limited and lightthreaded with the exception of BF4 and for singleplayer games it doesnt matter what cpu you got there.

[Jack.EXE]

Pretty much what I've said, identical fps would mean gpu limited and a 6770 doesnt surprise me it limits you. You've upgraded your gpu and you gained performance means you were gpu limited, if you upgraded your cpu and you gained performance means you were cpu limited. If you upgraded your cpu and you didn't gain any performance means obviously you were gpu limited, upgrading gpu and no performance means you were cpu limited.

 

that's my point, 95% of all games these days are GPU limited anyway.

 

it doesn't matter anymore.

[Sky Daddy]

fx 4300 for <$100, fx 6300 for ~$100, fx 8320 ~$150, i5 4670k for $200, i7 3770k for $300 (for gaming)

[Hurkatan]

This thread is pointless, people will argue because it's what people do.

 +1 for truth!

[solarflare]

On low end pc's like the OP and friend have i agree its a toss up. 

 

When your pushing expensive GPU's and SLI/Crossfire setups though people get extremely picky about bottlenecks and lost performance. 

 

that 2-5 fps turns into a-lot more quite quickly. 

 

and thats why you will always see arguments over hardware because people just want to know whats the best they don't want to find out the hard way after they have spent their hard earned cash. 

 

I don't blame em when i was a kid I got sold on some shoddy hw a few times by a salesman trying to just push stuff out the door and man was i angry after when it didn't work like i wanted. 

 

I wish good forums like this were around more back then (think mid-late 90's) if there had been i would have probably not made half the mistakes i made early on venturing into PC DIY territory. 

[deathjester]

I'm tired of seeing questions on intel VS AMD, so I decided to post this saying:

 

IT DOESN'T MATTER!

 

Both solutions within their price brackets will give you a lovely gaming experience.

 

Honestly, are you really going to fuss over a single FPS in games?

 

I've got some personal experience to back this up too.

 

I've got a friend who's system is near identical to mine (before I upgraded from my 6770)

 

She has 8 GB of ram (like me)

 

a 6770 (like me)

 

and a 900p monitor (like me)

 

what she has that I dont? an intel core i5 (we dont know what model though)

 

I have an SSD while she doesn't, but this should not effect FPS.

 

and guess what, on firefall's medium preset (neither of us can run anything more, lol)

 

we get identical FPS (within margin of error) (min 22, max 72)

 

Now I've upgraded to a 7870 XT, so I'm running on high with  40-80 FPS

 

 

TL:DR

as long as you're running a quad core CPU newer than the Pentium D (I'm counting HT Dual cores as quad cores BTW) you'll get a great gaming experience.

 

So can we Please stop posting Intel VS AMD threads?

 

As soon as people stop making crappy optimized games in entire genres? We can stop having these threads. This will end when low level optimization gets here and not before. Both CPU's can be the right and wrong choice based on the games you play and what you do. I recommend both often.

 

https://forums.wildstar-online.com/forums/index.php?/topic/35360-guide-building-or-upgrading-your-system-for-wildstar/

 

Brand new game. Will be worse than WoW with 40 man raids. Same crappy optimization.

 

Planetside 2 underwent a specific 8 core AMD optimization (OMFG patch) because the game is coming to PS4. They described it as a huge undertaking and spent half a year on it.  An I5 is still faster in the game, but AMD is perfectly fine in that game now.  Not all games are Planetside 2. Not everyone plays Planetside 2. Not everyone plays MMO's. Not every company is porting their game over to next gen consoles. The posts people make when they are helping people choose a CPU are valid. If they are recommending a chip BEFORE asking what the purpose of the build is? Then yes they are a fanboy. If they are calling the other company/chip garbage? Yes they are a fanboy.

 

Facts are not fanboyism. Facts are facts. Fanboys don't like facts. BTW I hated the OMFG patch because my performance was already good and they took away my Phsyx effects. Damned PS4. Bring back my pretty explosions. I AM glad AMD owners got like a 30 percent improvement though. Bout time someone made a optimized MMO even if it is a shooter, and even if it was due to a dumb console.