What Pros Do Intel And Nvidia Have Over AMD for Purely Gaming?

[Aleks976]

My Rig has had a 3770k and SLI GTX 660s. I never used AMD because of the lower prices, and I figured that high price = higher performance. I was always satified because I was getting good performance... up until I recently, when build my brother his own rig. An AMD 8320 and an R9 290. Guess what? No bottlenecking. No messed up drivers. The graphics were similar to benchmarks. The only thing I noticed is the graphics card produces a lot more heat and more noise in a few games (BF4 64 person multiplayer) but it has gone away now oddly enough.

 

So my question is this. How come an $160 AMD CPU and $300 CPU can outperform / match an $350 CPU and $400+ GPU(s) in gaming?

Why should I get a GTX 780 (Ti) or 4970k when AMDs cards are cheaper, expecially after the bitcoin mining craze? (R9 290s for >$300)

 

And why do people keep suggesting a 4790k and 780Ti for $1500 builds? Why not a 4670 if you want Intel so bad and R9 290(X)s in crossfire?

 

[GeekySole9354]

Cause MURICA'

I don't know.

[minibois]

Nvidia has better driver support and things like PhysX. There are many more reasons but these are 2 reasons

[Wano97]

Intels per core performance is better, even though they have less cores/threads, games won't benefit from more than 1-4 cores anyways

[vorticalbox]

single = less head aches than sli/xfire.

 

bf4 uses frostbite engine, 8 cores and BF has mantle support.

 

8350 + 290 > 3770k and SLI GTX 660.

[josh107]

Nvidia also has better drivers on Linux compared to AMD.

[virtualTune]

[Polyvalent]

Intel stomps AMD because games use 1-2 cores usually. When games start using more threads we will likely see a huge performance gain for cpus with hyperthreading. The i7's will be basically unstoppable and AMD will need to pull off some serious shit.

[Deletive]

single = less head aches than sli/xfire.

 

bf4 uses frostbite engine, 8 cores and BF has mantle support.

 

8350 + 290 > 3770k and SLI GTX 660.

Please if you're getting a 290 with a 8350 you need to straighten up.

[Enderman]

1) because your graphics cards are from an older generation, of course they have worse performance per dollar

 

2) because there are people who care more about stuff like temperatures, overclocking, driver support, features, than just 10 more fps.

[Wooth]

.......and here we go

[Deletive]

What do you mean?

290's don't perform well with 8350 compared to an i5.

[Deletive]

There is pretty much no difference. You would have to do some serious benchmarks to notice.

It's noticable... I know many people that have a problems and low frame rates with it..

[Aleks976]

I just ask because when I see benchmarks of various CPUs, I only see GPU bottlenecking on some dual cores, and once you get 3+ full cores, it doesn't make a difference between a 6350 to a 4930k for FPS. Unless I'm missing something does a better CPU gives better frametime or higher minimum FPS or something not measured by gaming benchmarks?