Why Intel and Nvidia over AMD?

[JackieWackie]

So my friends are all hating on AMD. Im all for AMD. I think their very price for performance wise where as Intel is more Power friendly. One my of stupid friends said " intel and nvidia feel better when playing games" is this true? Ive only been on a phenom 965 and a 5870 then moved to a fx 8120 an a fx690 and felt a big difference games, I know this is better hardware but there was a better feel to games. So is there really a difference to go to a intel cpu?

[Samdb]

It's just a matter of choice, all companies offer great products.

[TTesla]

Here's how it is in my opinion, amd is much better in budget stuff, and usually has much better price to performance ratio. Intel is more popular in higher end stuff, although worst ratio, higher performance (usually)

[BlackOutCrisis]

No there is no ethereal aura that comes over you when you are using intel/nvidia when playing games. The only reason your friends say that it "feels" better is because they don't know anything about computers and don't have a argument to get intel/nvidia over AMD. I'm to lazy to go over the differences but I'm sure there are other people on the forum that are glad to teach you them.

[T.Vengeance]

Well like @Samdb said, both have great products. It's just what features you want/would want. Want huge multi monitor setups? Go AMD. Want Intel's SRT? Get Intel. Want 3d gaming? Nvidia.

[Bleedman0xx]

No there is no ethereal aura that comes over you when you are using intel/nvidia when playing games. The only reason your friends say that it "feels" better is because they don't know anything about computers and don't have a argument to get intel/nvidia over AMD. I'm to lazy to go over the differences but I'm sure there are other people on the forum that are glad to teach you them.

Or his friends are referring to AMD's frame rating latency issue. His friends actually have a valid argument. Whether they knew about the latency issues AMD cards have or not still doesn't make what they say any less true. *shrugs*

[ExDreamer]

Maybe they play on low end amd machine?

[Godlygamer23]

Intel, NVIDIA, and AMD all have their own advantages.

[BlackOutCrisis]

Or his friends are referring to AMD's frame rating latency issue. His friends actually have a valid argument. Whether they knew about the latency issues AMD cards have or not still makes what they any less true. *shrugs*

Or maybe that is only in crossfire setups and only a noticeable issue in only a couple games; his friends are talking out of their ass whether they know anything or not.

[JackieWackie]

Or his friends are referring to AMD's frame rating latency issue. His friends actually have a valid argument. Whether they knew about the latency issues AMD cards have or not still doesn't make what they say any less true. *shrugs*

Does that mean there is really latncy difference going with either side?

[Godlygamer23]

Does that mean there is really latncy difference going with either side?

No. Though AMD cards in Crossfire drop frames. Like little slivers, which ends with micro-stuttering.

[Bleedman0xx]

Or maybe that is only in crossfire setups and only a noticeable issue in only a couple games; his friends are talking out of their ass whether they know anything or not.

That's actually not true. Frame latency/micro-stuttering is relevant to all types of cards. nVidia vs. AMD, (non-)CrossFire vs. (non-)SLI. Frame latency is present in all of these types of setups. It's just at what degree it becomes an issue. The most prevalent, atm, seems to be on the Red Team.

Note that the above video were single GPU tests and still you can see a difference in the frame latency. This notion that frame latency is only an issue in just CrossFire setups is unfounded, BUT when comparing CrossFire vs. non-CrossFire, CrossFire setups seems to have the most trouble with dropped frames and micro-stuttering.

[ExDreamer]

I doubt his friend even play on crossfire setup

[JackieWackie]

That's actually not true. Frame latency/micro-stuttering is relevant to all types of cards. nVidia vs. AMD, (non-)CrossFire vs. (non-)SLI. Frame latency is present in all of these types of setups. It's just at what degree it becomes an issue. The most prevalent, atm, seems to be on the Red Team.

 

 

Note that the above video were single GPU tests and still you can see a difference in the frame latency.

The gtx 680 looks much quicker at presenting the images were as the 7970 has this delay in this video. Does this apply to 2 gpus on 1 card such as my gtx 690?

[JackieWackie]

I doubt his friend even play on crossfire setup

He Did play on my 5870 crossfire setup and I played on his gtx 2500k and gtx 580 and his it felt so what better, kind of more smooth.

[Bleedman0xx]

The gtx 680 looks much quicker at presenting the images were as the 7970 has this delay in this video. Does this apply to 2 gpus on 1 card such as my gtx 690?

Since dual-gpu cards are basically two single GPUs crammed together, yes. But nVidia cards just don't have the frame latency issues as the AMD cards seem to have. With that said, single GPU AMD cards are still a good option for gaming. At that level, it all comes down to personal taste like some of the users above me have posted.

[mr moose]

I think when people compare amd to intel/NVidia they tend to forget that the GPU and CPU are only two components in the system. Hdd speed, memory size and quality, motherboard design and even the psu  can play a role in performance outcomes. 

 

The PC is a complete system and performance scales with the whole not just the gpu or cpu.  A motherboard that is struggling with a slightly dirty power supply or a cpu that has to resend the bus data because the address data was out by 2/15,000,000ths of a clock cycle, can cause a game to feel less smooth, especially if you are pushing the system as hard as it can go.

[Bleedman0xx]

I think when people compare amd to intel/NVidia they tend to forget that the GPU and CPU are only two components in the system. Hdd speed, memory size and quality, motherboard design and even the psu  can play a role in performance outcomes. 

 

The PC is a complete system and performance scales with the whole not just the gpu or cpu.  A motherboard that is struggling with a slightly dirty power supply or a cpu that has to resend the bus data because the address data was out by 2/15,000,000ths of a clock cycle, can cause a game to feel less smooth, especially if you are pushing the system as hard as it can go.

Eh? I don't see how your point is relevant to the thread. AMD's frame rating issues are on a driver level that's independent to any of the other components in your system. :/

[mr moose]

Eh? I don't see how your point is relevant to the thread. AMD's frame rating issues are on a driver level that's independent to any of the other components in your system. :/

 

Because the OP didn't ask about frame rates specific to amd or its drivers. He claims his friends are all hating on amd because in their opinion games "feel better" when using intel and NVidia. He essentially asks if this is true and my response is that there is more to a computer than just the cpu and gpu (even though they are largest effectors).  I have not used radeon video cards since before amd bought them so I can't directly comment on them. But I have had experience with cheap psu's and cheap motherboards slowing good components down.

 

So my friends are all hating on AMD. Im all for AMD. I think their very price for performance wise where as Intel is more Power friendly. One my of stupid friends said " intel and nvidia feel better when playing games" is this true? Ive only been on a phenom 965 and a 5870 then moved to a fx 8120 an a fx690 and felt a big difference games, I know this is better hardware but there was a better feel to games. So is there really a difference to go to a intel cpu?

[Bleedman0xx]

Because the OP didn't ask about frame rates specific to amd or its drivers. He claims his friends are all hating on amd because in their opinion games "feel better" when using intel and NVidia. He essentially asks if this is true and my response is that there is more to a computer than just the cpu and gpu (even though they are largest effectors).  I have not used radeon video cards since before amd bought them so I can't directly comment on them. But I have had experience with cheap psu's and cheap motherboards slowing good components down.

If you want to over-analyze OP's post, sure. My posts were more of a direct answer to question in the thread title. All in all, I provided OP with information that seemed to have peaked OP's interest. So, no issues there.

[mr moose]

If you want to over-analyze OP's post, sure. My posts were more of a direct answer to question in the thread title. All in all, I provided OP with information that seemed to have peaked OP's interest. So, no issues there.

okie dokie.

[solomongrundy]

i'm with your friends on this. the overall smoothness on an intel system is well worth the price premium. dont take my word, check out harddrive performance on an intel chipset over Amd and then make your decision.

So my friends are all hating on AMD. Im all for AMD. I think their very price for performance wise where as Intel is more Power friendly. One my of stupid friends said " intel and nvidia feel better when playing games" is this true? Ive only been on a phenom 965 and a 5870 then moved to a fx 8120 an a fx690 and felt a big difference games, I know this is better hardware but there was a better feel to games. So is there really a difference to go to a intel cpu?

[legopc]

i already have a wb for an intel mobo so i will be sticking with that 

[WoodenMarker]

Just a shot in the dark:

 

AMD has no competition against Intel's high end cpu solutions.

Thus, you hear Intel better; AMD is bad.

When you hear AMD is bad, you think Nvidia is better since that's the only competition.