For guys who are recommending Intel for gaming...

naike · *Last edited by naike; 01-25-2013 at 22:28.*

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-f...ing-benchmarks

Just something to think about, watch the video.

update: http://teksyndicate.com/reviews/2013...gtx-670-review
so yea..

dr.noob · 01-11-2013, 15:14 | posts: 1,091 | Location: Portugal

AMD power usage is too high.

naike · 01-11-2013, 15:16 | posts: 1,955

May be, but my point is the fanboyism going on all around..
People recommending intel straight out saying "it is better" for people who don't know much about computers.

dr.noob · *Last edited by dr.noob; 01-11-2013 at 15:24.*

Thanks for the video.

edit: it's funny that all of the sources or at least the major part shows that Intel is the best cpu and after this video i'm still kinda confused how the 8350 is better than the 3570k...

The problem about overclocking the AMD cpu is that the power consumption will blow you off. lol

Loophole35 · 01-11-2013, 15:26 | posts: 1,656 | Location: FLA,USA

Now too sure about this one his intel numbers are all lower than any of Hilbert's with the same GPU it seems fishy. BTW Hilbert is using 1920x1200 and his numbers are still higher.

naike · 01-11-2013, 15:26 | posts: 1,955

I'm not really saying any of them is "better" as it's just so subjective, but I find his findings pretty interesting, especially since all reviews tend to only benchmark 1-2 games and usually games where intel has the edge.
Reality is, amd cpus aren't that bad for their money, well that was clear already but they are pretty close to intel in terms of performance.

I thought it was interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loophole35

Now too sure about this one his intel numbers are all lower than any of Hilbert's with the same GPU it seems fishy. BTW Hilbert is using 1920x1200 and his numbers are still higher.

He is using all 100% highest settings, maybe that is why.

Loophole35 · 01-11-2013, 15:36 | posts: 1,656 | Location: FLA,USA

The way he tested the games is all on the GPU and the cpu kinda takes a back seat he should have turned the res and IQ down and let the cpu max out funny how the cpu hog game Crysis2 favors intel. Now don't get me wrong I have no affinity to AMD or intel I have and still own both but the fact that this guy is basically saying every other reviewer out there is lying and only he is right kinda bugs me.

naike · 01-11-2013, 15:39 | posts: 1,955

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loophole35

The way he tested the games is all on the GPU and the cpu kinda takes a back seat

That's a real world scenario, or do you play at low resolutions and bad IQ settings?
Personally, I only consider the benchmarks that have real world appliance to me.

Loophole35 · 01-11-2013, 15:43 | posts: 1,656 | Location: FLA,USA

True but I wonder how much having a "Scorpio" rig helped out his numbers wonder how it would have gone had he used a 660ti and ran all the same tests.

naike · 01-11-2013, 16:08 | posts: 1,955

Scorpio rig?
Anyway, it's impossible to give a straight out yes/no answer to these kind of things with the huge amount of hardware available.
But at least someone building around a 7870 knows that Intel might not be the best choice price wise.

I'm more annoyed because people just blindly recommend Intel processors without knowing **** about them. Do your research and take it with a grain of salt, like you should take this one!

Loophole35 · 01-11-2013, 16:13 | posts: 1,656 | Location: FLA,USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by naike

Scorpio rig?

That's what AMD calls a FX cpu, 990fx chipset, and 7xxx GPU based computer. They claim its the best setup and they may be right.

Agent-A01 · 01-11-2013, 16:40 | posts: 5,630 | Location: USA

It is better, as long as you can afford it.

PhazeDelta1 · 01-11-2013, 16:54 | posts: 9,338 | Location: 90° N

There is no cure for fanboyism.

alanm · 01-11-2013, 17:49 | posts: 4,971

There are many other more reputable sites (who is teksyndicate.com?) showing a clear trend of Intel significantly ahead of AMD in gaming benchmarks, incl the fx8350. Why should this site be any more credible than Anantech, Techreport, Guru3d, Xbitlabs, and the many others who show otherwise?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...x4300-tested/5

http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...sor-reviewed/5

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,18.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_6.html#sect0

Seriously dude..

ibitato · **Memory**: 4x2GB@1080 5.5.5.15 5:6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent-A01

It is better, as long as you can afford it.

this
it's better what fits your needs and budget
Nothing else, nothing more.
Im talking about GAMING, not benching or anything else
Same goes for GPUs.
Best bang for the buk and be happy in either camp

Redemption80 · 01-11-2013, 18:25 | posts: 13,444 | Location: Glasgow

Hard to know how to take this, something about the video and him personally just seems abit off.

Metro 2033 being 70% faster on a 8350 compared to a 3570 seems very far fetched to me, i have heard that the GPU PhysX in multi-threaded and HT was disabled, but since the PhysX in that game has little performance hit, that also doesn't make sense.

Not that i need a CPU as i'm happy with mine, but it would be nice if he was telling the truth, the fact he tried to convince you of his own "shock" does come across as fake though.

naike · 01-11-2013, 21:18 | posts: 1,955

Well unlike most people I always look at reviews and benchmarks skeptically, with the amount of BS even reputable sites are writing these days everyone should.
For me this dude is just as credible as Hilbert or someone else for that matter.
Everyone should make their own opinion, but most people it seems, just fly over or read the title of reviews and then go on. And sure if the title is "Intel beats AMD" you can imagine the outcome.
Intel does beat AMD, no doubt, but that's not the full story, that is my point.

Looks guys, I don't just mean this video, be it false or not. Even looking at "credible" sites like Anandtech or similar, AMD still beats Intel in budget builds.
And it's not just the CPU, like he said a similarly priced Intel board doesn't have as many features as the AMD counterparts, plus Intel is changing sockets now anyway making 1155 obsolete for future proofing.

I'm sorry but I just don't see how people can recommend Intel cpus especially for budget gaming, when even if comparing the benchmark where amd performs worst against Intel, it still offers more performance:price.
90% of the build topics I see around forums, people just go with 3570k or something, even for a small budget like 600€, I mean cmon?
What is it, Intel is not magic, sure their top CPU kicks amds top CPU to outer space no doubt about that, but for budget and mid range gaming? No.

I guess I was just trying to bring that up to you.
Maybe this video wasn't the perfect example but whatever, make your own opinion, go to Anandtech or whatever, do some math and think.
Seriously, I hope "you guys" (Intel recommending people) do this and see for yourself.
Why, should I pay more for a CPU, that only performs on average a few % better?

What's better, save 100€ and lose a few fps, and buy a better GPU and gain a lot of fps?

Noisiv · **Memory**: 4GB OCZ 5-4-4-4-12

Quote:

Originally Posted by naike

What's better, save 100€ and lose a few fps, and buy a better GPU and gain a lot of fps?

You won't gain a single fps in games like flying sims and CPU hogs/ CPU unoptimized games.

Going with AMD CPU is a gamble, simple as that.
It will get the job done in like 90% of cases, but when your next favorite game gets out, unlike with Intel, you can't be 100% at ease.
So it's not about Intel's marketing or bias. People are not that dumb and rich, and if the reality was what OP suggests, you'd see much more FX's in people sigs.

Click to show spoiler

---TK--- · 01-11-2013, 22:27 | posts: 14,717 | Location: New Jersey, USA

Not buying into the thread topic. I go where the performance is for gaming, if amd was better than Intel. I would have an amd chip. Like in years past up to socket 939 I had mostly amd systems.

naike · 01-11-2013, 22:28 | posts: 1,955

Yeah, you won't gain any fps in games where amd performs badly, but then again, in the vast majority of games you would gain fps, so I still don't see the point.

But you are right, if you plan on building a rig for a specific game you play, you might want to choose intel over amd.
For general gaming however, amd in my opinion.
And I really don't see how an AMD cpu is a gamble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---TK---

Not buying into the thread topic. I go where the performance is for gaming, if amd was better than Intel. I would have an amd chip. Like in years past up to socket 939 I had mostly amd systems.

I also buy what gives me the best price considering its performance.
And I also agree with you guys that Intel is a better choice, but only if you can afford it.
Really see no point in buying an Intel with 600-800€.
Go past that and amd has little to offer.

---TK--- · 01-11-2013, 22:36 | posts: 14,717 | Location: New Jersey, USA

That depends where you live, I can get 1155 chips dirt cheap at microcenter. 2500k 169, 3570. 189, 3770k 229 bucks.

Agent-A01 · 01-11-2013, 22:42 | posts: 5,630 | Location: USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by naike

I also buy what gives me the best price considering its performance.
And I also agree with you guys that Intel is a better choice, but only if you can afford it.
Really see no point in buying an Intel with 600-800€.
Go past that and amd has little to offer.

considering a 3570k is 20$ more than a 8350, your statement doesnt make any sense. a 3570k is 10% more than the 8350 in price, but much faster than 10% for gaming. So you get more performance for your money, and also a Z77 mobo is cheap, 80 bucks. So AMD has very little to offer in any segment other than their APUs.

You can basically get an intel platform for $310, where are you getting 600-800€ figure
plus as TK says if theres a microcenter nearby, they sell intel cpus 30-50$ cheaper

Darkest · 01-11-2013, 22:44 | posts: 5,243

I'd agree with TK regarding that. With an $800 budget, depending on area I'd say most people could fit in a decent i5. AMD have improved their processor lineup, and I'll happily recommend them for people on a tight budget - or even HTPC's. There's also some solid workstation builds out there which favour AMD.

The fact is, for a lot of places you can get an i5 for not a lot more than a current AMD chip, and if you only game they're the best option. People are talking about value for money, but two or three years down the line current Ivy and Sandy bridge owners will be able to slip a new graphics card into their rigs without worrying about the rest of the system keeping up. I'm not so sure that will be the case with the current line of AMD CPU's. Then there's the insane power draw to consider. It isn't better value in the long run.

It entirely depends on personal situation, and I wont stop recommending AMD processors when I feel it fits the budget and build, but that's rarely the case for straight up gaming builds in many parts of the world.

airbud7 · 01-11-2013, 22:49 | posts: 2,013 | Location: Evans Ga,USA

Bias...$....

Noisiv · **Memory**: 4GB OCZ 5-4-4-4-12

Quote:

Originally Posted by naike

Yeah, you won't gain any fps in games where amd performs badly, but then again, in the vast majority of games you would gain fps, so I still don't see the point.

I'm sure you do

But just in case:
AMD can't crunch it's way out of bad ports, CPU hogs or simply extremely demanding games. Intel's i5+ can.

RO2 forums still echo with the cries of AMD owners.
As I'm sure ARMA2 forums do too, Lock-on, Ka-50, World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2...

Look at this $#@*&(. Just look at it.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...sor-reviewed/5