1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

For guys who are recommending Intel for gaming...

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by naike, Jan 11, 2013.

  1. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,112
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    That depends where you live, I can get 1155 chips dirt cheap at microcenter. 2500k 169, 3570. 189, 3770k 229 bucks.
     
  2. Agent-A01

    Agent-A01 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,356
    Likes Received:
    892
    GPU:
    1080Ti H20
    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
     
  3. Darkest

    Darkest Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,123
    Likes Received:
    100
    GPU:
    HD7950
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2013
  4. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,246
    Likes Received:
    3,858
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8
    Bias...$....
     

  5. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    494
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    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.

    [​IMG]

    http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5
     
  6. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    494
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    Yet here they are, only ones left dead in the water:

    Fix for Skyrim AMD GPU stuttering, alas only if you have Intel's CPU.
     
  7. ...PACMAN...

    ...PACMAN... Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire HD 7850 OC 2GB
    And the next statement following that chart reads

    -Before anyone panics over the gap between Intel and AMD in this latency-sensitive gaming test, we'll want to ground our analysis in reality by considering the amount of time spent on truly long-latency frames. Once we do so, some of the practical concerns about FX-8350 performance dissipate. Virtually none of the processors spend any time working on frames for more than 50 milliseconds, our usual threshold for "badness." That means you're looking at reasonably fluid animation with most of these CPUs, including the FX-8350. In fact, we have to ratchet the threshold past our customary next stop, 33 milliseconds or 30 FPS, and down to 16.7 milliseconds—equivalent to 60 FPS—to see meaningful differences between the CPUs.
     
  8. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    494
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    Thx for correcting me.
    Indeed frames going above 16ms are NOT that big of a deal.
    Missed that tbh(hastily assumed 50ms).


    But look at the next example 1 post above you.
     
  9. ...PACMAN...

    ...PACMAN... Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire HD 7850 OC 2GB
    I concur Noisiv, there is definitely a latency issue with AMD :) Having had an i5 2500k in the past I have noticed subtle differences in certain games on my AMD chip, the majority play fine however, EVERYTHING played fine on the i5.

    AMD are great for single gpu budget rigs but I'm going intel again for my next build I think after weighing up the pros and cons of an FX 8350.

    What really needs to be sorted out in the industry is the quality levels of todays titles. VSYNC/DX11 Threading/OS hinderances all need to be ironed out and made smoother for us end users.
     
  10. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    494
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    I'm personally looking forward to this.

    http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-New-Graphics-Performance-Metric

    Nothing shall be left undetected, and never again shall garbage optimized games hit the shelves... maybe :p
     

  11. ...PACMAN...

    ...PACMAN... Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire HD 7850 OC 2GB
    I agree, I'm hoping this might finally give everyone a kick up the butt and realize that the majority just want a smooth experience when gaming.NVIDIA, AMD, INTEL etc we want smooth!!! What's the use of having gorgeous graphics, when the motion and fluidity is like you are gaming online in the early 90s :)
     
  12. Darkest

    Darkest Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,123
    Likes Received:
    100
    GPU:
    HD7950
    While I agree with the above posts, I'd state that the above posts are a seperate topic. One worthy of discussion, but more worthy of its own thread. I was about to write a lengthy post even, but frankly it would derail the current in some respects. I suggest someone make a thread specific to it. I've had a glass or two of Cognac and will thus refrain.
     
  13. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,306
    Likes Received:
    779
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    Your taking my post out of context.
     
  14. naike

    naike Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus EAH5870
    http://teksyndicate.com/reviews/2013/01/14/evga-nvidia-gtx-670-review

    Same **** all over again.
    I personally don't care about synthetic benchmarks because they don't tell you **** what will really happen when you play, nor do I think cpu comparisons should be done with low graphics settings because I never play on lowest settings anyway.
    I'm fine with a CPU that gets lower scores in x program but performs well in the game itself.

    Now I do agree I think the first video is a bit exaggerated but still, facts are facts.
    AMD isn't as crappy as people think it is.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2013
  15. DSparil

    DSparil Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,258
    Likes Received:
    17
    GPU:
    ASUS ROG StriX RX480, 8GB
    Isn't this the truth!

    The fact of the matter is, they are both fine for gaming. I have what most here would consider to be a mid-range computer and run all of my games on high settings with very playable frame rates, 1900x1080, and I don't even have the fastest of the fastest AMD FX processors or video cards. I've seen Intel supporters here reply with other benchmarks and websites claiming one is more reputable than the other, or that the AMD numbers in the first video are suspect. Come on people, lol. Referring to specific benchmarks that support your argument, and not objectively looking at evidence from across the board (both sides) is not definitive.

    From my research, I am of the opinion that the FX architecture is better at some things, while Intel's i-series is better at others. At the end of the day, they both can cover the gamut of users needs.
     

  16. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,112
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    Multi gpu systems need a fast CPU to power them.I wouldn't put anything less than a socket 1366, 1155, 2011 CPU to power my 580's and soon to be 680's.
     
  17. naike

    naike Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus EAH5870
    Of this I don't know, but with a 7870 or 670 I would probably go for AMD.
     
  18. Darkest

    Darkest Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,123
    Likes Received:
    100
    GPU:
    HD7950
    That's pretty much spot on the money, and it also points toward something I've been saying for awhile now. In the long term you're not saving money with an AMD Processor when it comes to gaming at 1080p or higher. At least for most people, depending upon price and country. It's all well and good to say "As long as I get over X fps it's fine!" but in the long run that ceases to be the case.

    How many GPU upgrades can you really get out of a current FX chip compared to a Sandy/Ivy or equivalent? We're looking at games starting to utilise 6-8 threads before things start to even out with current architecture. I personally don't see that happening anytime soon. As it is, I'm confident that I'll be able to put a top tier GPU into my current rig in 2-3 years and not suffer any major performance hit thanks to bottelnecks. I'm far from convinced that will be the case for current AMD users.

    The processors are solid, don't get me wrong. If you're genuinely on a budget they'll do the job. For heavily multi-threaded tasks they're fantastic, and I absolutely love the FM2 chips for HTPC and budget use. Sadly I do think there's more to factor in when you consider a longer term investment for those that primarily game.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
  19. ---TK---

    ---TK--- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    22,112
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    2x 980Ti Gaming 1430/7296
    ^spot on. sure you save a bit of money now, My cpu is 2 years old and still a heck of a performer stock and oc. I can even upgrade to an IB cpu if need be. I went with intel for both performance and longetivity. I can stick in gpu`s for at least the next year+ and not have to worry about upgrading the rest of my rig
     
  20. Veteran

    Veteran Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,105
    Likes Received:
    19
    GPU:
    2xTitan XM@1590Mhz-CH20
    AMD CPU's lol they were a great alternative to the Pentium II's around 1997 off top of my head to begin with offering a cheaper alternative for slightly better performance to Intel but nowadays i would not touch an AMD cpu with an Extended Bargepole for the simple fact that they are not as good as Intel, Bang for buck, Plain and simple.

    You get what you pay for.:)

    Edit....And no i havent watched the video, waste of time.
     

Share This Page