Why Intel processor are adviced than AMD for gaming?

[OverVolt]

I ran starcraft 2 on an E7200 and HD4850, I don't think the CPU matters much lol. I find AMD more fun and Intel pretty boring lately. I don't do much CPU intensive computing anymore. I don't consider gaming very CPU intensive like it used to be.

I'll play skyrim sometimes on an FX-8350... its completely smooth. Can't imagine it being all that bad on the E7200, might have to knock it down to medium, the horror. Probably more so the graphics card.

 

[onething]

Yup, bunch of Intel fanboys here, disregarding everything else just because of a benchmark here and there for a game or 2.

Thread crapping will not be tolerated
-ViRGE

 

[Galatian]

No consumer will buy Kaveri for HSA, but OpenCl apps can be accelerated today and Kaveri provides the best performance/price in GPGPU and iGPU gaming against Intel's Offerings.

I already called you out on that statement months ago, when Kaveri was released. You make it sound like AMD is the only manufacture with OpenCL support, which is simply not true. Even their marketing slides for Kaveri were wrong. They claimed PCMark and other benchmark numbers a lot lower for the i5, than what you can actually look up on the benchmark archive.

 

[BSim500]

AMD is not cheaper, both have options for the same money

Indeed. At time of purchase, I got my i5-3570 for $15 less than what the FX-8350 was typically listed at. An i5-3470 was even cheaper and can still be OC'd to 4GHz all cores on a Z77 board with MCE. Factor in an $8-$15 per year lower electricity bill, and over 3-4 year typical lifespan I'm left wondering exactly where the $39-$75 higher TCO "cost saving" would have been even with a $10-20 more expensive Z motherboard...

 

[AtenRa]

I already called you out on that statement months ago, when Kaveri was released. You make it sound like AMD is the only manufacture with OpenCL support, which is simply not true. Even their marketing slides for Kaveri were wrong. They claimed PCMark and other benchmark numbers a lot lower for the i5, than what you can actually look up on the benchmark archive.

You called me out for what exactly ??? And do you care to show us those benchmarks you say i5 had lower scores ??

 

[davie jambo]

Yup, bunch of Intel fanboys here, disregarding everything else just because of a benchmark here and there for a game or 2.

I prefer AMD over them but their CPU's are better

Not that much better in real world terms but they are , are they are about the same price.

You'd be mad to build a PC based on an AMD cpu now

 

[AtenRa]

I prefer AMD over them but their CPU's are better

Not that much better in real world terms but they are , are they are about the same price.

You'd be mad to build a PC based on an AMD cpu now

That is soo generalized and obviously 1000% incorrect.

 

[davie jambo]

That is soo generalized and obviously 1000% incorrect.

It's not incorrect. For gaming you would be actually nuts to put in a 3 year old CPU into a new build. Buy haswell as they are much better and similarly priced

 

[MeldarthX]

I prefer AMD over them but their CPU's are better

Not that much better in real world terms but they are , are they are about the same price.

You'd be mad to build a PC based on an AMD cpu now

Completely and utterly false statement.

Show me Intel igpu that can run WoT with high graphics at steady 30 frames a second at 1400 by 900; for full system roughly 250-275 pounds......AMD can do it with 6600k apu; that's not OC.

Those that have not used these apus I don't think you understand actually how good they are for the price they come in at. I didn't expect that 6600k to run as much as it does at the detail it does. Every game I've thrown at it; Champions Online; WoT; Guildwars 2; LFD2......Gary's Mod; all high detail over 30 frames.

My I5 laptop that was well over a grand; can't do WoT on low details at 30 frames at 720p....

Would I say to build on AMD3+ platform.....no; but FM2+ hell yea. Screen size for PC the ave; not use is still below 1080p.......its just starting to rise.....when my kid needs some more power......I'll either OC it; or pull it for another machine and drop in Kavari or whatever apu AMD that has put out.

I also game just fine on my 8120 oc; which I'll drop out soon for 8320......and can do a lot more parallel processing coding and work than my I5 laptop or I5 box from work......

Does AMD need to strength their cores? yes......why Keller is back but are AMD cpus and apus crap......no; they will do the work just as well as Intels'.....for lightly threaded stuff......they take a little longer......parrallel stuff they; a hair off; equal too or beat Intel...

Until you've used them; don't parrot what you here; why not actually go out and find out...

 

[davie jambo]

Completely and utterly false statement.

Show me Intel igpu that can run WoT with high graphics at steady 30 frames a second at 1400 by 900; for full system roughly 250-275 pounds......AMD can do it with 6600k apu; that's not OC.

Those that have not used these apus I don't think you understand actually how good they are for the price they come in at. I didn't expect that 6600k to run as much as it does at the detail it does. Every game I've thrown at it; Champions Online; WoT; Guildwars 2; LFD2......Gary's Mod; all high detail over 30 frames.

My I5 laptop that was well over a grand; can't do WoT on low details at 30 frames at 720p....

Would I say to build on AMD3+ platform.....no; but FM2+ hell yea. Screen size for PC the ave; not use is still below 1080p.......its just starting to rise.....when my kid needs some more power......I'll either OC it; or pull it for another machine and drop in Kavari or whatever apu AMD that has put out.

I also game just fine on my 8120 oc; which I'll drop out soon for 8320......and can do a lot more parallel processing coding and work than my I5 laptop or I5 box from work......

Does AMD need to strength their cores? yes......why Keller is back but are AMD cpus and apus crap......no; they will do the work just as well as Intels'.....for lightly threaded stuff......they take a little longer......parrallel stuff they; a hair off; equal too or beat Intel...

Until you've used them; don't parrot what you here; why not actually go out and find out...

I have used them. My two pc's I use now are one with an FX8350 and one with an i7 3770k. The i7 has 7970s in crossfire and the FX8350 has a single HD7970

Both are brilliant for gaming but the intel one wins (not just because it has two cards in crossfire) , it's not by much and a lot of the time I can't tell the difference

Suppose the APU's are alright for sub 1080p gaming if you into that kind of thing. Probably be as well as buying a PS4 though

 

[BSim500]

My I5 laptop that was well over a grand; can't do WoT on low details at 30 frames at 720p....

If you paid "well over" £1,000 (assuming you're British since you were pricing things in "pounds") for a general purpose laptop that couldn't play games, then you were seriously ripped off. I've seen i7-4710MQ based gaming laptops with discrete GT 860M chips for under £800 at Ebuyer, etc... And iGPU-only non-gaming general purpose laptops (eg, HP 250) are barely 1/2 to 1/3rd of that price.

Not being funny, but why would anyone on a "budget" spend over £1,000 / $1,700 on a computer without a discreet GFX card with the intention of playing games at high detail?...

 

[MeldarthX]

If you paid "well over" £1,000 (assuming you're British since you were pricing things in "pounds") for a general purpose laptop that couldn't play games, then you were seriously ripped off. I've seen i7-4710MQ based gaming laptops with discrete GT 860M chips for under £800 at Ebuyer, etc... And iGPU-only non-gaming general purpose laptops (eg, HP 250) are barely 1/2 to 1/3rd of that price.

Not being funny, but why would anyone on a "budget" spend over £1,000 / $1,700 on a computer without a discreet GFX card with the intention of playing games at high detail?...

This was a engineering laptop........why it was a grand; and was bought before I came on board.....yes I know; I would not spent my money this way; but you didn't bother to ready said its a company laptop......No I'm not British.....I'm American....but everything over here is more expensive lol.......

 

[ShintaiDK]

That is soo generalized and obviously 1000% incorrect.

Not really. You have to belong to an extremely limited niche before an AMD CPU product make sense. And its also reflected in AMDs sales.

 

[Erenhardt]

Not really. You have to belong to an extremely limited niche before an AMD CPU product make sense. And its also reflected in AMDs sales.

Firstly, one can't be invested in intel.

I already called you out on that statement months ago, when Kaveri was released.

Feel free to report yourself, as forum member callouts are against forum rules.

There are some AMD CPUs (and APUs) that make sense. For example 4 or 6 thread amd CPU have a lot of untaped potential. Games only recently started to use this hardware. Competing intel products are going full tilt when gaming (2 threads at 99% load). If both CPUs have the same gaming performance now, I would expect more longevity from one that is not yet fully utilized. Logic.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's not incorrect. For gaming you would be actually nuts to put in a 3 year old CPU into a new build. Buy haswell as they are much better and similarly priced

I just built my FX system not too long ago, and I game on it. Guess I'm nuts. :sneaky:

 

[bryanW1995]

this thread is not going to end well I predict...

There is no way to defend intel without being called a fanboy.
There is no way to defend AMD without being called a dreamer / idealist / fanboy.

So im gonna with with ARM design as being the most superior of them all!

Naw, you can just say that intel is faster in almost every conceivable scenario and far more power efficient. I used to love my AMD rigs, and I would buy them again if I could justify it, but intel took the lead with Conroe 8 years ago and they have only put more distance between themselves and AMD since then.

 

[Sattern]

I personally love AMD. I have had the same quad core since 2006 and it was a lot cheaper to buy and never gave me any problems. I only play average games, but it can handle many larger games without any issues.

 

[2is]

Please don't open this can of worms!
The system is biased against AMD designs. When games bet more MT optimized then we'll see the vision AMD tried to give to its customers.

#MOARCOARS

You do realize, AMD proponents have been saying this since the days of the original Phenom right? And since then, we've had plenty of MT games and Intel is still faster. How many more years do you plan on holding on to this false sense of hope?

The last time AMD had the performance crown was in the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2 days, and it wasn't because software made them the better CPU, it was because they were the better CPU. Software isn't going to help them today. If AMD is going to be the better CPU, it's not going to happen with their current offerings. They're going to have to actually come out with the better CPU. Something they've shown no interest in competing against with Intel. Right now, AMD is perfectly content with "good enough" or even "almost good enough" Their interest in the enthusiast desktop market has long since passed and I doubt it will ever be anything more than an afterthought moving forward.

 

[Galatian]

You called me out for what exactly ??? And do you care to show us those benchmarks you say i5 had lower scores ??

Sorry...calling out was the wrong word. I apologize. What I meant is that I remember having the same discussion in the Kaveri Launch Thread. I'm specifically talking about those marketing slides, where AMD puts their top of the line A10-7850K against the Intel i5-4670K:

Those numbers are just wrong. Intel fares a lot better, when you look at the actual future mark benchmark site. Those are actual number:

Almost a 1000 points more...talk about a marketing twist.

The matter of fact is this: AMD makes it sound like their chips are the only ones that can use OpenCL and this is just wrong. Intel is just as well in that department. I would even bet, that their bigger GPUs (HD5000, Iris 5100 and Iris Pro 5200) surpass AMD chips in OpenCL application.

Sure there is HSA, but we really have to wait for software to take advantage of it. Intel has TSX for example, but there is no software out for that as well. Intel just doesn't do as much marketing hype about it.

This is all I'm saying: don't believe all the marketing hype (from both sides) and check for yourself. AMDs marketing slides are especially full with...well...essentially lies.

 

[Erenhardt]

Galatian, sadly, anandtech decided to hide iris pro subpar compute performance in kaveri review due to unknown reasons ( )
But I gathered some results for you:
Iris pro:

7850k

7850k is almost 60% faster. Even 45W 7600 humiliates iris pro.

PCmark 08:

and bunch more opencl bechmarks:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_a10_7850k_apu_review,11.html
More expensive not always equals better.

 

[NTMBK]

Something seems broken there. The 4770k scores almost twice as high in the second graph? Perhaps a driver update improved performance.

 

[Enigmoid]

Galatian, sadly, anandtech decided to hide iris pro subpar compute performance in kaveri review due to unknown reasons ( )
But I gathered some results for you:
Iris pro:

7850k

7850k is almost 60% faster. Even 45W 7600 humiliates iris pro.

Something seems broken there. The 4770k scores almost twice as high in the second graph? Perhaps a driver update improved performance.

Yep, its quite obvious that either a different scene/benchmark is being used or there have been massive driver improvements for AMD and intel alike. Since the APU is fairly estabilshed it looks more like a different scene.

A10-5800k from 112 -> 235 (DDR3 2133) + 110%
HD 4000 from 163 -> 266 (DDR3 2133 -> 1600) + 63%
HD 4600 from 185 -> 299 (DDR3 2133 -> 1600) + 62%

Numbers between the tests cannot be compared but if iris pro follows HD 4000/4600 trend a score of approximately 533 will be obtained (+62%) putting it ahead of kaveri.

 

[AtenRa]

Sorry...calling out was the wrong word. I apologize. What I meant is that I remember having the same discussion in the Kaveri Launch Thread. I'm specifically talking about those marketing slides, where AMD puts their top of the line A10-7850K against the Intel i5-4670K:

Those numbers are just wrong. Intel fares a lot better, when you look at the actual future mark benchmark site. Those are actual number:

Almost a 1000 points more...talk about a marketing twist.

The matter of fact is this: AMD makes it sound like their chips are the only ones that can use OpenCL and this is just wrong. Intel is just as well in that department. I would even bet, that their bigger GPUs (HD5000, Iris 5100 and Iris Pro 5200) surpass AMD chips in OpenCL application.

Sure there is HSA, but we really have to wait for software to take advantage of it. Intel has TSX for example, but there is no software out for that as well. Intel just doesn't do as much marketing hype about it.

This is all I'm saying: don't believe all the marketing hype (from both sides) and check for yourself. AMDs marketing slides are especially full with...well...essentially lies.

The AMD Slide is using PC Mark Home V2(number 6 in the Footnotes), the one you link is V3 . Also AMD numbers were made prior to Kaveri Release in January, since then Intel have released a faster OpenCL driver, combined with a different Benchmark version we have different results. There is no conspiracy here

And to note that, nobody have ever said only AMD can run OpenCL, it is just that Intel has far less performance as of now.

 

[AtenRa]

Something seems broken there. The 4770k scores almost twice as high in the second graph? Perhaps a driver update improved performance.

Yes latest Intel driver is much better in OpenCL.

 

[Galatian]

The AMD Slide is using PC Mark Home V2(number 6 in the Footnotes), the one you link is V3 . Also AMD numbers were made prior to Kaveri Release in January, since then Intel have released a faster OpenCL driver, combined with a different Benchmark version we have different results. There is no conspiracy here

And to note that, nobody have ever said only AMD can run OpenCL, it is just that Intel has far less performance as of now.

It doesn't matter, because I even checked Kaveri benchmarks. I will post them when I'm back home, but they didn't increase much. I think it was only 200 points more or something like that.

Since this is a OpenCL powered benchmark it does give you a general clue about the performance of both chips. The Intel chips which cost just as much as the desktop Kaveri chips can hold their water next to them.

Does anybody have the marketing slides again? I remember AMD posting some other Luxmark Benchmarks and when I did my own test on my old Ivy I also saw that the numbers from AMDs slides must be off.

Edit: As promised here is a screenshot.

As you can see both chips are almost equal in price and almost equal in performance, even using OpenCL, which is what AMD is heavily marketing with their APUs ("Look we have a mediocre CPU but with our GPU we can level the playing field"). I just simply don't see it and there are only a few tiny niches a AMD processor really makes sense.