Why AMD is better for gaming purposes.

DukeOvilla · Apr 25, 2013

Before you turn into a hate monger, please turn up the fan speed on your brains. I'll tell you the facts of why it is better. I'll make this as simple for you as possible.

Intel>AMD, this is a fact, Intel does indeed make processors that are better in several fields. The downside being the prices.

For gaming purposes, AMD>Intel, here is why.

Going AMD will make your whole rig cost less.

AMD is very easy to overclock. Being so in the first place, and comparatively to Intel CPUs.

Your CPU will only effect loading speeds for games to a certain point, the differences are to small to consider when you compare nearly the same rigs, one with AMD and one with Intel. You want faster loading, buy a SSD.

You want a better CPU for better FPS, am I right? Well guess what! If you spend less on your CPU and more on a GPU, then you'll get better frame-rates! Graphics are the key when it comes to gaming. Most any modern CPU will do you more than fine.

What it boils down to is it does not matter so much. AMD is just better for this field because it's cheaper, easier to overclock, and allows you to spend more money on what really matters, the GPU.

Go AMD, unless you got plenty of money, if you got money, the choice is simple, go Intel. So, in most cases, you should probably go AMD.

nukemaster · Apr 25, 2013

This seems like it could become flame bait awful quick. So lets keep it civil.

DukeOvilla · Apr 25, 2013

nukemaster :

Everyone turn your fan speeds up.

4745454b · Apr 25, 2013

Are you being serious? We might as well lock this now. That's my vote.

Intel does indeed make processors that are better in several fields. The downside being the prices.

Intel's cheap non OCable CPUs still do a heck of a job in gaming.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=289

I would have picked an even lower end CPU but that's as low a SB/IB that I saw on Anands list.

DukeOvilla · Apr 25, 2013

That i3 is 25$ more, and a lot of those benchmark scores were close, so you have some substance, but to that much. I was kind of referring to the FX series CPUs and their Intel counterparts.

When you compare the FPS gains of those 2 CPUs in the benchmark, the difference is small. Remember we're talking about gaming purposes here.

Furthermore, spending an extra $25 on a GPU for the kind of rig accommodating that CPU would yield much more than buying the Intel CPU.

(P.S. The 965 the I3 was compared to is overclockable, while the i3 was not, like you said. Think about that for a sec.)

CDdude55 · Apr 25, 2013

Most of the stuff you stated is obvious, if you're on a tight budget AMD is generally the way to go but current AMD chip performance lacks architecture wise against current Intel chips.

Also your CPU affects more then just loading speeds (your HDD/SDD has more of an effect with that.), it does the physics calculations and core performance can certainly affect a game drastically. The only argument you're really making is that it's great for gaming because you're poor. While it's true that gaming generally uses your GPU more then practically anything, the CPU is still equally as important and in some instances games utilize as much CPU resources as it can, so the CPU is very important to game performance in some cases it's not all iron clad.

Same for overclockability, there is far to many factors to consider then to just say it's easier, were talking about cooling, motherboard and even in some cases the type of revision your CPU is (reminds me of the D0 vs C0 i7 steppings). It's not as easy as to just say one entire companies line does something a lot better, it's all dependent. I'd say Intel CPU's are just as easy to overclock with an unlocked multiplier.

DukeOvilla · Apr 25, 2013

CDdude55 :

Yes, I know it effects more, but when you're talking about an AMD cpu and it's counterpart, the real difference is not that much, especially considering that you'd be able to spend more on the GPU, which matters more when it comes to gaming.

mobrocket · Apr 25, 2013

Based on your argument thou, u are using price as the only determining factor...

so based on that logic, wouldn't i just buy a console because right now it packs the most bang for the buck???

DukeOvilla · Apr 25, 2013

Consoles do not compare to the PC. There is no comparison, argument invalid.

AMD dose cost less, ALLOWING you to buy a nicer GPU, which is proven to yield more performance than a better cpu. You want max performance, then go AMD with a nicer GPU. Unless you got money to spare.....

AMD+better GPU=better gaming
Intel+decent GPU=good gaming

counterpart CPUs of coarse.

CDdude55 · Apr 25, 2013

DukeOvilla :

That's a bit of a tough case to make, as i said, it's all dependent on what the game exploits. Intels mordern core performance is worlds better and does still effect gaming performance. You can not just simply dismiss the CPU's role by simply stating that games exploit mostly GPU related resources. While that's true, performance gains a losses can be related to many different parts of a system and how the games use those parts.

For instance, take a look at this these charts: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8 , the FX 8150 performanced worse then AMD's older generation chips at a variety of resolutions in a lot of instances because of the lack of the softwares ability to use all it's cores and overall framrate went down drastically while also sucking down morepower and outputting more heat then any of those other chips. Bear in mind, i own and use an FX 8120, so i'm not just trying to bash what AMD has created. I still love the chip in other ways.

DukeOvilla · Apr 25, 2013

I totally agree, Intel makes the best chips. As you an I both stated, the GPU is indeed more important when you talk about gaming. If you got money, by all means go Intel, but for a budget, AMD wins every time because it allows you to spend more on your GPU, allowing you to get the best possible performance within your budget. You'll be able to run your games better this way, then a counterpart Intel CPU with a less expensive GPU.

A word of advice, 8 cores are unnecessary, turn at least 2 off and overclock the rest.

unreal9400 · Apr 25, 2013

Well it's true that AMD is better for gaming and their CPU are overclock-able than most Intel CPU which are locked.
But one thing that led me choosing Intel than AMD is performance and power consumption which Intel wins.
Even if AMD managed to overclock higher to achieve the same performance as an Intel CPU, the power consumption will be higher on AMD platform.

CDdude55 · Apr 25, 2013

DukeOvilla :

But if that were true, that link i put in my last post with those charts wouldn't exist, they're showing a large differance in game performance by simply switching CPU's. If performance was only GPU related those charts would show little varation, but instead where seeing a massive increase in frame rate by using an older architecture in a lot of instances.

What you're saying is true overall about the GPU affecting more of gaming performance, but i feel you're overgeneralizing a more complex situation. It's not even close to being as black and white as you might think.

DukeOvilla · Apr 25, 2013

Those benchmarks don't factor in a GPU that is additive to the money saved by going with AMD though, do they?

4745454b · Apr 25, 2013

Like $25? How exactly does that get me a better GPU? I'll probably spend that and possibly a bit more to get a cooler so that I can OC my AMD CPU. I'm not sure I see these savings your talking about.

whyso · Apr 25, 2013

Look at it this way. the 8350 can compete fairly well with the i3 in any game. Most of the i3 wins are at framerates over 60 which is irrelevant for anyone who doesn't have a 120 hz monitor. The 8350 hands down wins in games such as crysis 3 or farcry three and given the nature of future games (better use of cores, multithreading) it will be the better cpu hands down into the future. A 6300 with an overclock is probably the best bet for you. Games generally don't use more than 6 cores (and probably won't for a while) and when they do the scaling is poor. Given the very comparable price the 6300 + OC is much better than any i3.

8350rocks · Apr 25, 2013

whyso :

Look at it this way. the 8350 can compete very well with the i5/i7 in any game. Most of the i5/i7 wins are at framerates over 60 which is irrelevant for anyone who doesn't have a 120 hz monitor. The 8350 hands down wins in games such as crysis 3 or farcry three and given the nature of future games (better use of cores, multithreading) it will be the better cpu hands down into the future. A 6300 with an overclock is probably the best bet for you. Games generally don't use more than 6 cores (and probably won't for a while) and when they do the scaling is poor. Given the very comparable price the 6300 + OC is much better than any i3.

Fixed!

Cazalan · Apr 26, 2013

Intel knows the dual core days are coming to and end. That's why Broadwell will be all quad or higher.

Jchristie2 · Nov 12, 2015

4745454b :

If you are taking price into consideration, you should pick two CPUs of equal value/price and compare those. For example the CPU I got for my nephew's rig versus a slightly more expensive Intel CPU. If you are going to pay the extra 40 bucks to get Intel, you could get an AMD CPU that is $40 more, and it will likely outperform an Intel chip of the same value.

4745454b · Nov 12, 2015

This thread is 2+ yrs old. Please don't post in threads this old.

Why AMD is better for gaming purposes.

Honorable

Titan

Honorable

Titan

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Distinguished

Honorable

Titan

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Reputable

Titan

Share this page