Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

New Gen gaming AMD vs Intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 30, 2013 4:40:19 PM

Hi guy's thought I'd get some opinions here as I'm prepping the finishing touches to my build aimed mainly at Rome II and wanted to see what you think.

I'm a little perplexed at the moment as I decide to go either for an AMD FX 8350 4 Ghz x8 or an Intel equivalent.

Now Rome II is going to be dual core and as we already know Intel pretty much pips AMD in that area but I was considering the FX 8350 simply because I thought it was powerful enough to keep up.

Now that the new games consoles are coming out and are spec'd at 8 core CPU's won't that mean games developers will finally make that multi thread jump to 4 - 8 core gaming?

My budget is $230 (£150)

Suggestions on this?

More about : gen gaming amd intel

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2013 4:50:16 PM

Diamond-HP said:
Hi guy's thought I'd get some opinions here as I'm prepping the finishing touches to my build aimed mainly at Rome II and wanted to see what you think.

I'm a little perplexed at the moment as I decide to go either for an AMD FX 8350 4 Ghz x8 or an Intel equivalent.

Now Rome II is going to be dual core and as we already know Intel pretty much pips AMD in that area but I was considering the FX 8350 simply because I thought it was powerful enough to keep up.

Now that the new games consoles are coming out and are spec'd at 8 core CPU's won't that mean games developers will finally make that multi thread jump to 4 - 8 core gaming?

My budget is $230 (£150)

Suggestions on this?


Intel CPU's are overall better at gaming than AMD CPU's, however, Intel is a little on the expensive side. AMD CPU's are also good, but not much, and are very affordable. Yes, game devs will make a jump to multithreads since next gen consoles have the same architecture as PC. If you strictly game, I would recommend the 4670k or the 3570k. However, the 8350 is very overclockable and can beat the Intel's i5 cpu's in some tests, thus having roughly equal performance in games. I would recommend getting the 8350 and with some overclocking, it would be a all around good CPU for the price.
Share
June 30, 2013 5:05:09 PM

Yeah that's what I was thinking initially.

My main concern is as Rome II is CPU heavy and dual core will I see any ill effects by choosing the FX 8350 over an Intel equivalent for the budget I stated?


m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2013 5:34:12 PM

you might wanna check out an i5 3570 or 4670, far better single thread performance and they are about the same price as the 8350.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2013 5:35:20 PM

Diamond-HP said:
Yeah that's what I was thinking initially.

My main concern is as Rome II is CPU heavy and dual core will I see any ill effects by choosing the FX 8350 over an Intel equivalent for the budget I stated?




Since Rome 2 isn't optimized for multicores, Intel's 22nm quad core CPU will deliver better performance. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350... as you can see with Shogun 2, Intel's CPU dominate AMD.
m
0
l
June 30, 2013 6:40:23 PM

Hmmm this is what I mean it's a tough one, do I go for the i5 4670 with Rome mainly in mind? but what about the new 8 core games which are surely to come out now that the consoles have gone 8 core?

I guess I was hoping the FX 8350 should be good enough for Rome and will be future ready for 8 core gaming due end of year with the consoles releases.

How would you play this scenario with that in mind?


Latest specs requirements for Rome 2

http://games.on.net/2013/07/pc-specs-revealed-for-total...
m
0
l
June 30, 2013 7:35:20 PM

I was amazed about sony AND micro going BOth for AMD rather than intel. I guess the cheaper, the more money to develop games XD... lol no.

On the other side intel vs amd both have really good chips and both are trying to improve, i really love the turboboost technology on my core i5.
m
0
l
June 30, 2013 8:31:59 PM

Right I've done some checking.

I can't get the i5 Haswell because that coupled with a Mobo that accepts 1866mhz RAM came to £300 / $456 which is more than what I'm willing to pay.

The i5 3750k with Mobo costs £234 / $355

Compared with the AMD

FX 8350 with mobo - £210 / $319

Is the i5 3750k really that worth it compared with the FX 8350?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2013 9:27:34 PM

Diamond-HP said:
Right I've done some checking.

I can't get the i5 Haswell because that coupled with a Mobo that accepts 1866mhz RAM came to £300 / $456 which is more than what I'm willing to pay.

The i5 3750k with Mobo costs £234 / $355

Compared with the AMD

FX 8350 with mobo - £210 / $319

Is the i5 3750k really that worth it compared with the FX 8350?


Yes, right now, Intel CPUs are better than AMD, plus you shouldn't be getting AMD just because it has 8 cores. Not a single game right now will utilize 8 core and I don't expect games within the next 3 years will utilize 8 cores. Until games does, you would have already thinking about upgrading anyway.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2013 10:10:33 PM

If Rome 2 is an important game to you then for sure I would get an Intel CPU if I were you. Just get something strong enough with at least 4 cores like a 4670K or something.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2013 10:55:25 PM

The FX 8320 is $40 cheaper than the FX 8350, and $80 cheaper than the 4670k which does not OC as well as Ivy Bridge and consumes more power. The most cores any game can utilize right now is 6, yes. However I expect that to change in the next year or two. Gaming at higher resolutions is more dependent on the video card, and will see less of a difference in frames between Intel and AMD. If you have already purchased your GPU it doesn't really matter, but if you haven't it'd be better to go for a cheaper CPU and better GPU.
m
0
l
July 1, 2013 1:22:50 AM

montosaurous said:
The FX 8320 is $40 cheaper than the FX 8350, and $80 cheaper than the 4670k which does not OC as well as Ivy Bridge and consumes more power. The most cores any game can utilize right now is 6, yes. However I expect that to change in the next year or two. Gaming at higher resolutions is more dependent on the video card, and will see less of a difference in frames between Intel and AMD. If you have already purchased your GPU it doesn't really matter, but if you haven't it'd be better to go for a cheaper CPU and better GPU.


Dude my rig is listed in my sig as is my GPU. ;) 

As you can see my weak point is in my CPU so I'm trying to decide between the i5 3570 and the FX 8350 to see which will give me the biggest gains for the next few years for gaming, graphics do depend on GPU's but games like Rome 2 are very CPU intensive as was Shogun II so that is something I have to address as Total war games are among my favorites.

As I said I looked at the i5 haswell and the cost plus the mobo is outside of what I'm willing to pay so if I do go Intel it will be the Ivy Bridge.

I suppose an OC'ed i5 3570 would be a good pairing with my HD 7850? it's tough because teh FX 8350 get's more points in certain site bench comparisons but then I guess it's for it's all round capabilities not exclusive with gaming?

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2013 1:39:24 AM

Sorry, I must've missed it lol. But yeah both CPUs would be good but I would go with the FX 8350 just because it performs much better in multithreaded apps and is much more future proof.
m
0
l
July 1, 2013 1:51:45 AM

At this point and at those prices I could get either, although the Intel is about $20 over what I wanted to pay but I'm not going to let $20 stand in my way now am I.

Rome II is not out till September which is when I was going to do the upgrade anyway, what I'm going to do is wait till it comes out, see how bad the bottle neck is and then get some initial benches from other users in the first few weeks of the games release from people using both CPU's ...... best performing CPU will win and also I will get more news about the new consoles games developments with regards to the 8 core gaming.

I feel right now their both good CPU's and I will upgrade but I'd like some hard info (from Rome 2 live) before I choose.

Thanks for helping me out though guy's.


(As this is an open ended conclusion I'm going to give best answer to the post that reflected that or the most facts, thanks)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2013 10:11:28 AM

Both would play it well, but if it only uses 1-2 cores like Total War Shotgun 2 it may perform considerably better on an i5.
m
0
l
July 1, 2013 10:55:24 AM

montosaurous said:
Both would play it well, but if it only uses 1-2 cores like Total War Shotgun 2 it may perform considerably better on an i5.


Yep that's the conclusion, CA the guy's who make Total War have apparently geared this toward the Haswell line for top performance however an IB will work just fine.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
July 1, 2013 11:04:53 AM

Diamond-HP said:
Hmmm this is what I mean it's a tough one, do I go for the i5 4670 with Rome mainly in mind? but what about the new 8 core games which are surely to come out now that the consoles have gone 8 core?

I guess I was hoping the FX 8350 should be good enough for Rome and will be future ready for 8 core gaming due end of year with the consoles releases.

How would you play this scenario with that in mind?


Latest specs requirements for Rome 2

http://games.on.net/2013/07/pc-specs-revealed-for-total...


The consensus on Rome 2 from what I have seen is that a FX6300 will be enough to run it well. If that's the case, then the 8350 should be plenty as well...I don't see any reason to spend more money than you need to. Unless you just want to dump an extra $60-80 on intel MB + CPU for a few FPS increase...
m
0
l
July 1, 2013 11:44:16 AM

8350rocks said:

The consensus on Rome 2 from what I have seen is that a FX6300 will be enough to run it well. If that's the case, then the 8350 should be plenty as well...I don't see any reason to spend more money than you need to. Unless you just want to dump an extra $60-80 on intel MB + CPU for a few FPS increase...


Well you say that but two things, one there is no consensus that's worth a damn until the game actually comes out or unless CA say so.

Two I had forum discussion just yesterday on TWcenter and one of the Mods there stated clearly that Intel will be better (and it will because it's a dual core game), he even went as far to say in large battles the 8350 could even struggle!

Now I personally don't know if that last comment is true unless you have or know someone that played Shogun 2 with an FX 8350?

But all I know is Shogun was an absolute biatch on the CPU on high settings in large battles, really bad when I tried it, I'll need the most suitable CPU possible even if I am a bit lamented on going over to Intel as I had my heart set on a FX 8350.
m
0
l
July 1, 2013 11:59:45 AM

Diamond,as for Total War Games they are great!,Awesome!,Blamazing(lol).but is it really worth the AMOUNT of money you invest in Intel or save some money to play all next-gen games with cheap CPU? you can't just put everything on one game because there are many others better and doesn't require high-end Intel CPUs,i am just saying focus on the GENERAL games not just Total War game because it's Devs really REALLY need to research multi-core for it and fast imagine Total War Running on 6 cores or 8 cores!,most games even Starcraft 2 can utilize more than 2/3 cores and i see that FX users are enjoying the game even though Intel still beats FX in SC2

So Just don't focus on one game that's all

EDIT:not being multi-core friendly is just an excuse to force people to buy Intel from my point of view,you know...Total War games have been an Intel Ad games
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
July 1, 2013 12:27:01 PM

Diamond-HP said:
8350rocks said:

The consensus on Rome 2 from what I have seen is that a FX6300 will be enough to run it well. If that's the case, then the 8350 should be plenty as well...I don't see any reason to spend more money than you need to. Unless you just want to dump an extra $60-80 on intel MB + CPU for a few FPS increase...


Well you say that but two things, one there is no consensus that's worth a damn until the game actually comes out or unless CA say so.

Two I had forum discussion just yesterday on TWcenter and one of the Mods there stated clearly that Intel will be better (and it will because it's a dual core game), he even went as far to say in large battles the 8350 could even struggle!

Now I personally don't know if that last comment is true unless you have or know someone that played Shogun 2 with an FX 8350?

But all I know is Shogun was an absolute biatch on the CPU on high settings in large battles, really bad when I tried it, I'll need the most suitable CPU possible even if I am a bit lamented on going over to Intel as I had my heart set on a FX 8350.


Shogun 2 you should get about 30 FPS on a stock 8350, if you OC then you'll probably get about 40 FPS if you hit 4.7+ GHz. That should be good considering the 3570k only gets about 35 FPS in that one at stock clocks with Turbo Core.
m
0
l
July 1, 2013 12:51:27 PM

Maher90 said:
Diamond,as for Total War Games they are great!,Awesome!,Blamazing(lol).but is it really worth the AMOUNT of money you invest in Intel or save some money to play all next-gen games with cheap CPU? you can't just put everything on one game because there are many others better and doesn't require high-end Intel CPUs,i am just saying focus on the GENERAL games not just Total War game because it's Devs really REALLY need to research multi-core for it and fast imagine Total War Running on 6 cores or 8 cores!,most games even Starcraft 2 can utilize more than 2/3 cores and i see that FX users are enjoying the game even though Intel still beats FX in SC2

So Just don't focus on one game that's all

EDIT:not being multi-core friendly is just an excuse to force people to buy Intel from my point of view,you know...Total War games have been an Intel Ad games


Well that's the problem, I only play COD and Total War these day's and let's be honest I wouldn't have trouble playing any game on a i5 3570k because even if a game does support multi threading games currently are not going passed 4 cores if that.

Yeah I know you say why pay more, well were talking £30 here tops, so do I spend £30 and have the better gaming experience (although marginal) on the one game I do play or do I cheap out because the 8350 can play games I'll probably never play?

8350Rocks that's cool but then you have to figure the OC on the i5.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2013 12:58:41 PM

8350rocks said:
Diamond-HP said:
8350rocks said:

The consensus on Rome 2 from what I have seen is that a FX6300 will be enough to run it well. If that's the case, then the 8350 should be plenty as well...I don't see any reason to spend more money than you need to. Unless you just want to dump an extra $60-80 on intel MB + CPU for a few FPS increase...


Well you say that but two things, one there is no consensus that's worth a damn until the game actually comes out or unless CA say so.

Two I had forum discussion just yesterday on TWcenter and one of the Mods there stated clearly that Intel will be better (and it will because it's a dual core game), he even went as far to say in large battles the 8350 could even struggle!

Now I personally don't know if that last comment is true unless you have or know someone that played Shogun 2 with an FX 8350?

But all I know is Shogun was an absolute biatch on the CPU on high settings in large battles, really bad when I tried it, I'll need the most suitable CPU possible even if I am a bit lamented on going over to Intel as I had my heart set on a FX 8350.


Shogun 2 you should get about 30 FPS on a stock 8350, if you OC then you'll probably get about 40 FPS if you hit 4.7+ GHz. That should be good considering the 3570k only gets about 35 FPS in that one at stock clocks with Turbo Core.


The FX-8350 is quite poor at Shogun 2 even when Overclocked to 4.8GHz:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350...
m
0
l
July 1, 2013 1:12:25 PM

You do have to be careful with some of these benches though some sites I feel could be bias but ....... there's not much doubt in my mind that come end of August I'll be looking like going for the Intel.


m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
July 1, 2013 1:40:46 PM



EDIT: Not sure why the image isn't working but here's the link:

http://www.behardware.com/articles/880-15/amd-fx-8350-r...

It may be poor "relatively" but it still competes with i5's in Shogun 2, which is to say it's either very demanding, or very poorly optimized. The 8350 is @ 15.2 FPS and a 3770k is @ 19.1 FPS, I would say that's a pretty poorly optimized game or you need a 3930k to break into first person shooter type frame rates.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg12/amd-fx-...

That review shows that without AA, the 8150 gets the same type frames in Shogun 2 as a 2600k @ 52 FPS avg. Considering the 8350 is about 15% better than the 8150, I would say you'll be fine.
m
0
l
July 1, 2013 2:36:45 PM

TBH where I appreciate you playing devils advocate on behalf of the FX 8350 those results you showed kind of shot your argument in the foot.

The i5 3750's results looked amazing compared to the rest of the pack and yes TW isn't (unfortunately for everyone concerned) optimized for more than dual core gaming, in fact it tries to be a single core game which is sh*t quite frankly as it's not using all the technology at hand and yet its such a big game.

Put it this way with the money I'm pumping into my build just to change the CPU (inc Mobo) I'm gonna be flat out pissed if I get any stuttering so I need to play it safe and go for the best performing processor.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
July 1, 2013 5:33:44 PM

3 FPS is amazing??? Err...alright man, it's your choice...you'll be fine either way.
m
0
l
July 1, 2013 6:15:36 PM

8350rocks said:
3 FPS is amazing??? Err...alright man, it's your choice...you'll be fine either way.


Your being selective, first off it was more like 5 fps and secondly on Skyrim it was 20 fps! that's a big jump plus I said amazing compared to the rest of the pack as in the i5 was coming in 1st and 2nd in all of the tests for games.

I require games to be on 60+ fps as much as possible, I know it can't be done on all games but that's what I aim for and usually get, even if the Intel is only slightly better it's still better and so it'll prob be the one I go with unless benches for Rome 2 when it's released show me otherwise.

I've only ever owned AMD so believe me if it was better I'd go with it but I need what's best to suit my requirements and at the moment it's looking like the i5.

If when the bench reports for fps do come out and the FX is equal or better then I'd buy that one in a heart beat but I'm doubting it will.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2013 1:07:44 AM

Skyrim is about the only game that Intel has a huge lead on. Rome 2 will probably favor Intel, but by how much is unknown. Personally I think it's important to consider future games when buying a more expensive CPU. You'll want to keep this thing for a few years right? While it is true most games are a little bit better on Intel, that is slowly shifting. Some titles will still only use 1-2 cores, but many will use 6-8 in the next few years. I think it's safe to say by 2015 eight cores will be the craze. Remember when people said quad cores were unneeded for gaming and dual cores were best?
m
0
l
July 2, 2013 8:01:53 AM

montosaurous said:
Skyrim is about the only game that Intel has a huge lead on. Rome 2 will probably favor Intel, but by how much is unknown. Personally I think it's important to consider future games when buying a more expensive CPU. You'll want to keep this thing for a few years right? While it is true most games are a little bit better on Intel, that is slowly shifting. Some titles will still only use 1-2 cores, but many will use 6-8 in the next few years. I think it's safe to say by 2015 eight cores will be the craze. Remember when people said quad cores were unneeded for gaming and dual cores were best?


Well it's funny you say that, I'm actually having this convo elsewhere in the forum and I did factor that but in the Graphics section people I'm speaking to have explained that it is unlikely that +4 core gaming will become wide spread.

1) It's too hard to develop such a fractured game design platform and the expertise to do it is slim in the industry.

2) There's no real need when were not even maxing 4 core usage yet.

3) 8 cores are 4 cores just with secondary cores embedded, they are not 8 full cores.

This is what I was told anyway but it does make sense as to why the gaming industry has been so slow to keep up even with 4 maxed core usage.

Just seems that the jump from dual to hex or oct doesn't seem likely.

unless anyone can say other wise?

The fact that an Intel has 4 well developed optimized cores is why it beats an AMD's multi cores with undeveloped secondary cores.

Quoted from other thread ......

"What needs to be done on the CPU is very linear. It is very difficult to design a game to use more than 3-4 cores. One is for preparing frames, one for A.I. and another for physics. Splitting any of those tasks up to be used on multiple cores is very complicated and takes a great deal more work, so most Dev's will not design games around them. Only a few will for a while. If a game engine is created to use more, then people will just reuse an engine, in which case you will see some, but there will always be games that won't use more than 3-4 cores."
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2013 8:20:19 AM

They are modules, 2 cores each. It's closest to HT really, which doesn't matter since the FX 8xxx is closer to the i7 than the i5 in heavily threaded performance. Some games will only use a few cores, while many will scale well. I also think it's important to look at the ages of the games bench marked, as older ones will use less cores obviously and newer ones will scale better. You would expect a 2013 game to use more cores than a 2010 game, right? Like I said, games have always used more cores as time goes on. If all you do all day is play Total War than you'll be better off with an i5 3570k, but if you do other stuff that might be somewhat intensive than the FX should be considered well.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
July 2, 2013 1:46:41 PM

Diamond-HP said:
montosaurous said:
Skyrim is about the only game that Intel has a huge lead on. Rome 2 will probably favor Intel, but by how much is unknown. Personally I think it's important to consider future games when buying a more expensive CPU. You'll want to keep this thing for a few years right? While it is true most games are a little bit better on Intel, that is slowly shifting. Some titles will still only use 1-2 cores, but many will use 6-8 in the next few years. I think it's safe to say by 2015 eight cores will be the craze. Remember when people said quad cores were unneeded for gaming and dual cores were best?


Well it's funny you say that, I'm actually having this convo elsewhere in the forum and I did factor that but in the Graphics section people I'm speaking to have explained that it is unlikely that +4 core gaming will become wide spread.

1) It's too hard to develop such a fractured game design platform and the expertise to do it is slim in the industry.

2) There's no real need when were not even maxing 4 core usage yet.

3) 8 cores are 4 cores just with secondary cores embedded, they are not 8 full cores.

This is what I was told anyway but it does make sense as to why the gaming industry has been so slow to keep up even with 4 maxed core usage.

Just seems that the jump from dual to hex or oct doesn't seem likely.

unless anyone can say other wise?

The fact that an Intel has 4 well developed optimized cores is why it beats an AMD's multi cores with undeveloped secondary cores.

Quoted from other thread ......

"What needs to be done on the CPU is very linear. It is very difficult to design a game to use more than 3-4 cores. One is for preparing frames, one for A.I. and another for physics. Splitting any of those tasks up to be used on multiple cores is very complicated and takes a great deal more work, so most Dev's will not design games around them. Only a few will for a while. If a game engine is created to use more, then people will just reuse an engine, in which case you will see some, but there will always be games that won't use more than 3-4 cores."


I am a game developer, we are developing for consoles and PCs right now. We are doing everything we can to squeeze performance out of 8 cores in our games now.

The people in the GPU section likely are not game developers...take what they say with a grain of salt. Multicore capable game engines are already here, and more are coming. Dual core games are going the way of the dodo...except a few edge cases.
m
0
l
July 2, 2013 2:56:59 PM

8350rocks said:

I am a game developer, we are developing for consoles and PCs right now. We are doing everything we can to squeeze performance out of 8 cores in our games now.

The people in the GPU section likely are not game developers...take what they say with a grain of salt. Multicore capable game engines are already here, and more are coming. Dual core games are going the way of the dodo...except a few edge cases.


Oh cool, so what do you feel is holding back the games market?

I understand the major releases because they have to cater for the consoles but studios like Creative Assembly who make Total War for PC only are quoted as saying making multi core supported games is very difficult?

As a Games developer yourself what's the difficulty? also what's the word in the industry are they going for 8 or 4 core gaming mainly?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
July 2, 2013 3:11:17 PM

The issue with games, is that they start developing them at a point, and plan for the best hardware at the time or perhaps a bit ahead. Then when they release in 1-2 years...hardware is on the next generation already.

The only thing I can see holding companies back from making multicore capable games is their choice of Engine. Though in all fairness, some games, like Civ5 and other RTS titles don't have a great many options for newer gaming Engines as RTS has somewhat taken a back seat to other genres, like the FPS/3PS titles and RPGs, Simulation games, etc.

The difficulty for us, at this point, is adapting to the nuances of the new console hardware, and trying to keep track of the pace of hardware in PCs. We plan ahead as best we can, but when it takes 1-2 years to release a game you're developing, you'll never really catch up to where hardware is going to be.

The next gen console titles are going to be geared at using all the available resources to their maximum potential, and ports to PCs should see the evidence of this. It will likely take into the 2nd/3rd generation of games on the new consoles to get it "mastered" to the point any developer could claim a good level of proficiency at getting the most out of the hardware...but the days of "a dual core is good enough" are over.
m
0
l
July 2, 2013 3:47:49 PM

Will a 4 Core like an Intel still manage a +4 core supported game well because of it's optimized core per core usage?

I'm not entirely clear on how that tech works for example does a game developer target a certain amount of cores or just design it so it can accept multi core support?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2013 4:02:00 PM

Yes Intel will do good on +4 games too.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
July 2, 2013 4:11:01 PM

Diamond-HP said:
Will a 4 Core like an Intel still manage a +4 core supported game well because of it's optimized core per core usage?

I'm not entirely clear on how that tech works for example does a game developer target a certain amount of cores or just design it so it can accept multi core support?


Intel will still be serviceable in many games, just like AMD does well enough to play games now.
m
0
l
!