Why is intel better for gaming.

who told you that??

who??

You are confused. intel is better for gaming because they are faster. AMD makes up for its lack of speed by using more cores. Now if you want to compare performance to price, then you can make an argument. Top end processors of both companies are good for gaming. You won't notice much of a difference. Conversely, bottom end of both companies processors suck for gaming.

Simple answer: Better performance per watt. It's true that both can be overclocked, but Intel currently has no competition in regards to PERFORMANCE PER WATT. 4Ghz AMD does not equal a 4Ghz Intel. If you look up benchmarks on Tom's and other sites you can see that most Intel i3's dominate AMD's latest offerings (in regards to gaming). Here is a comparison of high-end CPU's from both vendors: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-9590

many reasons......intel is more thermal efficient, so you can get better overclocks(performance boosts, not interms of clockspeeds), secondly intel uses less, but more powerful cores and about 90% of the games do not take advantage of multi core processors, they use single cores....and even though a processor like 4770k has less cores than fx8350, it is way better in terms of performance and the most important thing...intel processors have better support...you can find a $500 motherboard for lga 1150 socket(used by intel) but with amd, you're probably going to find motherboards at around $150 or maybe less....amd has always been a budget solution thats why.....

Well, it's not necessarily performance per watt. Watts are measurements of power. Yes, Intel CPUs do use less power but as long as you can power it, doesn't matter. The difference is the transistor architecture per core. Intel's latest generation uses a 22nm architecture which allows for faster switching which results in faster computations per core. And since most games that are on the market now do not utilize more than 2-4 cores (with some exceptions), you will get a better benchmark per core with Intel.

there used to be a time where the the coin was flipped and will be again. right now you have to decide if the price is worth the cost of a little more gaming performance going to Intel and your overall budget to build. amd really isn't that bad.

Intel has been outperforming AMD for several years, and AMD realized this so they just stopped trying to beat Intel.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-cpu-apu-processors,15741.html

"cough"... next-gen games..

"ahem"... eight core programming..

My point is - Performance per watt is of importance for those who are gaming, whom typically overclock. You are right - a watt is a measurement of power, this is important because with more power usage, you produce more heat which needs to be cooled. Also, I agree that the architecture in Intel's design is more robust. I don't necessarily agree that 22nm is better than 32nm just because of a smaller fabrication... Likely though, this does result in a higher transistor count, but compared to say, a 3930, even the new Haswell refresh CPUs are left in the dust.

OP: This is likely the case and it's a good thing for consumers, more choices drive competition and the net result is cheaper, higher-performing CPUs for us to choose from. It always comes down to Cost vs. Performance (or Cost vs. Some other category), so it is best to ask yourself what is most important and do some research into that. For example, if your only intention is to play modern games on Medium to High settings at 720p then you will likely not need "the best of the best" and can get away with spending less $$. You should have a look at this chart done once a month by Tom's that reflects "Best Gaming CPUs for the $$": http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html

Yeah, maybe when comparing to a 4670 i5, but you gotta compare similars here to be "left in the dust". Do a little comparison on the 4930 and see what you get. Haswell takes the cake.

You seem to have an FX in your throat.

8core programming and 16gigs of ram because 8 won't be enough in demanding games.

Intel Has been paying bench mark software companies to favor their Cpu for years and they got busted in court so please read the link Fan boys before try to take up for them they already owned up to it. Here is the Court document to prove it so if Intel is so much better than Amd Why cheat because the gap is alot closer then most people think and intel knows it and pays to hide it. Just open Link in new Tab

http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/091216intelcmpt.pdf


10. Fifth, Intel engaged in deceptive acts and practices that misled consumers and the public. For example, Intel failed to disclose material information about the effects of its redesigned compiler on the performance of non-Intel CPUs. Intel expressly or by implication falsely misrepresented that industry benchmarks reflected the performance of its CPUs relative to its competitors’ products. Intel also pressured independent software vendors (“ISVs”) to label their products as compatible with Intel and not to similarly label with competitor’s products’ names or logos, even though these competitor microprocessor products were compatible.

In regards to gaming, I agree that this is likely the case unless a game can utilize that extra L3 cache on the LGA 2011 architecture. Once you get into the i5 arena you are also giving up Hyper-Threading which definitely helps on any game that utilizes multiple cores.

OP: To stay on point, however, you can use many different sites to compare CPU performance. Take a look at the following chart to see where Tom's categorizes CPUs in terms of "gaming performance": http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html As you can see, they rate the Core i5 2300 just as high as the 990x Extreme - This is because those CPUs often only vary by 1 or 2 fps in games, the limiting factor now becomes other components such as GPU solution and RAM.

That is gettng so old. It is based on speculation that in the very near future all games will require 8 cores to run but that isn't happening any time soon. If that happens it is still a ways off and by that time the FX will be long out of date. So the hope that games will be more multi threaded and that will magically help AMD get on top is kind of useless point and none of that matters because AMD is dropping it's modular crap in the future and is going to start all over again with a brand new architecture.

http://wccftech.com/amd-confirms-development-of-high-performance-x86-core-with-completely-new-architecture/

Gaming CPUs are generally at the top of a company's mid-range lineup. Compare the Intel i7-4770k and the AMD FX-9590. Amazon actually sells the AMD chip for $2 more ($322) than the Intel chip ($320), but you'll get more performance out of the Intel chip than the AMD chip (though not a gigantic difference).

The FX-9590 has eight cores, and the i7-4770k has four. Even with half the cores, the Intel gets more performance. That's quite impressive if you ask me. The reason for that is because of single core performance.

Single core performance is more important than the number of cores (assuming you have enough cores to meet modern software demands). Each core on a chip is actually an individual CPU. In the old days, multi-CPU performance was possible only with special motherboards that had sockets for more than one processing chip, and I remember that back then AMD generally made superior chips (but that's a side point). When multi-core CPUs came out, they put multiple CPUs on the same chip. That made multi-CPU computer the norm whereas it used to be a very exotic configuration for systems where money was not a limiting factor.

But even back then, multi-CPU configurations were faster only if the chips scaled to be faster than a single chip. That required software to recognize more than one CPU and for each CPU to be sufficiently fast. You see that same software limitation today. Most programs simply can't recognize very many CPUs. Windows displays each core (or HyperThred in the case of an i7 or Xeon) as an individual CPU, just like you would see in the old days by plugging in an extra chip.

To illustrate how major the software limitation is, imaging you have one computer with a single Pentium 4, which was a single-core CPU, and you have a second computer with four separate 486 chips on the same motherboard. Theoretically, if the 486 were only 1/3 the speed of a Pentium 4, then your could scale four 486 CPUs to get a 33% speed increase (because 4 x 1/3 = 4/3). When all four of the 486 chips run at max, that may indeed be the case. But back then, almost everything was programmed to work on single-core chips because almost all computers had only one CPU. The problem was that you'd spend a lot of money on a fancy system with four CPUs, and then your software would use only one of the CPUs. Womp! When that happened (which was most of the time), then your computer would be only 1/3 the speed of a Pentium 4 system even though a Pentium 4 system would have cost much less money.

AMD today equips their chips with more CPUs that are slower than Intel's. That may actually be a very good thing when you use programs capable of recognizing many CPUs, but games can't currently do that (with a few exceptions like Crysis 3). So then you're stuck in the same situation as in the old days, where you'll have CPUs contributing nothing to a task, though they can still do other tasks (e.g. play your music in the background, record your game, whatever). I think it would be cool if we could actually have a single CPU fast enough to handle all modern tasks, but it turns out that would require too much power.

As for Mhz, that just tells you how fast the CPU is "spinning." I you have a Toyota Corolla at max speed and a Ferrari at max speed (say both are at 7,000 rpm), will both cars go the same speed? No way! Everything about the Corolla is slower even if you get the engine to run at the same rpm as the Ferrari. It's the same with CPUs (though not as cool).

While AMD doesn't put eight "Corollas" into its chips, it certainly doesn't put in eight Ferraris either. If Intel does that, then you might say that AMD probably uses something more like a BMW M5 (which is still a very fast car, just not a Ferrari).

People still believe that AMD has a lot more cores. AMD markets FX 6300 as a six-core processor but in reality it is about 4.62 cores. Funny number but you will understand if you read this:
http://blog.stuffedcow.net/2014/01/amd-modules-hyperthreading/

Now I would like to highlight a sentence from above link
"The workloads use very little floating-point, avoiding a bottleneck on AMD chips caused by not having replicated FPUs within a module."
Now if the instruction queue had floating point instructions then that number would be around 1.34 per core making a total of 4.02 cores.

Architectures play a more important role in performance compared to cores or GHz





As if Xbox 360 and PS3 weren't multi-core systems.





Intel was paying tomsHardware all the time?

Hardware Requirements for Microsoft Visual Studio Ultimate 2013:
1.6 GHz or faster processor
1 GB of RAM (1.5 GB if running on a virtual machine)
10 GB of available hard disk space
5400 RPM hard disk drive
DirectX 9-capable video card that runs at 1024 x 768 or higher display resolution

FX and Core series are both fine for gaming.

Its simple: look at your budget, look at benchmarks, and buy the best stuff you can afford.

I just read all of the allegations. None of them talk about Intel paying benchmarkers to falsify anything. They say that Intel did the falsifying, which is still bad, but it's a totally different thing. On the one hand, you'd have a market-wide conspiracy favoring Intel. On the other hand, you'd have Intel overplaying its card. The complaint alleged the second of those two things only. Tom's Hardwar, Anandtech, Tech of Tomorr, Linus Tech Tips, and many other independant reviewers seem to report performance pretty accurately, and in my experience, they have produced results consistent with my actual experience (which has never matched manufacturer reports).

Also, that FTC complaint goes on forever about how Intel has a GPU monopoly:



That is far from true. They also call Intel using integrated graphics a deceptive trade practice that artificially lowers prices so much that others can't compete. AMD has APUs, and Nvidia remains in many machines geared toward higher end graphics. I just don't see how that it is true.

Whatever the case, though, it seems like this complaint is mainly about anti-trust. There's nothing in it alleging a market-wide conspiracy.

Intel accused of bribery and coercion

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6503328/Intel-accused-of-bribery-and-
coercion.html

NY Attorney General Sues Intel for Bribing PC Makers

http://www.wired.com/2009/11/intel-cuomo/

Intel Forced to Remove "Cripple AMD" Function from Compiler

http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remove_quot_Cripple_AMD_quot_Function_from_Compiler_

Why I am starting to doubt CPU benchmarks
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1xba7o/why_i_am_starting_to_doubt_cpu_benchmarks_yes_amd/

I don't dispute the fact that these charges are real. I just questioned whether independent benchmarkers were taking bribes, making themselves no longer independent, in order to make Intel look better. Stuff like this happens with all companies, so it's not surprising. The shocking part would be that Intel got Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, Tech of Tomorrow, Linus Tech Tips, NewEgg TV and others to cherry pick their performance data.

They use such a wide variety of tests, from games and professional applications to artificial benchmarks, that I would be highly surprised to see proof of this. All the other stuff about forcing AMD out of the market and making them look worse than they actually are seems substantiated.

Two claims are just getting conflated here. On the one hand, there is a claim about Intel's monopolistic tactics. But on the other hand there is a claim about Intel coercing all of the reputable benchmarkers. The first claim seems to be the only one that has proof. I don't buy the second one. Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, Tech of Tomorrow, Linus Tech Tips, and NewEgg TV appear to be good sources of information, even if Intel is not.

In gaming purely intel is not better. What people need to understand is that what matters most is your gpu and NOT your cpu. You just need to make sure that your cpu does not bottleneck your gpu. For example my fx 4350( mid range cpu) gets the exact same fps as my friends i7 4770k(best of the best). We both have the same r9 290's and there is no difference whatsoever. However if you will be compressing files, video editing, ect buy the best cpu you can, if you are just gaming buy a cpu that won't bottleneck your gpu.

Source: http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1117&page=4