Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD works with games?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 31, 2010 4:42:07 PM

My dad thinks that AMD processors will not work with my games for whatever stupid reason, is this true? He told me tales of someone being pissed off because their game wouldn't run (would crash) on a machine with an AMD processor. I'm planning on running an AMD Athlon II X4 620 Propus 2.6GHz on an ASRock M3A770DE AM3 motherboard, with Kingston 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 and a SAPPHIRE 100296HDMI Radeon HD 4670 1GB 128-bit DDR3.

I'm planning on Running Source engine games (hl2, cs:s gmod, dod:s) and Golden Source Games (hl, hl:o p, hl:bs, cs 1.6, dod) and Doom 3 at the highest resolution possible.

More about : amd works games

January 31, 2010 4:47:59 PM

I have no problems gaming on my amd system
Score
0
January 31, 2010 4:49:54 PM

Well thanks for you input, I need more than one person to have evidence though. My father thinks because games are rushed, that they will not work on an AMD processor for whatever reason.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 31, 2010 4:56:41 PM

:lol:  It's comforting to know that all the gaming I did between '95 and '07 never happened and must have been a figment of my imagination then.
Score
0
January 31, 2010 5:16:58 PM

Listen to your father. :lol: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 5:23:49 PM

OrenG said:
Well thanks for you input, I need more than one person to have evidence though. My father thinks because games are rushed, that they will not work on an AMD processor for whatever reason.


They games work just as well on AMD systems as they do intel.

The reason why in the old days some games crash is because some amd cpu either had stability or heat issues. (i forget which one it was. although i had that problems before. Think it was athlon xp i was on before i switched to intel Prescott p4.)

Although today, AMD cpus are just as stable as intel cpus. If a game going to run bad on AMD system, it will run bad on an intel system and vice versa.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 5:29:22 PM



ive never heard so much tosh in all my life...


99.99 % of software works on AMD,, I have had only one title ( which was not a game btw - it was a structual engineering package software protection system ) which did not work on a AMD based machine which has an nvidia nforce 4 chpset.


Tell them their un educated and AMD run software and games as good as Intel.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 5:31:54 PM

Yeah.... dads are stuck in the past and/or think they know more than they do.

Lol my friend's dad was sooo sure that DDR meant dual channel. He really is a smart guy and I was young then so I didn't want to prove him wrong and make him feel like an idiot.

At least you get to do it to your dad. :) 

Lol I bet now since tripple channel is out he thinks that is what DDR3 means. *sigh

But yeah, AMD works in games just as good as intel does. Even the old Athlons.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 5:41:46 PM

Don't ever listen to your dad again on anything tech related.
Score
0
January 31, 2010 5:48:39 PM

About 15 years ago, games were programmed in assembly language (or at least with assembly-optimized subroutines). They made calls to the hardware directly, which in some cases, caused some compatibility issues. One example: even though both AMD and Intel are both x86 chips, Intel used some multimedia extensions called MMX, while AMD used 3D-Now - so a program calling a MMX-specific instruction could crash on a system using 3D-Now. This happened very infrequently, and was probably the result of not being tested on more than one platform.

Nowdays, nobody calls on the hardware directly. The operating system (in your case, Windows) makes all of the hardware access. So, if a program wants to draw a box on the screen, it tells Windows what size, color and location of the box, and Windows calls on the hardware to do it. As far as the program is concerned, it doesn't know or care if you are running Intel, AMD, VIA or anything else - as long as it's running Windows.

Most compatibility problems with any hardware device can be fixed with a driver update.
Score
0
January 31, 2010 6:42:55 PM

warmon6 said:
The reason why in the old days some games crash is because some amd cpu either had stability or heat issues.


Actually, I suspect that it was at least as much due to crappy chipsets: back when I was writing Windows drivers, probably 90+% of reported game crashes caused by hardware (as opposed to software bugs) were on AMD systems with third-party chipsets which weren't driving the bus correctly. It was so bad that when when I saw a bug reported on an AMD system which we'd never seen on Intel my first expectation was that it was probably the chipset rather than the driver.
Score
0
January 31, 2010 6:59:04 PM

Stick with Intel because you'll be wasting your money with AMD. AMD is kind of like a cheap knock off and not to mention they get really hot, don't believe me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto . Intel FTW!!


Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 7:49:41 PM

techpro said:
Stick with Intel because you'll be wasting your money with AMD. AMD is kind of like a cheap knock off and not to mention they get really hot, don't believe me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto . Intel FTW!!


those are old cpus (like pre 2005) and thats taking off the HSF.

Current Amd cpus act much just like intel cpu when they get to hot. they throttle down to protect them selfs.

As for hot, im pretty sure my Prescott P4 is hotter than any amd cpu been made. :p  if i were to return my cpu up to stock settings 2.8 ghz at 1.38V i'd be idling around 55c. (right now at 2.67ghz 1.28V with idling at 37c to 40c). yes im on stock cooler.

theres a reason why people called intels prescott "Presshot"


Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 31, 2010 7:50:13 PM

AMD processors run games just fine, I've never gamed on an Intel system and all my games have always ran fine on AMD.



techpro said:
Stick with Intel because you'll be wasting your money with AMD. AMD is kind of like a cheap knock off and not to mention they get really hot, don't believe me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto . Intel FTW!!


LMAO at using a 9 year old video featuring processors from several generations ago.


Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 8:03:30 PM

techpro said:
Stick with Intel because you'll be wasting your money with AMD. AMD is kind of like a cheap knock off and not to mention they get really hot, don't believe me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto . Intel FTW!!




in the words of a true noob. and fanboi.
Score
0
January 31, 2010 8:17:55 PM

As a proud owner of a Phenom II 965 and a 4870x2 I can say that amd will work fine with games. (unless you use the new catalyst 10.1 drivers of course).
Score
0
January 31, 2010 8:22:35 PM

techpro said:
Stick with Intel because you'll be wasting your money with AMD. AMD is kind of like a cheap knock off and not to mention they get really hot, don't believe me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto . Intel FTW!!


Dude, and you call yourself techpro? Switch to techwannabe.

Those cpus are from 2000\2001 at most. What are you trying to prove? Intel has good cpus, and so did amd back then (and so it does today), actually cpus from that era were better than intels for most gaming did you know?
Intel only surpassed amd with core2duo and i7. They're both great cpu makers, both 100% compatible with gaming.

Only amd thunderbirds and durons lacked the SSE instruction which itself would make some games and apps to crash, like doom3 i think.

Next time you decide to prove your point with a 9 years old video with outdated hardware think twice, or you will make youself look bad.
Score
0
January 31, 2010 9:23:32 PM

I have been pretty much an Intel guy for all my main PC's for quite a few years. I have had about a half dozen AMD setups over the years but mostly Intel for my primary. My 1st AMD was a K6 200 then 233 and they played games fine but were slower than the comparable Intel I had 200 non-mmx and 233 in games but were just as stable mainly because all were on Intel HX or TX chipsets. I saw a review of a FIC MB which had 1mb onboard cache (ALI chipset I think) that was supposed to be the hot thing but it was just plain unstable.

My next AMD was a K7 1200 with a VIA chipset that I had built for my son's boss at the time, but I couldn't get it stable in games so I gave him p3 that I clocked at 1050. After a few months I finally got it stable after I found a setting in wpcrset that finally brought stability to the system. That problem had nothing to do with the AMD chip it was a problem between the chipset, bios or actual MB. That system for a month or two was the fastest or second fastest AMD system on the 3DMarl01 orb Cathar had the one that that had the other place since we were the only AMD setups on the first page of results.

Since then I have had a couple SFF Bartons and a couple others I don't remember. But what I am trying to say is that basically all the stability problems with AMD have actually been MB/chipset related and are a thing of the distant past.

While AMD might not be the fastest when money isn't a concern they are a very good value at pretty much any price point and the stability would like usual come down to the MB and bios or possible driver conflicts which are the same problems you can run into with Intel setups. While Intel setups with Intel chipsets may have fewer and those on Nvidia chipsets may have more it is still the supporting hardware that defines the stability, not the brand of CPU.

Also with the video card you have picked that system you show would play game about as well as my OC'd i7 because the card will be the slowest piece in the system.
Score
0
January 31, 2010 9:36:44 PM

techpro said:
Stick with Intel because you'll be wasting your money with AMD. AMD is kind of like a cheap knock off and not to mention they get really hot, don't believe me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto . Intel FTW!!

say that to jennyh and you get a flame war, overclocking to 1 ghz and causing fires with old school processors
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 9:40:00 PM

I wouldn't justify that sort of comment with a response actually. :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 9:48:09 PM

OrenG said:
My dad thinks that AMD processors will not work with my games for whatever stupid reason, is this true? He told me tales of someone being pissed off because their game wouldn't run (would crash) on a machine with an AMD processor. I'm planning on running an AMD Athlon II X4 620 Propus 2.6GHz on an ASRock M3A770DE AM3 motherboard, with Kingston 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 and a SAPPHIRE 100296HDMI Radeon HD 4670 1GB 128-bit DDR3.

I'm planning on Running Source engine games (hl2, cs:s gmod, dod:s) and Golden Source Games (hl, hl:o p, hl:bs, cs 1.6, dod) and Doom 3 at the highest resolution possible.



Complete and utter nonsense. I have been gaming with AMD processors for 15 years and never had, nor never heard of anyone having problems simply because the processor was an AMD processor. For gaming especially, the new Phenoms will hold their own against even the i7 processors clock for clock.
Tell your dad I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale cheap if he is interested.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 9:58:02 PM

...at least you have a dad...
Score
0
January 31, 2010 9:59:30 PM

phenom II x4 925 with a 5770 works with my games perfectly
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 10:10:08 PM

I dont even try to correct my dad when he tries to talk tech to me. I just nod alot and say right, right.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 10:53:54 PM

ROFL! You must be at least a half troll because your dad is. :lol: 

Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 10:56:56 PM

randomizer said:
I will quote a post that was in response to you in Dec 2008.


[:mousemonkey:5]
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 31, 2010 11:00:24 PM

The AMD Athlon II x4 you intend to get is the only quad core for under $100. The best intel has for that price is their pentium clarkdale 2.8GHz, which will probably be equal to or a bit worse than the phenom II x2 555. Intel's cheapest quad is about $150. Of course, it will perform better than the Athlon II x4 but it's competing with the Phenom IIs in the $150 range.

I currently use that CPU in a budget build for gaming paired with an older radeon 3870. The extra cores come in handy for games like GTA4 and Dragon Age. Hopefully it will also help me keep up with Mass Effect 2. I overclocked mine to 3.2GHz, stock cooling, stock voltage. Max temp under load: 50C. Idle: 23-25C.

AMD gained a reputation around 2005 for their Athlon 64s before Intel came out with their core 2s. The Athlon 64s were especially reputable as being better for gaming. Today, intel has a lead with their core i5s and core i7s but all of AMD's cpus are priced under $200, still making them directly comparable to their intel counterparts- arguably, they have better performance per price under $200.

Honestly though, you should be more worried about your graphics card than your CPU for gaming.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 11:02:58 PM

MarkG said:
Actually, I suspect that it was at least as much due to crappy chipsets: back when I was writing Windows drivers, probably 90+% of reported game crashes caused by hardware (as opposed to software bugs) were on AMD systems with third-party chipsets which weren't driving the bus correctly. It was so bad that when when I saw a bug reported on an AMD system which we'd never seen on Intel my first expectation was that it was probably the chipset rather than the driver.


hmm.... never thought about the chipset. maybe that was the problem with my last computer. idk. that was like 6 years ago.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2010 11:20:00 PM

bige420 said:
I dont even try to correct my dad when he tries to talk tech to me. I just nod alot and say right, right.



I know how that is!
Score
0
February 1, 2010 12:32:33 AM

Considering i-7, i-5, and i-3 are more of a clone of AMD's architecture than the other way around at this point, I'd be more worried that Intel got it wrong...

But no, Intel ported over AMD's x86/64 instruction set just fine, and can run everything it's AMD forefather can. Tell your dad not to worry about his Intel processors crashing too much when running all the new programs based on that instruction set.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 1, 2010 8:22:18 AM

jitpublisher said:
I know how that is!

Damn it and I thought it was only me...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 1, 2010 9:17:28 AM

ummmmm there have been alot of times where games run BETTER with an AMD procesor/platform, and nearly all of the time you get better performance for your dollar with AMD (bang for your buck) etc

In the past AMD had issues thanks to VIA causing compatibility issues with hardware and software but they have there own platform these days - no dramas there.

As for reliability/stability - THG did the test a few years back http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BH0K13qKrg - AMD came out ontop there too, not saying AMD is perfect, they have had there issues

Things have warrantys for a reason, and currently the honnest truith between them is this: got the budget for an i7? then buy one, otherwise buy AMD, simple.

You want to put your hard earnt cash to good use - if its limited then its more then likely AMD will offer the better deal etc

Dont listen to Intel/AMD fanboys and dont stick to brands - they dont kiss your ass, why kiss theres?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 1, 2010 9:22:11 AM

Oh and that cheap AMD knock-off comment? EMT64 for Intel is a cheap knock-off for AMD64, go to command prompt on yout Intel rig with Vista/Win7 64-bit and see what the command "echo %processor_architecture%" comes up with - AMD64

Friggin fanbois
Score
0
February 1, 2010 10:22:13 AM

I have AMD Phenom X4 945 running at 3.0 GHZ with Ati Radeon HD 5850, it works on all games very well, not even single hardware related crashes.
Score
0
a c 103 à CPUs
February 1, 2010 10:53:16 AM

Some games run better on the AMD platform some on the Intel platform, look over benchmark reviews.

The same thing goes for ATI and Nvidia, it really depends on who the software designers were favoring when they wrote the game.

Whether the overall top end performance is better on either platform or not, doesn't really matter much today, because most systems today exceed the specs to play they game in the first place, either platform games just fine.

However there are always exceptions to the rule.

Score
0
!