Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

AMD vs. intel for gaming

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Gaming
  • AMD
  • Processors
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
October 16, 2010 1:44:22 AM

Alright so i am trying to figure out which processor i should use in my new system that im going to be putting together soon. Basically i am comparing the intel i5 750 and the amd phenom ii x4 965. I originally wanted to build an amd system because the price difference, although i also want to make sure that i am getting a good quality gaming system. Most likely i will be playing SC II and some fps like modern warfare 2 and crysis. Will the intel really be a much better gaming processor or is it just a waste of my money?

More about : amd intel gaming

October 16, 2010 1:50:08 AM

amd is killing right now unless you want the top of the line. and want to spend the top of the line money.
Score
0
October 16, 2010 1:54:32 AM

well i dont really think i need top of the line for my usage level and i would really perfer to spnd less money(wouldn't everyone?) so i guess that means amd FTW :D 
Score
0
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a c 328 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 136 À AMD
October 16, 2010 2:21:43 AM

There is a reason that this has been the same since the i5 750 was released.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-upg...

Of course it is about $25 or $30 more. Not too much for what you get.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-upg...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=102

Intel will go to 4ghz+ on air and scale the whole way. The AMD stops scaling about 3.6/3.8 and hits a wall.
Score
0
October 16, 2010 3:18:33 AM

alright, so lets say i decide to go with the i5-750. How much will the price and performance differ across the entire system. Mobos for example cost more for an intel chipset than a amd chipset right? Also, i was planning on using ati graphics. I have heard from some people that Intel/ATI is not a very good idea as it will reduce performance, howevre im not really sure.
Score
0
October 16, 2010 3:22:19 AM

that link goes to a phenom x2 555 not the phenom ii x4 955
Score
0
a c 328 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 136 À AMD
October 16, 2010 3:30:38 AM

2186820,5,721729 said:
just wanted to throw this tidbit in:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-980x-review/15

that 955 that slightly edges the 750, i paid $90 for.

Lol you found the 1 synthetic the i5 actually loses. Clock for clock AMD is still slightly behind Core 2. That is why the 2.66ghz Intel chip wins 90% of the tests against the 3.4ghz AMD chip.



Score
0
October 16, 2010 3:49:04 AM
a c 328 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 136 À AMD
October 16, 2010 3:55:37 AM

Yep and nice build by the way. Overclock it to ~4ghz and it will crush stock $1000 CPUs not to mention everthing AMD even makes.
Score
0
October 16, 2010 4:05:06 AM

"that link goes to a phenom x2 555 not the phenom ii x4 955"

you use a motherboard setting which unlocks it into the 955. ocz platinum isnt very good ram, especially on asus motherboards. it will crush the 1090t? ok.
Score
0
a c 328 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 136 À AMD
October 16, 2010 4:20:48 AM

Name a single game that can use 6 cores. Bulldozer sux as a gaming CPU. Don't take my word for it go looking for any charts you want. Even the 955/965 are better. Bulldozer wins a few synthetics and specialty programs that can use more than 4 cores and thats it. AMD chips stop scaling at around 3.8ghz while intel chips do not hit that wall and continue scaling over 4 ghz too. As I said before it does not matter the chip AMD architecture is still slightly slower than Core 2 from Intel............2006 Intel.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-upg...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2010 4:34:03 AM

Smells like a flame bait... Oh well, might as well jump in. :lol: 

If, as anort3 said, a $30 difference is a waste of money in your perspective, then it is. However, if it's not, then just go for the i5. If you're planning on only using 1 GPU, then don't worry about the GPU compatibility issue, Intel's Motherboards aren't made by nVidia.

Sometimes when comparing 2 things, the decisive factor is our own perception. If you already have a positive sentiment towards 1 brand, the slightest margin of inferiority from the other brand would seem like a huge one. On the contrary, the slightest superiority will seem negligible.

Let's say you have a thing for Intel, any AMD product will look cheap and less powerful for you. From the favors of AMD's perspective, any Intel product will look like it will cost you a fortune. It's hard to be neutral because of the difference of perspective between individuals. Even the concept about price to performance ratio is considered to be a non-issue for some people. Must've been born with a silver spoon in the mouth.

And as for benchmarks, if you see the gap difference is not too far apart, in real time application it's usually negligible. Roughly, if brand A with a benchmark score of 100 can do a certain task in 5 minutes, the B with a score of 90 should be able to do it in 5.5 minutes. Again, as in the "waste of money" analogy, if that .5 minute is a big deal for you, then go for the better performing one.

I can only suggest to plan your purchase carefully, buying Intel will give you an edge in performance. Yet buying AMD, in exchange of (not light years away) inferior performance, will give you the extra budget to purchase other components.

Just keep it real, no fanboism, no understatements. Plain and simple.

These kind of threads are so sensitive, I got a death threat from one of the fan boy for breaking down the fact. Would you believe that?

Final words, stick for the initial concept, whether it's gaming, graphic designing, HTPC, etc. Visualize a reasonable expectation, for gaming they would be FPS, resolution, AA settings, etc. And the most important thing is, choose the right components within your budget. In your case, if that $30 dollars you spent for the i5 will cost you a shortage on the GPU purchase budget, you might want to think it over.

Hope this helps!
Score
0
October 16, 2010 4:46:46 AM

the bottom line is still the bottom line. which was my first response to this thread. amd gives you more punch for the price, intel is superior, i said that. the pure processing power of the 1090t speaks for itself though:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/300080

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/301192

edit: here is your potential phenom x4 960 for $100 :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

it's a gamble, but your saving a lot more than $30 if it works.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2010 4:54:00 AM

Very nice build, gonna suggest two possible cost savings for your consideration:

Check out the HAF 912 if you haven't already.

At 1920x1080 (not 1200), you really may not need the 470, can go with a 460. With the same psu you could always add a second 460 as prices come further down, only if/when needed:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/180?vs=160

Use the same tool to compare 2x460 vs 470. Here's an OC'd 460 for $200:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125333&cm_re=gtx_460_1gb-_-14-125-333-_-Product
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2010 5:03:23 AM

camster 05 said:
alright i just found this build and it is about the same as my amd build just with intel/nvidia stuff.

so this way would i be realistically getting a better intel gaming system for the same price as an amd gaming system???

They sell CPU+RAM combos at newegg? I should apply to be a US citizen... :lol: 

Well, If you think it's reasonable yourself, then go for it. Plus, Twoboxer's suggestion will reduce the cost even more. Saving $100 will give you the extra budget for the gaming specific accessories.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2010 5:22:56 AM

To (not @ lol) damasvara: The AMD/Intel AMD/nVidia thing is always fun, eh?

Personally my current rule of thumb: below 1920 res and/or below ~$900 (for the tower) budget, its AMD for me to get better performance at nearly any (if not all) budget levels. After ~$900 (i5 750), the balance seems to swing to Intel where AMD seems to play nearly as good for a little less money and it becomes much more of a value judgement.

As to whether a $900+ budget is a good idea or necessary . . . that's a philosophical question for each individual, and its far above my pay grade lol.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2010 8:58:57 AM

Twoboxer said:
To (not @ lol) damasvara: The AMD/Intel AMD/nVidia thing is always fun, eh?

Personally my current rule of thumb: below 1920 res and/or below ~$900 (for the tower) budget, its AMD for me to get better performance at nearly any (if not all) budget levels. After ~$900 (i5 750), the balance seems to swing to Intel where AMD seems to play nearly as good for a little less money and it becomes much more of a value judgement.

As to whether a $900+ budget is a good idea or necessary . . . that's a philosophical question for each individual, and its far above my pay grade lol.

I'd say, yes and no. It's fun if the argument is objective and knowledgeable, where both sides can accept the other's advantages, not just emphasizing at the minus points. It's no fun when personal insults start thrown away like a bunch of illiterate hillbillies would do.

One thing we have in common though, that >$900 is also wouldn't fit my monthly paycheck (which is less than half of it :sweat:  ) . Actually It would, but I'll have to sell my Yamaha motorcycle first... :lol:  Definitely not worth it...

Speaking of which, did the OP mention anything about OC'ing? That would need require an after market CPU cooler included in the budget.
Score
0
a c 80 à CPUs
October 16, 2010 9:34:03 AM

For a single video card or a Crossfire setup, better go with AMD.. For multi video card SLI setup go for Intel.. One point favouring Intel is that many of their chipset boards support both SLI and Crossfire making your purchase a long term solution wherein it gets easy to choose any video card platform depending on the best performing card(s) available at any particular time.. I wont debate on overclocking though.. Intel chips are superior in that department surely but not everyone is willing to run a system 24 x 7 with his/her CPU running well over 30% of its stock clock rating..
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2010 9:38:55 AM

anort3 said:
Name a single game that can use 6 cores. Bulldozer sux as a gaming CPU. Don't take my word for it go looking for any charts you want. Even the 955/965 are better. Bulldozer wins a few synthetics and specialty programs that can use more than 4 cores and thats it. AMD chips stop scaling at around 3.8ghz while intel chips do not hit that wall and continue scaling over 4 ghz too. As I said before it does not matter the chip AMD architecture is still slightly slower than Core 2 from Intel............2006 Intel.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-upg...


"Name a single game that can use 6 cores"<<< Microsoft Flight Simulator X (currently can use up to 32 cores currently works best with Intel Core i7 CPU's especially the 6 core i7 980x)
"Bulldozer sux as a gaming CPU"<<< AMD's Bulldozer won't be available till next year.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2010 10:13:39 AM

jj463rd said:
"Bulldozer sux as a gaming CPU"<<< AMD's Bulldozer won't be available till next year.

As much as I don't like the Intel-ish comment, I believe he meant the Thuban hexa-core. He did give solid facts though, not just some baseless argument... :p 
Score
0
October 16, 2010 11:05:37 AM

AMD is giving its best to compete with intel and has got some amount of success.
Intel is living on it's reputation, that " sponsors of tomorrow" bla bla bla.
Just take an example of 980x and 1090t be. there would be not much difference between the performance of the given CPU's. 980x cost thrice as 1090t be or even more but the performance is very much equivallent to that of amd. Intel actually don't give the performance for the price paid but although are bit better than amd.
If you are anxious about money then get AMD CPU or if you have money to burn get that of Intel's. Now its up to you.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2010 12:13:33 PM

Quote:
You blind fanboys only bash intel when they sell there flagship cpu for 1000$ but what happens to that same analogy when Amd sells 5970 for 1000$(Asus Ares and more).

Stick to the initial topic, please. The topic is about CPU, not GPU. Besides, the Ares is Asus' premium custom version of the 5970, not directly AMD's. The original version is below $700. You're firing your gun at the wrong target.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2010 12:45:17 PM

Quote:
When any statement hurts that big fat ego of yours,you say offtopic.Nice very nice.

Asus is using amd's product and you say amd has nothing to do with it.They are also enjoying its profit.

And I thought mousemonkey already warned you not to argue about personal issues.

I'm only saying to stick to the topic as stated on the forum rules.

Asus also makes Intel's motherboards in case you didn't know. I never said "nothing to do", I said "not directly". That's two different meaning. As for the pricing issue, I highly doubt AMD is enjoying the profit of the $1,200 Ares other than the base model reselling contract. Besides, the product's not selling very well due to the small slice of the GPU market. What's there to enjoy?

Cool it, dipankar. Stay reasonable. I promised mousemonkey to keep it clean after that warning. I suggest for you to also comply.
Score
0

Best solution

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 16, 2010 1:05:49 PM

Why is it these things always have to go flamed up, and i always post the same thing. Ok OP, heres how it goes, or atleast how i view it. While this is about the CPU, you cant only focus on it. If it was only about the CPU, id say get a 980x and a 5450. But its not. Anyway, heres my view:

Gaming is id say 75% dependent on GPU, 15% dependent on CPU, and 10% on everything else. And therefore, the GPU choice is much more important than the CPU choice. Any game that you see significantly higher FPS with a faster CPU isnt GPU limited. If it isnt GPU limited, take MW2, then its FPS should almost always be above 60 FPS. Hz=FPS, 60Hz=60 FPS, and therefore that is the max perceivably frame rate for all intents and purposes. In any event, take Fall Out 3.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/47

Now, as most FPS were above 60 FPS, it obviously wasnt that GPU limited. They were also using a lower res and lower settings. But see how close the X4 955 is to the 980x? That is because even though the 980x is a VASTLY faster CPU, it doesnt make a big difference. Now, take a highly GPU limited game like Crysis. Most systems barely get over 45 FPS at decent settings in that game. And guess what a faster CPU will do? Just about nothing. Now, one of the best ways i can show what im getting at is this benchmark:


Now, we all know the i7 is a much faster and more expensive CPU than the X4 955. We also know the 4890 is faster than the 4870. But look what happens? What they did was factored in how much cheaper the 955, and made the difference up in the better video card. And look who wins (1920x1080, thats the most common res). The cheaper CPU with more expensive GPU system wins. Now, your initial question was whether to go with a i5 750 or X4 965. For one, compare the i5 760 and X4 955, both are better buys. Secondly, the X4 955 costs $139.99:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The i5 760 costs $208.99:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Now, a simple calculation will show the X4 955 is $69 cheaper. Also, to be honest, 1156 boards are generally more expensive and not always as good as AM3 boards for the cost, but i wont factor that in. Anyway, with $70, you can go from a GTS 450 to a GTX 460, a GTX 460 to a 5850, a 5850 to a 470, a 470 to a 5870...All of which will give better performance than the prior, however i wont go into that as much as this is more about the CPU, and 6xxx is coming out anyway. So basically, my point is, cheaper CPU with faster GPU will either give you faster frame rates when it matters, below 60 FPS, and possibly slower framerates when it doesnt, above 60 FPS. Lastly to this great big post is overclocking. Both are good overclockers. I have a X4 955 and have overclocked several i5 750's for builds. The i5 750, or rather the 760 has a stock clock at 2.8 GHz, and in my experiences can generally hit 4 GHz on average. That is an increase of 1.2 GHz. The X4 955 has a stock clock at 3.2 GHz, and in my experiences, can generally hit 4-4.2 GHz. AMD CPU's have higher stocks as clock for clock they are generally slower, however they can also handle higher voltage. That is why on extreme cooling systems, AMD CPU's have generally held the highest OC. Therefore on a LC loop, the 955 might achieve a higher OC than the i5 760, however i have no experience with this, but just letting you know if you have a LC loop. In any event, 3.2 to say 4.1 GHz is an increase of 900 MHz, or 300 MHz less than the i5 760. Therefore if the i5 760 beats the X4 955 at stock, which it generally does, it should likely beat it more when both are fully overclocked. Both sockets are dead for all intents and purposes, however AM3 does have the Thubans, as well as AM3 CPU's are suppose to fit in AM3+ (Bulldozer) boards, but bulldozer wont fit in AM3. So you can carry a AM3 cpu over to a BD board. Nice perk, but nothing special. All in all, id have to see the entire build and budget, but in this case, id go with the X4 955 and wait for 6xxx. When the CPU's are at stock, they rarely if ever limit games, OC either one, and you should be set for years.



Share
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2010 1:31:24 PM

ares1214 said:
Why is it these things always have to go flamed up, and i always post the same thing. Ok OP, heres how it goes, or atleast how i view it. While this is about the CPU, you cant only focus on it. If it was only about the CPU, id say get a 980x and a 5450. But its not.

That's what's also confusing me. :pfff: 

Excellent description, by the way. Thank you for pointing out my mistakes, although I don't mean it that way. Your point of view is clearly more technically correct and detailed.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2010 2:38:42 PM

@OP: If I were you, I'd wait a couple or 3 months and look at the Sandy Bridge reviews after it ships. You could probably buy a faster CPU for the same amount of money, plus there's the factor of a longer lifespan since 1156 is being replaced by 1155 eventually.
Score
0
a c 328 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 136 À AMD
October 16, 2010 4:41:17 PM

damasvara said:
As much as I don't like the Intel-ish comment, I believe he meant the Thuban hexa-core. He did give solid facts though, not just some baseless argument... :p 



I did mean Thuban :whistle:  and he did name the one game that can use all those cores. I am no fan boy either way but the orignal answer to the OP's question stated " AMD is killing it right not unless you want top end" I just pointed out that an i5 750/760 system can be as cheap as an AMD system. I am all about bang for your buck not brands.
Score
0
October 16, 2010 7:42:05 PM

Hi

I would like to know an honest suggestion wrt AMD and Intel processors. I have a Pentium D and have never worked on an AMD machine before.

Ignoring the cost factor, which would be the most advisable configuration with either AMD Phenom II x6 1090T or Intel Core i7 extreme edition?

Also, any operating system (present or future) which fully utilizes all the cores.

Thanks
Vishal
Score
0
a c 328 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 136 À AMD
October 16, 2010 7:48:06 PM

Ignoring cost the i7 980x is the fastest thing you can get.
Score
0
October 17, 2010 2:34:58 AM

Well, after all of this debate, i feel like i am right back where i started. It seems like both the amd and the intel systems are basically the same for what i am looking to do with it. As far as overclocking, im not sure. Ive never overclocked before so i probably wont even bother trying untill i do some more research on it. And Crossfire/SLI is something that i will definately be doing later on as games become more graphically intesne in the future. For now, i think i will wait for the 6xxx series to come out and maybe decide then on whichever system will be cheaper
Score
0
October 17, 2010 2:36:06 AM

Best answer selected by camster 05.
Score
0
October 17, 2010 7:36:22 AM

But I still choose AMD.
Score
0
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 17, 2010 2:20:17 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0