Processor: i7 860
Motherboard: ASRock p55 extreme,
RAM: 4GB of DDR3 Dual Channel \
HDD: 500GB Caviar Black
Video Card: ATI 5870
My wife on the other hand:
Processor: AMD x4 955 BE,
Motherboard: ASUS M4A77TD AM3 AMD 770
RAM: 4GB of DDR3 Dual Channel
HDD: 500GB Caviar Black
Video Card: ATI 5850
Now obviously my computer has more processing power and should have better graphics rendering. I can't figure this out for the life of me. The problem is she is getting higher FPS on most games. Could it be because we are matching AMD with ATI on her box and Intel with ATI on mine?
For instance, we are playing Vindictus and shes never dropping below 60+ fps... just solid as ever.
My box on the other hand with LOWER graphics settings is not running as stable.
Beats Me!! But the only explanation I can give is Asus is better than ASrock.....
And certainly an AMD + ATI combo has been great for gaming even when ATI was not a Part of AMD......
Intel on the other hand moves hand in hand with Nvidia...... although..... AMD and Nvidia also works out perfectly well....
So the final conclusion works out this, that AMD is better for gaming .
And Intel is better for processing power and encoding stuff basically it's good for heavily threaded applications....
We both have Windows 7. Hers has all kind of crap running on it because she never wants to reformat. Mine has a fresh install of Windows 7 Ultimate on it. I tried the game with vsync on and off with no difference. This is really racking my brain.
You guys have no idea how games work.Some games prefer a particular system over another.Game are coded with billions of code.If those codes are optimised for a certain setup then when that game finds that near matching setup it will run better on that system.Thats how games work.
Asrock mobo is inferior to an Asus mobo.
@OP How many games you have tried?
@aloyaska Your amd plus Ati and Intel plus nvidia theory is complete rubbish.
Intel iseries based system crushes any amd setup in any games.
You're right. I know nothing about games and I never claimed to. I just enjoy playing them. I look at the facts... my system should blow hers out of the water and it doesn't. To be honest I haven't tried anything else on both systems. I tried 3DMark Vantage.
My computer blew hers out of the water when it came to the 3D Marks.
PCMark was a totally different story. Her score was much much higher than mine.
LOL..... Dipanker it's not a theory...... it's simple observation.....
and when explaining to an OP it's better not to complicate the issue, for history lessons, since we already have a zillion pages here telling us about multi threaded games and processors.
It's a observation from the Op's point of view......
There is no way in which you can help him tweak his setting to get the Core-i to give him what he wants without going into a total 40 page discussion......
And performances from Anandtech or other site really mean nothing.... even if they're clock to clock.... which other than you very few people are aware of, certainly not a new OP.....
So it's really sad to see you end up confusing people more then solving their issue, with your one line hop and go statements.....
Why don't you answer the OP problem without directing him to other links at toms instead of bickering about what other are saying to help him understand his problem.....
And...... Intel is just into the gaming scene with it's core series..... before that most people preferred AMD...... so results and questions are subject to what people use and not what synthetic benchmarks show.....
I have been playing games for years and OC'ed my AMD thunderbird about 10 years ago... and at that time AMD was vastly preferred. At this point, yes, the iseries line is above AMD's offerings... yet none of that address questions of practicality. Any number of things could cause a game to run more slowly... the most obvious factors are more likely the root of the problem.
OC speed (CPU/ GPU)
% resources... do you have more applications in the background
HHD condition (age, fragmentation, etc)
Esoteric conversations about theoretical constructs are surprisingly unhelpful.