The age old question

[coolstuffoct0292]

Okay. So I know their is a lot of controversy between amd and intel. What I want to know is which brand makes a better CPU for gaming. Price is a small factor. I'm not spending 1000$ for a CPU. Right now I'm leaning torwards the amd phenom II 980 black. It's a four core processor clocked at 3.7. Give me a convincing argument to switch to a different amd processor or an intel as well as a few reasons why. I'm not interested in looking at charts. I want other reasons than this CPU outperforms this one on this game.

 

[sarinaide]

For the price you pay on the X 4 980, you can spend less and get a i3 2100 and your gaming experience will be the same.

i3 with a good GPU, like a GTX 560 will perform very well and also have better real world results than the X 4.

I laughed at the notion that a dual core could beat a quad core, but I don't think a i3 is the run at the mill dual core, seeing it do to metro 2033 with good RAM and GPU lends me to believe that you can get good value for less money and have an upgrade path.

INTEL vs AMD, right now if you want efficiency jump aboard the intel express.

 

[simon12]

+1 the i3 2100 has almost the same performance for gaming maybe slightly better and is only around 2/3rds of the price the motherboards are slightly more but its still cheaper. The other alternative is the 955BE which can be overclocked higher than the stock 980BE with a hyper 212+ cooler and if you add in the cooler will cost around the same as an i3 2100 but even then you may get a small performance increase over a 2100 but not much.

 

[coolstuffoct0292]

Why would a dual core perform better than a quad core? Also what's the clock speed on the i3. Also the gpu I am going to buy is an ASus xfx 6870 black

 

[simon12]

Phenom II Quad cores (identical to the 980 except clock speed*) have been around since Jan 2009 and where not a totally new architecture then while the i3 second generation (i3 2100 included) only went on sale this year and are alot better than anything previous to it in terms of what each core can do. Look at it like 4 old dated cores compared to new super cores. The clock speed is 3.3GHz see http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=289&i=2.5.3.4.6.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.43.45.46.47.48.49.50.53.54.55.60.61.62.129.64 for a performance comparison. As you can see the i3 wins 6 out of 8 of the gaming tests.

* please don't correct me there are minor differences but none that affect the stock performance

 

[coolstuffoct0292]

but that doesnt make sense to me.. 4 cores clocked at 3.3 shouldnt beat 4 cores clocked at 3.7.. why would it possibly be better? I mean i see the performance comparison. but it just doesnt make sense to me.. how can the I3 be better with a lower clock speed and the same amount of cores... maybe i just dont have a full understanding of the way cpu's work.

 

[sarinaide]

The i3 2100 may only have a clock speed of 3.1ghz, but the efficiency of the cores is better per clock cycle than that of the X 4, it will be like comparing the blood flow in a fit male athlete to the bloodflow of a loaf about unfit person with high cholesterol.

The old Phenom 2 microprocessor technology is antequated to that of second generation intel core i processor technology. The Phenoms where AMD's response to late Core2 Duo's and Quads as well as the first generation core i3 and i5's. Right now even the X 6 is barely a competitve product to the entry level i3, when you get to i5 and i7 level, it becomes a bloodbath.

 

[simon12]

Its because if you compare 1 core of an i3 to 1 core of a Phenom II x4 the i3 core is so much faster even at a slower clock speed. Its to do with how many calculations per clock the CPU can do not just how many cores or clock speed (though they do help). Also gaming does not make great use of cores, as you can see on the comparison the Phenom performs much better in some applications that make better use of 4 cores. Also the i3 has hyperthreading which acts like 4 cores though is nowhere near as good. Beyond than you just need to accept the a slower clocked dual core CPU can be better than a higher clocked quad it just can and is.

 

[sarinaide]

Intels only let down was not making a K series for the i3. That said the potential of the i3 is quite amazing when you consider it is "only" a dual core. Intel stumbled onto a trump card with this processor. It handles games like a mother handles her child.

 

[coolstuffoct0292]

so the clock speed isn't necessarily directly proportional to the amount of calculations a core can perform per cycle? Why then an I3 and not an I5? http://www.google.com/products/cata...a=X&ei=Kb5OTq6iPKSusQKUo9zTBg&ved=0CFQQ8wIwAg

this I5 is very close in price. however the clock speed is lower, but from what i understand that wont make a big difference?


Also, what is this bulldozer from amd i keep hearing about. is that supposed to be their competitive processor for the new intel I series?

 

[sarinaide]

so the clock speed isn't necessarily directly proportional to the amount of calculations a core can perform per cycle? Why then an I3 and not an I5? http://www.google.com/products/cata...a=X&ei=Kb5OTq6iPKSusQKUo9zTBg&ved=0CFQQ8wIwAg

this I5 is very close in price. however the clock speed is lower, but from what i understand that wont make a big difference?


Also, what is this bulldozer from amd i keep hearing about. is that supposed to be their competitive processor for the new intel I series?

The i5 is a very efficient chip, all Sandy Bridge design processors are superior to any other on the market. The i3 was used as a comparison to the AMD Phenoms and right now the i3 is equal or better than the phenoms in efficiency per clock cycle.

The Bulldozer is a eight core processor by AMD based on 32nm chip design, nobody can be certain as to its performance but it is likely to be more compatible with the i5 and i7 but many are suggesting that it still will be a less efficient processor.

If you are interested in AMD then wait until the bulldozer comes out in a month or two, then decide.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

Right now the best gaming processor on the market in terms of value and performance is the Intel® Core™ i5-2500K. Very few games can take advantage of more than 3 threads because of this the value of extra cores or threads outside of 4 for game drops quickly. Also with the Intel Core i7-2600K being $100 more and only giving you 2MB more cache and 100MHz higher clock speed for a gaming environment it is easy to understand why the Intel Core i5-2500k is the king of the hill right now.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

 

[coolstuffoct0292]

so the intel I5 2500K would be a better choice than the amd phenom II 980 black?

 

[megamanx00]

For the price the 2500K is best for gaming especially if you overclock it. If you're talking about the lower end though and comparing the Phenom II 980 and i3 2100 there are alot of reasons why the dual core 2100 can keep up, or even surpass the faster clocked AMD. Per core the i3 is significantly faster than the Phenom II. One reason is that Sandy Bridge CPUs have four instruction decoders per core compared to AMDs three. Also, the basic blocks of every AMD core are largely derived from original Athlon CPU from so many years ago, which became the Athlon 64 once it had a few enhancements like 64-bit extensions and an integrated memory controller. Compared to the Core architecture, which has it's roots in the Pentium Pro, the evolution of AMD cores has been significantly slower.

 

[coolstuffoct0292]

so in a processor you cant just look at the clock speed and make a determination as to what would be more efficient? Where do you find the information as to how many instruction decoders a processor has. Also how is it that something at 3.7 GHz which is a speed can be slower than something at 3.3GHz which is a slower speed. i understand that maybe its more efficient, but wouldn't it still be faster. Also i keep hearing a lot about the architecture of a CPU.. what exactly does this mean and how can a certain architecture be more beneficial than another.. all processors are little square blocks lol they all look built the same to me, granted i know that some have 2, 4, and 6 cores.

 

[sarinaide]

There are a lot of people posting here that know their stuff and giving sound accurate information, while one cannot make up your mind for you or force you to make a decision on one or the other, the quality of information received is adequate to help you form an opinion.

1] Rather save yourself some buck and get the X 4 955 BE as the 980 BE is a superclocked version of the 955 and the price difference is hardly justified.

2] It is common knowledge that Intel edge AMD in CPU power and efficiency, understandably they can be more expensive, but you pay for the quality.

I am one to try new things and stop feeding the big cash cow corporates, so in that sense I would like nothing more than to support AMD and motherboard manufacturers over ASUS and Gigabyte, the problem is that by everyone going one way, gives these big enterprises carte Blanche to ramp up prices due to lack of competitors. That said if you consider going to AMD consider;

1] Waiting a bit if possible, right now buying old Phenom 2 technology is a waste of money and running yourself into a dead end upgrade path.

2] Research more, AMD are releasing new processors soon and the Bulldozer may be a far more worthwhile option to go with.

3] DON'T buy for the sake of buying, know what you want and be convinced of it.
I know from your posts that your prime objective appears to be oc'ing, just remember that oc'ing a processor, RAM, etc is like NOS to a car engine, while the performance short term goes up, the wear and tare is greater and the shelf life of the chip becomes less. Right now a stock 2500K can destroy any game so the oc'ing is totally unnecessary.

 

[coolstuffoct0292]

Best answer selected by Coolstuffoct0292.

 

[coolstuffoct0292]

Thanks for the helP guys

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey