AMD makes underpowered CPUs?

Hi all!

It seems as though AMD is consistently beaten senseless by Intel's "i" CPUs when compared. Even an up-to-date i3 is more powerful than the vast majority of their processors.

This lead me to wonder if AMD has grossly under-powered CPUs or is it indeed that Intel has grossly over-powered CPUs?

Also, is an AMD CPU a valid choice for gamers? I know that i7s are basically over-kill for gamers and the i5 price slot is the sweet spot.

Thanks.
15 answers Last reply
More about makes underpowered cpus
  1. at his point, don't even look at amd for gaming, their only value processor , the phenom ii line has been discontinued. intel core i3 is faster in almost all games even with the amd higher end models.
    i5 2500k remains the recommended processor for gaming. best price/performance/watt
  2. yeah, AMD took forever to launch bulldozer and then it turned out to be crappy.

    I hope piledriver will have acceptable performance, not holding my breath though
  3. if you're on a tight budget, you can still build a decent, low budget gaming machine around athlon ii x3 or phenom ii x3 or higher cpus with 970/990x/990fx + radeon hd 6850/6870 + cooler master hyper 212+.
    for cpu budget around $120, a core i3 2100 will go head to head with phenom ii x4.
    for cpu budget over $200, amd has nothing that can outperform core i5 2500k. in some games, some amd cpus might show slight edge, but overall the core i5 2500k is better fpr price-performance-power efficiency.
    but if you want to cfx/sli with a mobo that has 40 pcie 2 lanes and can accept cpu bottleneck and don't want to pay premium for x58/x79 or p67/z68 motherboards with nf200 chip, amd should serve you well.
  4. Fanboys are gonna tell you that you NEED an Intel cpu for gaming, you don't.

    The only reason you would NEED an Intel processor for gaming is if your running multiple high end video cards, otherwise it's overkill. There are also a few cpu bound games out there such as MMO's if your into that kind of thing that would require a very fast quad core architecture for optimal results.

    So yes, Intel's cpu's are grossly overpowered, while AMD's cpu's are adequate for 99% of users.

    You get what you pay for, it's been that way since 1995 and it isn't going to change anytime soon.
  5. I agree that you don't need an Intel cpu, but they are the better performers in most games and other tasks.
    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/20.html

    Even at 1920x1200, the 2500k can beat the 8150 by a good percentage. Skyrim really shows this as well.
    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/16.html

    If games were coded to 8 threads, we might see better performance from Bulldozer, but games usually aren't that parallel in coding. AMD dropped the ball this round as they released a product that is slower than their previous gen per core. It's not good to lose single thread performance for multithread performance for the desktop.
  6. wow in only a couple of days." cpu bound" has become a catch phrase... (its about the 10th time i have read it today alone :) )
    its almost like a begrudging mark of respect ;)

    if you want to save money then buy amd, if you want the current best then you want intel... the difference is really down to what your willing to pay for as gaming performance is a field leveler performance wise.. some games will work slightly better on intel while others will work better on amd.. skyrim and world at war are 2 example of different arcitecture giving different results in favor of 1 side or the other...

    end result is pretty much you get what you pay for...
  7. Haserath said:
    I agree that you don't need an Intel cpu, but they are the better performers in most games and other tasks.
    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/20.html

    Even at 1920x1200, the 2500k can beat the 8150 by a good percentage. Skyrim really shows this as well.
    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/16.html

    If games were coded to 8 threads, we might see better performance from Bulldozer, but games usually aren't that parallel in coding. AMD dropped the ball this round as they released a product that is slower than their previous gen per core. It's not good to lose single thread performance for multithread performance for the desktop.


    Skyrim is one of the few cpu bound games I was talking about. (MMO's)
  8. Of course there are more situations where the 8150 is slower in gaming. This is also below 60fps.
    http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813/8

    I would also say that Valve's particle simulator would be a realistic CPU/GPU workload for games.
    http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813/10
    Bulldozer does not handle branching as well as Sandy Bridge, and games branch quite often.
  9. OP, only a few years ago, just prior to core 2 release intel were being trounced soundly by amd, intels were too hot, used too much power, were difficult to OC.
    At that time however any extra CPU power was most welcome, nowadays it is possible to say that the intel cpu's are more powerful than we need, but that'll change as soon as th enext big app comes along, video recoding from all of the mobile devices we have for instance is a lot nice with more power.
  10. Yes AMD BD are slower than i's and PH-2 with todays current tasks, but this is going to be their future platform for a few years, so expect them to get better after each future revision and with forthcoming Win8.
  11. Hi :)

    I run an AMD cpu and its fine for gaming..... saying amd is rubbish for gaming is total tosh....

    My 1100t and a BIG graphics card (5870 2 gb) will run any game on its highest setting...

    Its the graphics card that gives you the best gaming NOT the cpu....of whichever make...

    All the best Brett :)
  12. Brett928S2 said:
    Hi :)

    Yes I run BOTH those games on their highest settings...... you DO know which card I am talking about ???

    All the best Brett :)


    Your card have a power similar to a AMD HD 6950, GTX 560Ti if I'm not mistaken.

    HD 5870 Review
    As per this review your card can't even max Crysis, Crysis Warhead, are you really sure of your statement?

    As per link below the HD 7970 barely do 60fps at BF3 with highest settings at 1920x1200
    HD 7970 Scaling Review

    Are you really sure your HD5870 can run Battlefield 3, with all the options enabled, AA, DX 11, FXAA, 1080p at 60 fps?
  13. "intel cpus are overpowered, nerf plox" -amd cpu
  14. vitornob said:
    Your card have a power similar to a AMD HD 6950, GTX 560Ti if I'm not mistaken.

    HD 5870 Review
    As per this review your card can't even max Crysis, Crysis Warhead, are you really sure of your statement?

    As per link below the HD 7970 barely do 60fps at BF3 with highest settings at 1920x1200
    HD 7970 Scaling Review

    Are you really sure your HD5870 can run Battlefield 3, with all the options enabled, AA, DX 11, FXAA, 1080p at 60 fps?


    Hi :)

    Try looking for a better review site.... thats for a 1 gb...

    All the best Brett :)
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs AMD Intel