Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD vs Intel for gaming at lower res: Does it matter?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 2, 2012 8:36:50 PM

OK, if I pair up a FX-4100 with a 6850, and an i3-2100 with a 6850, will I notice the difference in a CPU intensive game running at 1280x1024? If it's 5 FPS, no matter how statistically significant, won't be a deal breaker for me.

I'm struggling to find benchmarks at my resolutions, because hey, after all, 1280x1024 is a thing of the past, but it's what I'm stuck at.



a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 2, 2012 8:42:33 PM

No, I don't think so. At such a low resolution it doesn't matter if you have an FX driving 80 FPS or an i3 driving 100 FPS -- both are more than enough for smooth gameplay.
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2012 8:53:42 PM

Hi :) 

No...

All the best Brett :) 
Related resources
a c 479 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 118 å Intel
March 2, 2012 9:08:28 PM

Difficult to say since 1280x1024 is considered low resolution and not test very often. Generally speaking, the lower the resolution the more the performance is dependent on the CPU.

Below is a link that includes benchmarks for the FX-4100 and a Core i3-2120 which is clocked at 3.3GHz. A HD 6970 is used in the test rigs.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-812...
a c 479 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 118 å Intel
March 2, 2012 9:11:18 PM

If you're on a budget, then just get the cheaper CPU which I believe is the FX-4100.
March 2, 2012 9:43:17 PM

Hey, thanks for the link.

Yeah, I was thinking of going with the FX-6100, a 990FX Motherboard and the HD 6850, just because it's within my budget. I can go for the i5 & HD 6850 for a few extra quid, but at my resolution, I'm very thoughtful about the performance differences.

Honestly, I'm not partial to any company. I own a Macbook (4 years and great with a little Intel duo), and an AMD Athlon rig (6 years running and needs a rest) for gaming and editing work.
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2012 10:53:22 PM

CPU isn't tied with resolution directly.

The CPU is going to matter a little more on a lower resolution due to more frames being produced so faster calculations are needed.

The i3 will give you a much better upgrade path, but the FX will still perform just fine. Neither will bottleneck a single 6850, even at your lower resolution.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 3, 2012 6:02:11 AM

Raidur said:
CPU isn't tied with resolution directly.

The CPU is going to matter a little more on a lower resolution due to more frames being produced so faster calculations are needed.

The i3 will give you a much better upgrade path, but the FX will still perform just fine. Neither will bottleneck a single 6850, even at your lower resolution.

Not really, because anything beyond 60 FPS is trivial, and the FX will push 60 FPS just fine.
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2012 7:38:46 AM

FinneousPJ said:
Not really, because anything beyond 60 FPS is trivial, and the FX will push 60 FPS just fine.


I wasn't implying the FX was too slow to keep up with his GPU. Did you read my whole post?

Raidur said:
CPU isn't tied with resolution directly.

The CPU is going to matter a little more on a lower resolution due to more frames being produced so faster calculations are needed.

The i3 will give you a much better upgrade path, but the FX will still perform just fine. Neither will bottleneck a single 6850, even at your lower resolution.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 3, 2012 8:02:01 AM

Raidur said:
I wasn't implying the FX was too slow to keep up with his GPU. Did you read my whole post?

I wasn't implying you implyed anything :lol: 
March 3, 2012 8:14:30 AM

No worries. Understanding benchmarks and relating them to my tiny screen size gives me a lot of encouragement going with either company, AMD or Intel. Thankfully, with all of your feedback, it looks like both brands of CPU can more than handle what I'm running. I'm very conscious to build a balanced system in my budget, and AMD looks like it'll provide me with what I need.

Actually the 6850 might be a little indulgent inside that resolution, but they're going so cheap at the moment.
a b 4 Gaming
March 3, 2012 9:46:55 AM

man the graphic card is more than enough but 6870 is just few bucks more

ur not gonna notice any difference betw amd and intel but when u use graphic card like 6950 or above then cpu bottleneck takes place and suddenly u get difference of 20 and 30 fps like 30 and 50 fps while amd is slow its better to invest in i5 than fx as amd is gonna release piledriver in 2015 and is gonna be faster than fx by merry 10 percent and gonna compete with todays i5 2500k and this year intel is gonna released ive bridge which is 15-20 percent faster than 2nd gen intel processor

:D 
March 3, 2012 11:05:01 AM

serialkiller said:
man the graphic card is more than enough but 6870 is just few bucks more

ur not gonna notice any difference betw amd and intel but when u use graphic card like 6950 or above then cpu bottleneck takes place and suddenly u get difference of 20 and 30 fps like 30 and 50 fps while amd is slow its better to invest in i5 than fx as amd is gonna release piledriver in 2015 and is gonna be faster than fx by merry 10 percent and gonna compete with todays i5 2500k and this year intel is gonna released ive bridge which is 15-20 percent faster than 2nd gen intel processor

:D 


Yeah, no doubt. The future within the performance sphere rests with Intel.

If AMD can keep with up games (at my resolution) though, what have I got to worry about?
March 3, 2012 11:28:04 AM

Not much to worry about.

I have a phenom ii x6 and game at 1900 resolution with no problems. My next upgrade is a video card.
October 26, 2013 12:02:57 AM

AMD 6300 is a good choice for proceesor. AMD FX 4100 is also great. I suggest getting a 1 GB GPU if you are going to stick with the same monitor. Any low 600 series would do
!