Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD OR intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 26, 2012 11:02:51 PM

I know everyone recomends intel but the thing is is that ive seen some benchmarks latley on toms hardware,Showing things like some metro 2033 benchmarks and a few other games and it was the 6100 vs 2500k.Now before i go on i want to clear up,I have nothing to hate on intel and im not an AMD fanboy.Most likely build will be an intel but that wont be till amd's 8xxx or 9xxx cards are out but anyways,The 2500k was getting like 35 fps more that the 6100? im sorry but i know the FPS is Not that Drastic!I can see 3-4 fps...Especially in metro 2033 and gta 4 and also bf3,But if your CPU isnt Bottlenecking the gpu You should be fine right?Right now as im typing this i have a 7950 overclocked past 7970 performance and im not bottlenecking it and i get the same performance in games as a 2500k and 2600k.Some games that are SUPER super intensive like starcraft is it? intel is better but i know that 35 fps is not due to CPU...The place where i can see AMD bottlenecking would be in crossfire/sli with more than 2 cards...but anyways,Can someone explain these bad benchmarks where intel gets 20-35 fps more than AMD while using the same gpu?

EchoOne :sol: 

More about : amd intel

a b à CPUs
July 26, 2012 11:15:46 PM

Skyrim for one. Due to bad coding on Bethesda's part (using DX9 and pushing shadow detail routines to the CPU and only optimizing for Intel procesors), AMD systems were suffering from poor framerates when compared to Intel systems. Bethesda eventually patched it and now it runs marginally beter.
a c 259 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
July 27, 2012 12:34:29 AM

As much as I love AMD processors (I was a big fan in the Athlon II & Phenon II days), they don't fare very well against the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge architecture. Speaking of Tom's, they eevn rate them for you after doing exhaustive comparisons: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

If you have a Bulldozer and it is giving you good frame rates, it is probably due to the card. Bottle necking isn't all that noticable if you have even an adequate processor.
Related resources
a c 793 à CPUs
a c 133 å Intel
a c 303 À AMD
July 27, 2012 12:36:23 AM

It is CPU bottleneck if one is having 35fps less with the same GPU! For example I just changed from AMD X3 @3.2GHz getting max 50fps in game with HD6850, swap over to 3570K and now I get max 80fps with HD6850. Simply means that the X3 was holding me back since everything else is the same.
a c 259 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
July 27, 2012 12:51:27 AM

rolli59 said:
It is CPU bottleneck if one is having 35fps less with the same GPU! For example I just changed from AMD X3 @3.2GHz getting max 50fps in game with HD6850, swap over to 3570K and now I get max 80fps with HD6850. Simply means that the X3 was holding me back since everything else is the same.

Everything else can't be the same... you must have a nice new faster board to go with that 3570k. *wink* But, point taken.
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2012 1:01:16 AM

Most likely build will be an intel but that wont be till amd's 8xxx or 9xxx cards are out

At op: don't ask silly questions and raise flame wars.

Your question is irrelevant, and answered many many times in many different times in many different forums. The i5 is superior.

However, in relation to your quote, if you're looking at buying a computer by the time those 2 are out, then we could be talking a very different picture, no point asking what the difference is between 2 CPU's that have both been outdated by the next generation to be released.
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2012 1:14:40 AM

the thing is how do you know if you are bottlenecking or not?
a c 793 à CPUs
a c 133 å Intel
a c 303 À AMD
July 27, 2012 1:23:36 AM

clutchc said:
Everything else can't be the same... you must have a nice new faster board to go with that 3570k. *wink* But, point taken.

Well did not think it was worth it stating the obvious since I do not figure motherboards as performance upgrade rather the platform change. Coming from an AM3+ board (bought in hope that Bulldozer would be a worthy upgrade prior to release) both boards have SATA 6GB and OS and game in question is run of the same Sata 6GB SSD and same 8GB DDR3 ram.
a c 259 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
July 27, 2012 1:37:25 AM

cbrunnem said:
the thing is how do you know if you are bottlenecking or not?

By upgrading your processor and seeing if it makes any difference. Yes, I'm being facetious. Personally, I think the bottle necking argument is highly over rated. There are other variables that enter the picture too. Such as whether the game is CPU or GPU intensive. Whether your FSB is fast enough. Whether or not you can tell any difference between 60 FPS and 65 FPS for example.
July 27, 2012 1:40:33 AM

teh_gerbil said:
Most likely build will be an intel but that wont be till amd's 8xxx or 9xxx cards are out

At op: don't ask silly questions and raise flame wars.

Your question is irrelevant, and answered many many times in many different times in many different forums. The i5 is superior.

However, in relation to your quote, if you're looking at buying a computer by the time those 2 are out, then we could be talking a very different picture, no point asking what the difference is between 2 CPU's that have both been outdated by the next generation to be released.


No obviously i didnt ask the question what is better you tard,Read it again.I simply asked how could a 2500k get better fps than a 6100 in these so called "benchmarks" when i get the same fps as a 2500k while using the same video card? makes no sense...
July 27, 2012 1:46:03 AM

clutchc said:
As much as I love AMD processors (I was a big fan in the Athlon II & Phenon II days), they don't fare very well against the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge architecture. Speaking of Tom's, they eevn rate them for you after doing exhaustive comparisons: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

If you have a Bulldozer and it is giving you good frame rates, it is probably due to the card. Bottle necking isn't all that noticable if you have even an adequate processor.

Yeah i have a bulldozer 6100 and i get the same fps as a 2500k while using the same card also.Makes no sense that these benchmarks are saying that not 1 of amd's cpu's could keep up.The reason they target the 8150 when going against the 2500k is because while the 8150 has to share resources and cycle through all 8 cores it will slow down performance because it has to do alot of extra work.Now with the 4170 or 6100 they keep up with the 2500k in games...maybey not starcraft but in games like bf3,gta4,metro 2033,RAGE,Deus Ex,just cause 2 and bfbc2...Intel might be ahead by 3-5 fps total but no 35 fps...i mean we are talking a whole step up in a GPU making those assumptions...Hell ive built a system for a friend and i put a 2500k in there and ran some benches and i got the same fps as him with my video card in his system and mine...And to everyone who says im trying to start a flame war... im not.Im only asking a simple question on how they get these benchmarks when i do the same tests and get the same fps as other intel users...

EchoOne :sol: 
July 27, 2012 1:46:05 AM

rolli59 said:
It is CPU bottleneck if one is having 35fps less with the same GPU! For example I just changed from AMD X3 @3.2GHz getting max 50fps in game with HD6850, swap over to 3570K and now I get max 80fps with HD6850. Simply means that the X3 was holding me back since everything else is the same.

Yeah that cpu (X3) sucks...If you would have gotten a 6100,4170 or 8150... you would have gotten the same fps also lol

EchoOne :sol: 
a c 793 à CPUs
a c 133 å Intel
a c 303 À AMD
July 27, 2012 1:48:35 AM

EchoOne said:
No obviously i didnt ask the question what is better you tard,Read it again.I simply asked how could a 2500k get better fps than a 6100 in these so called "benchmarks" when i get the same fps as a 2500k while using the same video card? makes no sense...

Because those benchmarks are done with both CPU's at stock clocks. With you CPU @4.6GHz you have closed the gap (reduced the bottleneck) but it will open up again compared to 2500K @ 4.6GHz.
a c 793 à CPUs
a c 133 å Intel
a c 303 À AMD
July 27, 2012 1:55:00 AM

Quote:
back-out 'rolli59' this is a bait thread.
OP has done this before.

LOL!!
Some people just have to justify their purchase, at least to themselves!
July 27, 2012 2:01:55 AM

rolli59 said:
Because those benchmarks are done with both CPU's at stock clocks. With you CPU @4.6GHz you have closed the gap (reduced the bottleneck) but it will open up again compared to 2500K @ 4.6GHz.


btw i clocked his a 4.2ghz... forgot to mention that before you ran your fanboy mouth.
a c 793 à CPUs
a c 133 å Intel
a c 303 À AMD
July 27, 2012 2:11:34 AM


LOL did you look at all the gaming benches or just the synthetics! Where the FX comes close (does not win anywhere but loses some badly others close) I would say GPU limited with a single HD6950.
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2012 2:48:51 AM

EchoOne said:
No obviously i didnt ask the question what is better you tard,Read it again.I simply asked how could a 2500k get better fps than a 6100 in these so called "benchmarks" when i get the same fps as a 2500k while using the same video card? makes no sense...



Believe it or not, I read your post. 3 times, due to the lack of adequate (or any) grammar or proper use of punctuation I have deemed you to be a troll.

As for your question, you cannot really compare real world to benchmarks, you cannot trust anything anyone posts on the internet, too many stories have come to light of companies penalizing other companies who do not give their products favourable reviews. Thus it's better to take the average of at least 5-10 websites, and I am sure if you have done so, you would realise the average difference between the CPU's would drop closer to your real world experience.

But I am sure you have already figured that out, hence the pointless troll status of this thread, and my comment you are doing it for shits and giggles.

Edit: not to mention your complete lack of any proof of your statement.

Cheers, Gerbil.
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2012 4:35:50 AM

:) 
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2012 6:43:55 AM

Not one of these threads again.

1] Intel is better on per core performance and power numbers.

2] AMD is not as bad as made out to be, more the case of Intel being so good, but that said yes even a flawed Bulldozer design is very capable of very high frame rates.

Intel is the safer value / performance option and yes they are all good, but AMD despite the issues does have a lot of upside to the new architecture, its just whether people are patient enough and open minded enough to accept that its work in progress.

As I always say, a chip is a chip.
July 27, 2012 4:10:22 PM

Still no one has answered my original question because they turned this into a flame war...
a c 793 à CPUs
a c 133 å Intel
a c 303 À AMD
July 27, 2012 4:29:28 PM

EchoOne said:
Still no one has answered my original question because they turned this into a flame war...

Original question "Can someone explain these bad benchmarks where intel gets 20-35 fps more than AMD while using the same gpu?"
Answer several threads above period "Because those benchmarks are done with both CPU's at stock clocks. With you CPU @4.6GHz you have closed the gap (reduced the bottleneck) but it will open up again compared to 2500K @ 4.6GHz."
To get that confirmed you only have to read through all the thread on a different forum that you posted as response http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060 [...] rk-results
July 27, 2012 4:48:41 PM

rolli59 said:
Original question "Can someone explain these bad benchmarks where intel gets 20-35 fps more than AMD while using the same gpu?"
Answer several threads above period "Because those benchmarks are done with both CPU's at stock clocks. With you CPU @4.6GHz you have closed the gap (reduced the bottleneck) but it will open up again compared to 2500K @ 4.6GHz."
To get that confirmed you only have to read through all the thread on a different forum that you posted as response http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060 [...] rk-results

But as if you would have read my other post stating that both cpu's were clocked at the same speed. or there abouts fps is the same.I guess it comes down to.Intel is better with multi gpu configs mostly.Because im thinking their neck and neck with 1 and 2 cards but any more than that intel will take the lead...And im not here to bash intel...I like intel and my next build will be intel so *** off intelfanfags starting wars...But anyways pretty much alot of those benchmarks out there are a hoax.Hell look at linus tech tips 8150 vs 3930x in gaming...their neck and neck accept in a few games that are more geared towards intel (Skyrim,Starcraft) and a few others but other than that their withing 3 fps or so of each-other.The main quesition i wanted to have answered was mainly (Arent these benchmarks a scam?) Its even been tested intel and amd are neck and neck ingames accept when they are geared more towards intel or more than 2 gpu's...

EchoOne :sol: 
a c 793 à CPUs
a c 133 å Intel
a c 303 À AMD
July 27, 2012 4:52:16 PM

EchoOne said:
But as if you would have read my other post stating that both cpu's were clocked at the same speed. or there abouts fps is the same.I guess it comes down to.Intel is better with multi gpu configs mostly.Because im thinking their neck and neck with 1 and 2 cards but any more than that intel will take the lead...And im not here to bash intel...I like intel and my next build will be intel so *** off intelfanfags starting wars...But anyways pretty much alot of those benchmarks out there are a hoax.Hell look at linus tech tips 8150 vs 3930x in gaming...their neck and neck accept in a few games that are more geared towards intel (Skyrim,Starcraft) and a few others but other than that their withing 3 fps or so of each-other.The main quesition i wanted to have answered was mainly (Arent these benchmarks a scam?) Its even been tested intel and amd are neck and neck ingames accept when they are geared more towards intel or more than 2 gpu's...

EchoOne :sol: 

I answered that above as well so do other people on the thread you posted all 43 pages. A single HD6950 reaches its max output with several CPU's today. Many suggestions in that thread to lower the resolution to get the games CPU bound!
July 27, 2012 4:54:24 PM

Quote:
You disrespectful little A-hole, i would watch your mouth before opening it like that.
Not only are you completely defending your peice of crap 6100, you are now saying it is comparable to a 2500k.
I have news for you, you suck, and so does your processor, go elsewhere for a fight, as this is where you will be put to shame.

I hope to never hear from you again, as i will not be so polite next time.

Kudos to those who have tried to endure his idiocy.



Oh we got a tough guy on the internet correcting grammar and showing me useless benchmarks that i have showed to prove those wrong... Linus tech tips and the link i sent even proves that wrong...a few games perform better on intel but both are neck and neck in most games usually 3 fps off.Hell,Im not the one getting mad.I asked one simple question and stated i keep up with a 2500k in gaming and you intel fanboys get all but-hurt over it.Jesus Christ,Calm down...

EchoOne
July 27, 2012 4:55:55 PM

Quote:
The typical AMD expert:
"intelfanfags"

Amazing that you are 18??
I am thinking 7...

Please tell me where i claimed i was an (Amd Expert) lol i like both amd and intel...
July 27, 2012 4:56:37 PM

Quote:
My rigs:


Sandy Bridge.
==============

i5 2500k@4.5GHZ 1.3V
EVGA Z68 SLi mainboard
EVGA GTX 480 900 core 2-way SLi
Gelid icy vision rev 2.0 x2 for both 480\\\'s
8Gb G.skill RipjawsX DDR3 1600mhz CAS9
Corsair H100 4x Phobya G.silent 120mm Push/Pull
2x Samsung Spinpoint F3 7200RPM 1TB RAID-0 (media/games)
Crucial M4 64GB (Windows)
Silverstone Raven RV02-B chassis
Silverstone Strider 1000watt 80 plus Gold Power supply

AM3 Dragon.
============

Phenom II x4 B55@4.2GHZ 1.475V
MSI 790FX-GD70 mainboard
Gainward Geforce GTX 580 Phantom ED OC edition
4GB Geil Black Dragon DDR3 1600mhz CAS8
CoolIT ECO ALC 2x Coolermaster Sickleflow 120mm Push/Pull
Hitachi Deskstar 7200RPM 1TB
Xigmatek Utguard chassis
Corsair TX650W Power supply

I know the truth, i am no fanboy to either CPU or GPU market.

I do like silverstone however :) 


I wont lie,Good rigs you got there.You going to do 580 sli or get a 680?
July 27, 2012 5:00:59 PM

Quote:
Neither, the CPU is at it's limit with the 580..


Yeah 580 is alot to put on that little phenom...Personally i think i shouldnt have gotten an fx maybey a phenom 1090t or 2500k but i didnt have the money at the time -_- owell this rig will last me a year or 2...Got a 7950 now so i should be good clocked it past 670 performance (stock) and past 7970 performance also stock.But also another reason i went with the 6100 was also because i heard it was better at 3d modeling and faster at video rendering than a 2500k (It is in video rendering) havnt tested both at 3d modeling but owell its a decent cpu for the price.
a c 141 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 27, 2012 5:02:13 PM

Quote:
You disrespectful little A-hole, i would watch your mouth before opening it like that.
Not only are you completely defending your peice of crap 6100, you are now saying it is comparable to a 2500k.
I have news for you, you suck, and so does your processor, go elsewhere for a fight, as this is where you will be put to shame.

I hope to never hear from you again, as i will not be so polite next time.

Kudos to those who have tried to endure his idiocy.


+1000. Another AMD fanboy trying to defend thier piss poor Bullcrapper.
July 27, 2012 5:06:57 PM

Quote:
it's your attitude and cockiness.
because honestly your rig is not all that, even the 6870 in CF-X has issues but you don't want to see it because it's your hardware.
support it and fight for it, I understand, try and feel good about it.
but the truth is that it's weak, the CPU is weak and like I stated your attitude followed by ignorance
shows your age and lack of maturity.



7950 Twin frozr III 1100 core and 1557 mem @ 1.25 volts no bottlenecks no 6870 cf...amd drivers blow though...Hell i wont lie i admit Intel is better but i jsut can wrap my mind around those benchmarks...Like i stated above i can see bottlenecks on AMD cpus with 2 or more really high end video cards 6990,590,680's in sli Sorry if my "Attitude" was cocky but i just asked a simple question and then a regular fanboy came in and started doing his intel chant and got everyone all pissed off...Never knew 1 simple question could lead into this... lol

EchoOne :sol: 
July 27, 2012 5:07:21 PM

rds1220 said:
+1000. Another AMD fanboy trying to defend thier piss poor Bullcrapper.


God not another intelfanboy *facepalm*
July 27, 2012 5:10:05 PM

Quote:
this thread has made me laugh all morning into lunchtime...
:lol: 


Lol :p 

Best solution

a b à CPUs
July 27, 2012 5:31:55 PM
Share

EchoOne said:
I know everyone recomends intel but the thing is is that ive seen some benchmarks latley on toms hardware,Showing things like some metro 2033 benchmarks and a few other games and it was the 6100 vs 2500k.Now before i go on i want to clear up,I have nothing to hate on intel and im not an AMD fanboy.Most likely build will be an intel but that wont be till amd's 8xxx or 9xxx cards are out but anyways,The 2500k was getting like 35 fps more that the 6100? im sorry but i know the FPS is Not that Drastic!I can see 3-4 fps...Especially in metro 2033 and gta 4 and also bf3,But if your CPU isnt Bottlenecking the gpu You should be fine right?Right now as im typing this i have a 7950 overclocked past 7970 performance and im not bottlenecking it and i get the same performance in games as a 2500k and 2600k.Some games that are SUPER super intensive like starcraft is it? intel is better but i know that 35 fps is not due to CPU...The place where i can see AMD bottlenecking would be in crossfire/sli with more than 2 cards...but anyways,Can someone explain these bad benchmarks where intel gets 20-35 fps more than AMD while using the same gpu?

EchoOne :sol: 


It has to do with resolution and graphics settings (For games). At very low or very high resolutions the CPU's underlying architecture is exposed to the test results as the benchmark either becomes software bound, or bandwidth bound. There are different techniques for making the CPU become more prevailent to the benchmark scores, but this is the easiest way for games.

In the real world one is unlikely to see a major difference when playing games, but that answers your question.

In addition, synthetic benchmarks test very specific parts or functionalities of the cpu in order to gain an understanding of how well the CPU can perform a specific type of task. While most real programs will use many parts of the CPU, when comparing architectures it's important to narrow one's focus to certain regions of the CPU in order to gauge it's efficiency on certain workloads.


Your experience is in line with what one would expect for an average user who doesn't do anything performance critical. Unless you have a specific workload that requires you to have a powerful system, it's unlikely that you'll see much difference in functionality. My recommendation to you is to buy a lower cost part and save yourself some money because clearly, if you cannot see the difference between a AMD's FX and Intel's K series, then you are not doing anything that requires that much power. This is because architectural peculiarities only become apparent when you are doing something of importance.
July 27, 2012 5:57:29 PM

Best answer selected by EchoOne.
a c 162 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 27, 2012 5:57:43 PM

This topic has been closed by Hunter315
!