AMD vs Intel processor for gaming

S

Socrilles17

Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Messages
857
Alright please forgive my ignorance, obviously Intel has the better processors right now which also overclock better. What I am wondering is whether either is better for gaming or if the hypertransport or other tech on the AMDs make up for any of the weakness in OCing and what not. Personally I have 3 Q6600 systems and 2 9600 BE processors waiting to go into systems. I am just trying to figure out how big a hit you take on performance from having the slower clocked AMD processor compared to the intel processor (I think the comparison would be between a 2.6 ghz phenom and a 3 ghz Q6600 as both these OCs are easily achievable on cheap motherboards and without fancy cooling).
 
Im not real into this game anymore, but last I remember AMD had nothing on a Core 2 duo or Quad. I think the gap form AMD to intel has only gotten bigger.
 
check out www.tomshardware.com and then go to charts and look at the processor charts - It shows the processors against each other in different games.

AMD can't hang.
 
For the purpose of gaming it really won't make all that much of a difference (baring a few notable exceptions: specifically supreme commander) assuming it is a higher clocked dual core (or a quad). Games are heavily GPU limited, and even though AMD gets its ass handed to it when it comes to CPU performance, it really won't matter all that much for games.

That said, you would be best getting the faster Intel CPUs anyway, at least for future proofing and overclocking :)
 
Yep your video card will usually be the limiting factor in gaming (unless you run really low resolutions). Intel CPUs are still faster for games though, and should be more future-proof. There are certain games that rely heavily on the CPU too, like Flight Simulator X for example. Most rely more on the video card though
 
Alright so if I understand correctly I would be better off getting a 9600 BE and a 4870, over a Q9450 and a 4850? However the Q9450 is more future proof so if I have the extra around $150 to spend I should get the Q9450 or would it be better to wait for the 4870X2 and use the extra money towards that.

Thanks every1

Here is the scenario, I can either get (already got) the AMD 9600 BE and 2 gb of ram for $100 or I can get the Q9450 w/ a POS mobo from frys for $250 + tax = $270. In either case I have to buy a motherboard, however I get the free ram with amd processor (figure $20) so the way I look at it I would be paying ~ $200 premium for the intel setup. Now before this crazy ATI and it looks to be Nvidia (now or soon) pricing, a strong gaming PC would cost at least $1k to build so the $200 premium was reasonable. But now I figure I can build a full gaming rig for under $500 that can play just about any game.

9600 BE + 2 gb ram $100
Antec Sonata III w/ 500 Watt PSU $50
MSI K9A2 ~ $100
Radeon 4850 $150
500 gb SATA HD $75
DVD burner $25

Total $500

So my question is if I was going to spend $700 would I be better off using that $200 towards getting the Q9450 or towards getting a 4870X2 or just 4870.
 
Socrilles17 said:
Alright so if I understand correctly I would be better off getting a 9600 BE and a 4870, over a Q9450 and a 4850? However the Q9450 is more future proof so if I have the extra around $150 to spend I should get the Q9450 or would it be better to wait for the 4870X2 and use the extra money towards that.
Click to expand...

That really depends on the resolution you game at and what games you play. Personally I would stick with the 9600 BE if you already got it - its good enough...
 
yeah, stick wiht 9600BE, actually, i think ANY CPU in the market now is ok for gaming, just save the $ for more video card and RAM and/or dinner
 
Socrilles17 said:
Alright so if I understand correctly I would be better off getting a 9600 BE and a 4870, over a Q9450 and a 4850? However the Q9450 is more future proof so if I have the extra around $150 to spend I should get the Q9450 or would it be better to wait for the 4870X2 and use the extra money towards that.

Thanks every1

Here is the scenario, I can either get (already got) the AMD 9600 BE and 2 gb of ram for $100 or I can get the Q9450 w/ a POS mobo from frys for $250 + tax = $270. In either case I have to buy a motherboard, however I get the free ram with amd processor (figure $20) so the way I look at it I would be paying ~ $200 premium for the intel setup. Now before this crazy ATI and it looks to be Nvidia (now or soon) pricing, a strong gaming PC would cost at least $1k to build so the $200 premium was reasonable. But now I figure I can build a full gaming rig for under $500 that can play just about any game.

9600 BE + 2 gb ram $100
Antec Sonata III w/ 500 Watt PSU $50
MSI K9A2 ~ $100
Radeon 4850 $150
500 gb SATA HD $75
DVD burner $25

Total $500

So my question is if I was going to spend $700 would I be better off using that $200 towards getting the Q9450 or towards getting a 4870X2 or just 4870.
Click to expand...

the video card hands down. the 9600 will do what you need it to. the video card is where it really matters. consider that my 4400+ 939 can push most the games to the max with my 8800GTX there is no reason to worry about it. If you turn up the eye candy the difference between FPS is nil
 
Do NOT get the MSI K9A2. Terrible, terrible motherboard that has the Phenom running on its edges.
If you ever figured that you wanted to OC for less bottlenecks, you should kill it very fast.

Right now it's not hard to get a mobo in that price range. The K9A2 Platinum is $50 more, but is the most feature filled AMD mobo as of now, and handles Phenoms properly.

Heck, you could even get a Open box DFI for less:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813136044R
 
Lost! said:
Do NOT get the MSI K9A2. Terrible, terrible motherboard that has the Phenom running on its edges.
If you ever figured that you wanted to OC for less bottlenecks, you should kill it very fast.
Click to expand...

I agree, I've had nothing but problems with MSI motherboards. Fried 2 of them in a 3-4month period with only mild overclocking. Granted that was a few years ago, but I haven't heard good thing about their new mobos either.
 
Wolfkin said:
Take a look at this test. For games where CPU play a major part there's a big advantage for Intel but in games that is heavy on the GPU both AMD and Intel get about the same numbers.
Click to expand...

I won't phrase it like that though.

AMDs lag only when a game has poor multithreaded support (See TF2) while performance on apps with good MT is generally better, from on par with a C2Q 6k to beating it. Either way, clock for clock differences are negligible.

The big differences are clocks you can reach on each chip. Now that the 9850/9950BE hit 3+Ghz with relative ease, that got nullified a bit.
 
It used to be a long time ago, that AMD despite being worse at pure math type calculations such as encoding and (un)compressing and doing complex photoshop manipulations, they were somehow still beating intel in games.

Thats not the case at the moment, Intel has such a high lead, and the chipsets are so fast that they just leave AMD behind.
 
^^ They are a company that used to make processors. Haven't really heard anything about them since those Core2Duos came out though... j/k
 
I cant recommend any AMD CPU's when the Intels are so quick, cheap and clock WAY better than AMDs better products.
Phenom is much less future proof.

AMD cannot compete at the moment but luckily we arent having to pay through the nose for their stuff so take this opportunity to have your cake and eat it !
 
vanilla_guerilla said:
whats an amd?
Click to expand...

Real funny. :rolleyes:


The 9600 will be way good enough for you if you already have it, and I could not tell a difference between my 9850 and the [email protected] rig I had before. 95% of the games support no more than 1 more, but those that do, the Phenom is not that far behind the Q6600. I know this because I've tested both and it's a lot more fun overclocking the Phenom, it's a completely new experience.

Too much negativity towards AMD in this forum, and even if intel's chips are so much faster than an AMD Phenom - would YOU ever be able to tell a difference with your naked eye? I can't.
 
with lower resolution a faster cpu is needed,at bigger resolution the better gpu is needed.
 
Nenu said:
I cant recommend any AMD CPU's when the Intels are so quick, cheap and clock WAY better than AMDs better products.
Phenom is much less future proof.

AMD cannot compete at the moment but luckily we arent having to pay through the nose for their stuff so take this opportunity to have your cake and eat it !
Click to expand...

Yes, but it sounds like the OP already has a Phenom, which changes things :)
 
It depends on the resolution and settings but overall the new Intel core2 processors will beat the newer AMD's. If you play at resolutions of 1280*1024 or lower than the Intel would give you a pretty decent amount more of fps. You would only be able to see this difference if you have a CRT capable of high refresh rates. I have also heard that Intel processors will give you a higher minimum fps so you will see less lag/jerkiness. Overall though I would have to say that you will not see much of a difference between the two unless you play at like 800*600 with low settings in which case the Intel would be a lot faster. I play at 1600*1200 with high settings so I wont see the difference at all besides my minimum frame rates being lower which doesn't bother me anyways.

If anybody is thinking about going AMD though I would have to say wait for the 9950's and the new motherboards that they are releasing. The one area that AMD beats Intel in is the fact that the top of the line AMD motherboards are much, much less expensive than the top of the line Intel motherboards while the AMD boards wont be limiting your overclock and have way better crossfire support. You can get a DFI 790 motherboard for only $150 and it will have full PCI-E 2.0 quad crossfire support while a good quad crossfire Intel motherboard will cost you around $250+.
 
kllrnohj said:
Yes, amazingly I can read. Can you?
Click to expand...

Hmm, its not me that has the problem reading, you may have noticed I didnt reply to you in the first place!
And reading through the thread, the OP has not decided yet but you seem to think he has :rolleyes:
Glasses may help you.

I have expressed my opinion which is for the OP not you, seeing as this is his thread not yours.
Its his choice not yours.
 
If you run your games at 1024x768 like many CPU reviewers do, the Intel CPUs will be significantly faster. If you run at normal settings with FSAA enabled, the gap is much smaller, especially with the higher clocked Phenoms.

If you're on an AMD system with a 6000 or 7000-series GPU, you'll probably get a bigger boost from a new GPU than from a faster CPU. However, if you're building a completely new system, there's no real reason to go with AMD any more.. They don't really hold a price advantage as long as you can spend over $100 on the CPU.. there are low-end Core2 Duo models that overclock really well, making them run circles around most AMD CPUs except the fastest Phenoms. In the high-end and mid-range, Intel has no competition.

One can always hope that the new 45nm Phenoms will catch up somewhat, but it would take many years of successful CPUs from AMD before the performance gap is completely closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top