AMD or Intel? which is better for gaming?

[TheArabian]

I currently own 2 systems, both are semi outdated, but can still, for the most part, play any game out there. One has AMD and the other Intel, but due to other components in the computer there is no way to distinguish which processor is actually better. Basically i just want to here peoples opinions on what is better, AMD or Intel, more specifically for gaming.

 

[forumposter32]

Hey, you know what? I was looking at http://www23.tomshardware.com and had never bothered to look at the other gaming benchmarks other than UT2004. Well, the Intels can beat AMD sometimes. But, it's always price/performance. I was told once that the Extreme Edition Intels were also Extremely Expensive.

Right now, I would use pricegrabber.com or.ca or the real time pricing guide for the socket 939 3700+. There's still socket 754 3700+ on certain sites but I'd only go for it if the price is right.

I saw some benchmarks with the 7800 GTX where the 3000+ was way behind other processors like the 3500+. So, I'd aim for minimum 3500+ unless you really can't afford it. Then the absolute minimums I would tolerate would be 3200+ then Sempron 3100+. But, I like UT2004 which uses the CPU more than the GPU.

 

[theMan]

today, AMD processors are better, hands down. ESPECIALLLY IN GAMING. they are cooler, use less power, and have way better performance in almost everything. what processors do your other computers have?

 

[peleejosh]

is this thread a joke? If not, use the search or google it. Everyone knows AMD kicks the crap out of intel in gaming.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

AMD makes better CPU's
Intel makes more CPU's and more money
The End

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
AMD makes better CPU's
Intel makes more CPU's and more money
The End

Well said. But Intel does make better spaceheaters today.

 

[Canterwood]

In today's market AMD is defiantely better for gaming than Intel.

But if you're looking for a comparison between your existing rigs, then we'd need to know the specs of each.

 

[anandtechrocks]

This is a pretty good read. Xbitlabs is a reputable review site too:

Battlefield 2 GPU Limited
F.E.A.R GPU Limited
Serious Sam 2 GPU Limited
Quake 4 GPU Limited
Call of Duty 2 GPU Limited

Now remember the links I posted have are more GPU limited than CPU limited so it shows Intel performing well.

Here are some CPU limited tests that show AMD's dominance:

Serious Sam 2 CPU Limited
Battlefield 2 CPU Limited

As you can see by the BF2 benchmark AMD is basically untouchable in the gaming arena. One of AMD's cheapest chips (3200+) is beating Intels $1000+ dollar goliath.

 

[Cooler]

Take this from an intel user AMD is king for games and 99% of all other apps.

 

[TuxDave]

Ok, now that we got all the AMD loving posts out of the way, TheArabian, are you asking because you want to get a new system or are you asking because you want to upgrade the components in only one of the systems. If it's the latter, then you have to provide some more information on WHICH Intel and AMD processor you have in there.

 

[anandtechrocks]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
Ok, now that we got all the AMD loving posts out of the way...

Read my post, it's pretty interesting. Basically, if you have all the bells and whistles on (which most enthusiast do) the processor you have makes very little difference.

 

[cw42]

There's no need for opinion, but it's fact that AMD beats Intel in almost all games.

 

[ITPaladin]

If I remember correctly from my hardware class, Intel's design causes more work to be done than the AMD architecture which is why more heat is generated.

 

[BW86]

A
M
D

 

[Mik3y]

I'll be the first to say it. AMD is better for gaming.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

You are all wrong of course. AMD is better at Intel for gaming until video card bottlenecks occur at high resolutions than AMD is only fractionally better (except for the cooler, less wattage part, LOL)

 

[Canterwood]

Then again, you could say Intel Pentium M is better at gaming than AMD64.

 

[secretanchitman]

AMD for gaming
Intel for everything else...unless dual-core gets in the way, then AMD is superior.

but...i have to say Intel is awesome at OCing. my 2.4 can go up to 3.4 via stock heatsink!

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
AMD for gaming
Intel for everything else...unless dual-core gets in the way, then AMD is superior.

but...i have to say Intel is awesome at OCing. my 2.4 can go up to 3.4 via stock heatsink!

try it with a prescott.

i did like the northwoods, though.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: anandtechrocks

Originally posted by: TuxDave
Ok, now that we got all the AMD loving posts out of the way...

Read my post, it's pretty interesting. Basically, if you have all the bells and whistles on (which most enthusiast do) the processor you have makes very little difference.

I guess that's technically true. I do try to get all the bells and whistles running in all the games I play unless it causes my computer to go to a crawl.

 

[TheArabian]

Well i'm planning on making a new computer and i had always heard that AMD was better for gaming, but i never actually saw any proof, i was just curious b/c organizations like CPL and CAL BF2 all sponsor Intel. Thanks everyone for answering my question.

 

[CheesePoofs]

Read any review of processors, AMD will win in them. Only reason those games have intel logos is cause intel has enough cash to put their name everywhere, which is essentially how they sell their processors.

 

[Zebo]

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854788,00.asp">Real Gaming Challenge: Intel vs. AMD
</a>

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: TheArabian
Well i'm planning on making a new computer and i had always heard that AMD was better for gaming, but i never actually saw any proof, i was just curious b/c organizations like CPL and CAL BF2 all sponsor Intel. Thanks everyone for answering my question.

Yeah. Intel has enough money to sponsor tons of fun events. But then again that hasn't stopped anyone from hating them with a passion.

 

[americanleader]

AMD. Hands Down. The Athlon64 Architechture is more elegant, more efficient, and faster than any NetBurst architechture Intel CPU. Intel sure got caught with their pants down there. They incorrectly assumed they could sell everyone on higher clockspeed=better with their marketing billion$, but discriminating gamers, DIYers, and O/Cers saw through Intel's marketing BS and decided they preferred cooler, faster, less expensive processors over namebrand...and now AMD is the way to go, even for know-nothings. AMD has recently surpassed Intel in retail desktop system sales, and the trend looks good for AMD, and bad for Intel. Intel's stock was even downgraded because the financial world is finally noticing that AMD has been taking marketshare from Intel ever since the Athlon64s/Opterons came out and began wiping the floor with Pentium 4s/Xeons.