AMD or Intel? which is better for gaming?

[caz67]

Originally posted by: Cooler
Take this from an intel user AMD is king for games and 99% of all other apps.

Amen to that..

 

[RobsTV]

Originally posted by: Canterwood
Then again, you could say Intel Pentium M is better at gaming than AMD64.

And you win the prize!
Was waiting for someone to mention that little fact.
Just orderd an Opteron, but the little P-M still is unreal in gaming performance.

Old example for those that never knew this. Now, better motherboards have increased performance.

Also, the new Dell laptops scoring 7300+ in 3dm2k5 with P-M system powered by a little 150w power supply (that also has to drive 17" LCD), has to show even the strongest Intel haters that Intel may have a few tricks to come.

 

[Madellga]

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

Few words but full of wisdom

Buy AMD. Spend your time researching which mobo/memory/GPU you need to buy. And pick an AMD that fits your pocket.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: 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.

Truly the only relevant linkage here given the new games out. As this post shows, if you don't have a high-end vid card capable of the res and settings necessary to make the title GPU limited, buy an AMD. If you do have such a vid card, and gaming is the only consistant system taxing tasks you perform, any modern CPU suffices.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: RobsTV

Originally posted by: Canterwood
Then again, you could say Intel Pentium M is better at gaming than AMD64.

And you win the prize!
Was waiting for someone to mention that little fact.
Just orderd an Opteron, but the little P-M still is unreal in gaming performance.

Old example for those that never knew this. Now, better motherboards have increased performance.

Also, the new Dell laptops scoring 7300+ in 3dm2k5 with P-M system powered by a little 150w power supply (that also has to drive 17" LCD), has to show even the strongest Intel haters that Intel may have a few tricks to come.

P-M is strong for gaming, yes. I think it is a joke as a desktop platform in the present incarnation though, unbalanced performance, and for gaming you'd be better served to buy a $60 sempr0n, overclock, and put the other $150 or more into a better vid card.

 

[RobsTV]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
(snip) and for gaming you'd be better served to buy a $60 sempr0n, overclock, and put the other $150 or more into a better vid card.

That is the key for gaming.
Intel or AMD better?
Nah, GPU will overrule any bad CPU choices.

Old socket A with moderate AGP card will blow away top end A64 running low end PCIe card.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: Canterwood
Then again, you could say Intel Pentium M is better at gaming than AMD64.

Really!!?? can you use 2x7800GTX SLI or 2xX1800 crossfire with a P-M? AMD64 as a whole plataform crushes PM in gaming, so it's a ridiculous statement.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: carlosd

Originally posted by: Canterwood
Then again, you could say Intel Pentium M is better at gaming than AMD64.

Really!!?? can you use 2x7800GTX SLI or 2xX1800 crossfire with a P-M? AMD64 as a whole plataform crushes PM in gaming, so it's a ridiculous statement.

For the win.

 

[imported_Technomancer]

Originally posted by: 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.

Mostly wrong.

Intel architecture has more theoretical potential to perform more work.

In practice, most of the Intel processor is wasted with nops commands.

This is especially true of the Itanium, which issues nops like no tomorrow.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: 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.

Absolutely wrong. A64 CPUs do more work per clock cycle, the deep pipelines of the P4 architechture means a lot of wasted cycles making netburst a very unefficient desing. The heat is beacuse the high clockspeeds needed for that crappy design and the transistor loss currents. Who is your teacher? he has no idea.

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: RobsTV
That is the key for gaming.
Intel or AMD better?
Nah, GPU will overrule any bad CPU choices.

Old socket A with moderate AGP card will blow away top end A64 running low end PCIe card.

Not quite. A64s ARE better, regardless of what video card you have. If you have a crappy video card then you won't feel how much better they are because you will be video limited, but that does not mean that the CPUs perform the same, just that they both can handle feeding the video card. Even so the A64 will scale better if you upgrade the video card at some point. There's no point to buying something that performs worse (for the same or higher price, no less) simply because you will not feel the difference.