Best gaming CPU / AMD or Intel

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: konakona
I agree intel has the performance crown at the moment, undisputed I might add. That combined with an excellent price/performance ratio c2d dual cores boast, I replaced both of my AMD rigs (754 - dead, 939 - donated to family) with c2d variants.

The question still stands though, does it really matter when considering a realistic scenario where we would use high rez and vid card is most likely the limiting factor? Also, most cpu benches to my knowledge (still) quote avg fps which are way too high, the reason being the same as above. I would be more interested in seeing minimum fps comparisons where CPU is definitely holding you back.

Of course none of this is really relevant, as Exxxx are cheaper than phenom regardless.

Good point about the minimum framerates. A high average framerate is no good if you keep getting framerate dips when the action heats up.

You'll find that online games such as WoW, CS:S and BF2 require lots of CPU power because there are so many other players and there are a lot of hitbox / netcode / physics calculations. Real time strategy games also benefit from a faster CPU because there is a lot of AI involved. The most CPU bound game by far though is Flight Simulator X. It's one of the few (maybe only) game that would eat up a QX9650, spit it out and ask for more.

Extremetech has a (slightly dated) article comparing the 'real world' gaming performance of an X2 5000+ vs E6600. You can see that on certain games there is a benefit from the faster CPU in the minimum framerates department.

http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,1697,1997005,00.asp

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: konakona
The question still stands though, does it really matter when considering a realistic scenario where we would use high rez and vid card is most likely the limiting factor?

You must not be aware of the fact that the vast majority of computer owners, including gamers (although to a lesser extent), have a monitor with a maximum resolution of 1280x1024, and that most people who use a CRT don't even run them @ their max resolutions.

Originally posted by: harpoon84

You'll find that online games such as WoW, CS:S and BF2 require lots of CPU power because there are so many other players and there are a lot of hitbox / netcode / physics calculations.

Very true, as we keep hearing from the WoW'ers and CS:S'ers.

The most CPU bound game by far though is Flight Simulator X. It's one of the few (maybe only) game that would eat up a QX9650, spit it out and ask for more.

You must have FSX. My 3.2 Ghz Q6600 with 8800GT handles it fine, but my 2.8 Ghz Opteron 170 didn't, with the same video card.

 

[venusiansky]

I am on the same path. AMD since K6-2 and former longterm shareholder. I am more in desparate need of an upgrade though...

Current:
AMD Athlon 2200+
1 GB DDR
250 ATA HDD
Geforce 6600 OC

My Future plan:
Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 or 9550
4GB DDR2
Geforce 9800 GX2 (or whatever is next)
Undecided about HDD config

I already ordered my new case and PSU. Got a Antec Nine Hundred and Corsair 620w modular.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: v8envy
2 ATI X1900XT in Crossfire -- that's why. It's not benching anywhere nearly as high as 3x 8800GTX rigs.

Exactly.

Sell the 1900XTs . Upgrade to today's leading single- or crossfire solutions. Cost: < $1k.

Once above 2.8GHz -3GHz in the vast majority of gameplay the benefit curve crashes dramatically. No reasonable person will dispute the quality and performance advantages of Intel procs but to replace an AMD X2 6400 @ 3.2GHz+ and that Asus mobo is just insanity.

That's a seriously high end e-peen rig from yesteryear. For current monstrous e-peen points I believe the way to go is a Skulltrail motherboard with two Extreme edition Yorkies. 3 grand to be king of the hill for about 10 months or so, not including water cooling.

lol @ 'yesteryear' -- From what I've seen ..... $3k just might be enough to cover the procs -

p.s. to the OP: the reason Intel is better for gaming is Intel cpus have larger caches, typically. Games respond very well to large caches.

No doubt. I think the folks around here typically add 200GHz+ speed for higher cache procs .... Didn't Anand or Tom do an article on this ???

The E8400 is an ideal gaming CPU today from a bang for the buck standpoint. If overclocked it could double your current CPU oomph. Whether you need that is a completely different question.

The e8400 is great ..... but not for the OP. Switching out the vid cards and maybe another 2gb of RAM and he'll be whompin' 99% of gamers - might even break 20k in 3dmark - lol

With what is coming out in the next 6 months/yr he'd be better off throwin' his $$$ away than spending it on a new mobo/cpu. He'll drive himself crazee. Opps! new X48 chipset (and next and next). Opps! new GPUs (better & faster!) ..... Who knows? AMD might even pull a 3GHz+ Phenom/Kuma out their butt -

There's always faster or better, with the usual quickly diminishing return on investments.

Fer sure - That why yah ride it out and squeeze every penny out of it. Then give it to a kid who ain't got nuthin' and chalk up some major Kharma points ....

Bottom line to nismogt1 : Upgrade your video and ram. Be very happy. If you have any $$$ left over buy sumthin' nice for the little woman ..... like a 60-inch plasma

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: myocardia
You must not be aware of the fact that the vast majority of computer owners, including gamers (although to a lesser extent), have a monitor with a maximum resolution of 1280x1024, and that most people who use a CRT don't even run them @ their max resolutions.

I assumed a not so aging "gaming PC", at least worthy of discussion at AT would pertain those that have adequate subsystems for gameplay. I thought 19'' or higher CRTs were the norm in the past, with 22'' - 24'' LCDs being the newer sweet spot. but I do get your point, I guess I was overestimating it somewhat. so I guess when it comes to online gaming with plenty other players CPU matters.

 

[nismogt1]

I gotta say WOW...!
Thanks everybody for all the posts. I had no clue i was going to get the lot of you talking it up so well. Thanks very much you guys....
I must admit that right now the system in my sig is doing well.But, The X1900's have done very good since i first got em but i need some more firepower to play Crysis and other higher end games with... lol
Usually every other year i build myself somthing new.So its time to build a new system.I really dont care about 6 mos to a yr from now.
I got away from Intel many years ago and I have been with AMD ever since.Now i feel like a change.I'm kinda leaning to go with Intel just for nothing more than it's been sooo long since i had one.The last Intel system i had was an Asus CUSL-2 board with the 1000mhz CPU.Talk about old timer... it was a 4X AGP... lol
The AMD Spider platform with the 4 video cards intrigues me but then your running 4 mid grade video cards.And from what i hear the drivers for that setup are not looking too good yet.
I kinda am thinking an Intel CPU and being able to run 3 Nvidia video cards sounds kinda kewl.....
I really do appreciate all the comments and opinions.

Thanks guys...

nismo

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nismogt1
Alright guys, thanks for the input.I suppose its just silly to ask what you like for video cards...
I'm sure your all gonna say Nvidia... right..??
And ya, i'm going to build a new gamer with some of my tax return.Almost every year for the past few yrs now i build a new PC.

nope ... fastest single GPU is HD3870X2
--if you want to play Crysis in all it's glory you might consider SLI or X-fire

and are you going to choose 64bit Vista or 32-bit?
- the AMD solution will be a little faster than Conroe in 64 bit

we're working on this now:

Vista32- vs. Vista64-bit OS Showdown - 4GB Gaming rig's performance compared

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: konakona

Originally posted by: myocardia
You must not be aware of the fact that the vast majority of computer owners, including gamers (although to a lesser extent), have a monitor with a maximum resolution of 1280x1024, and that most people who use a CRT don't even run them @ their max resolutions.

I assumed a not so aging "gaming PC", at least worthy of discussion at AT would pertain those that have adequate subsystems for gameplay. I thought 19'' or higher CRTs were the norm in the past, with 22'' - 24'' LCDs being the newer sweet spot. but I do get your point, I guess I was overestimating it somewhat. so I guess when it comes to online gaming with plenty other players CPU matters.

Well, some people not only around here, but on other forums, think that a 24" LCD is too small. There's at least one person who posts regularly here (although not usually in the CPU forum, IIRC) who uses a 37" 1080P TV as a monitor. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of people on the planet have a monitor with a max resolution of 1280x1024 though, does it? For instance, I've got a 3.2 Ghz Q6600 with an 8800GT, and I just recently bought a new Samsung 940BX, a 19" 1280x1024 LCD. So, even though the average AT'er might be using something with a higher res, not even all of us are. BTW, the 940BX is utterly gorgeous, when gaming.

 

[spittledip]

I don't think there is anything to debate here. As long as you have the cash intel is the way to go. No other choice.

 

[Parkre]

wow, op, joined 6 years ago with only 8 posts

 

[degeester]

Read xbit's analysis. Link to Dual Core Shootout

Pretty clear that the Wolfdale's are unmatched at this point.