ExtremeTech shows how incredible Intel is for gaming.

[SubtleIntelFreak]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854785,00.asp

Look at those benchmarks fly! And so many pretty colors.

 

[Shimmishim]

We picked frame rates at which you actually notice an impact on how the game feels, not the absolute minimum required to play and enjoy a game. This is where the Athlon 64 really kicks the Pentium 4 in the teeth. Our P4 system spent almost a third of the time, across all games, beneath our target minimum FPS. The Athlon 64 system, on the other hand, spent only 14% of its time there. This is a difference of a whopping 121%!

no one ever said intel sucked at gaming. people have been saying amd is BETTER at gaming.

 

[Markfw]

Thanks ! That was a good read. I think they should have made the systems even in price, not just the cpu, and then the Intel would have lost by even more ! I also think that the threshholds, %above, %below, and the average idea is a good one. As they said Averages don't fully tell the tale.

 

[SubtleIntelFreak]

What's wrong with you people! WHy do you have to bring AMD up? This is about intel! let's say you go to a public bathroom and gleefully relieve yourself but suddenly some obnoxious bastard stands next to you and laughs that his johnson is bigger? That'd be really annoying. Then he'd be talkign about how his peeing unit can displace more liquid per second than yours and that his has built in mechanisms to prevent a long list of STD's. TO hell with that! i dont' care if yours is larger, I still enjoy my funstick as much as any body else!

And the comparison is all wrongheaded anyway. First of all, the Intel system costs 100 dollars more than teh AMD system which can explain why AMD performs a little better. You know the saying, Mo Money Mo Problems, so clearly a cheaper intel solution would have performed better.

More importantly, the evil biased reviewer did not give Intel any points for artistic merit! I mean, look at how pertty intel's graphs are compared to Amd's!

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Thanks ! That was a good read. I think they should have made the systems even in price, not just the cpu, and then the Intel would have lost by even more ! I also think that the threshholds, %above, %below, and the average idea is a good one. As they said Averages don't fully tell the tale.

i dont get it, the 3500+ is $217 on pricewatch and the 640 is $210

motherboard prices are comparable and so are ram prices...

 

[kirbymixmasta]

Originally posted by: SubtleIntelFreak

First of all, the Intel system costs 100 dollars more than teh AMD system which can explain why AMD performs a little better. You know the saying, Mo Money Mo Problems, so clearly a cheaper intel solution would have performed better.

..Oh yeah, a amd 3500+ is going to perform better then an fx-55 because its cheaper.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: SubtleIntelFreak
What's wrong with you people! WHy do you have to bring AMD up? This is about intel! let's say you go to a public bathroom and gleefully relieve yourself but suddenly some obnoxious bastard stands next to you and laughs that his johnson is bigger? That'd be really annoying. Then he'd be talkign about how his peeing unit can displace more liquid per second than yours and that his has built in mechanisms to prevent a long list of STD's. TO hell with that! i dont' care if yours is larger, I still enjoy my funstick as much as any body else!

And the comparison is all wrongheaded anyway. First of all, the Intel system costs 100 dollars more than teh AMD system which can explain why AMD performs a little better. You know the saying, Mo Money Mo Problems, so clearly a cheaper intel solution would have performed better.

More importantly, the evil biased reviewer did not give Intel any points for artistic merit! I mean, look at how pertty intel's graphs are compared to Amd's!

Its a COMPARISON between two processors, meanings its ABOUT both processors. If your goal was to compare the size of your johnson with that of anothers, then your example wouldnt be too obnoxious (assuming both are consenting )

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: kirbymixmasta

Originally posted by: SubtleIntelFreak

First of all, the Intel system costs 100 dollars more than teh AMD system which can explain why AMD performs a little better. You know the saying, Mo Money Mo Problems, so clearly a cheaper intel solution would have performed better.

..Oh yeah, a amd 3500+ is going to perform better then an fx-55 because its cheaper.

yeah, i dont get this point either...

 

[SubtleIntelFreak]

It'd make sense if you'd stop taking me seriously.

 

[Hacp]

I thought this guy was banned...

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Hacp
I thought this guy was banned...

I have the worst sarcasm detector on the planet, and I even get this guy.... And it was a decent article.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Who were you before you were banned?

- M4H

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Hacp
I thought this guy was banned...

I have the worst sarcasm detector on the planet, and I even get this guy.... And it was a decent article.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=42&threadid=1676738&enterthread=y

Again I repeat, I thought this guy was banned.

 

[imported_Bleh]

Who were you before you were banned?

NotSoSubtleIntelFreak?

 

[exar333]

everyone, just stop posting, this guy is dumba@@!

this thread is toast...

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
everyone, just stop posting, this guy is dumba@@!

this thread is toast...

This thread isn't a dumass thread.... The link was actually good.

 

[Buck Naked]

Bad link to show how good Intel is.

Clearly, the results we get from timedemo-style benchmarks in our processor reviews aren't far off the mark. If anything, you could say they're kind to Intel. By focusing on average frame rate in the playback of pre-recorded or scripted demos, we find AMD processors are typically 15-25% faster in gaming scenarios. Focusing on the amount of time spent beneath a minimum FPS threshold makes the situation look far worse for Intel, as they spend more than twice as much time beneath the limit.

Intel is good, but in this case AMD is better

Originally posted by: SubtleIntelFreak
What's wrong with you people! WHy do you have to bring AMD up?

Uh, it was your link to a comparison about AMD vrs Intel. So again

Pretty funny, but you are just asking for it buddy.

 

[nick1985]

I like this part the best,


"The results speak for themselves. The average frame rate across all six games for the Athlon 64 system is 61fps, while the Pentium 4 averaged 54fps"

 

[slash196]

And they thought it was amazingly insightful to come up with the "GPU-limited" idea. I hate computer magazines. AT for life.

 

[corpseofworms]

It amazes me how people still can't figure out that this guy is just screwing with us and is freaking hilarious.

 

[Bona Fide]

What are they talking about with the "45 fps line"?

After 45fps, do you encounter choppiness or something?

 

[larry89]

This thread was made by someone bored to draw out all the unsuspecting people to argue in a relentless and pointless online forum arguement.

It worked.

 

[Pabster]

Now let us debate the difference between 54fps and 61fps ...

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Now let us debate the difference between 54fps and 61fps ...

I didn't get that as the real gist of this review. tt was the lows and highs. Please read the whole review and forget the averages as they said to in the text. Do I need to quote text ????

What is more important, we feel, is how often a game runs slowly enough that you can feel it. This methodology is consistent with the one used by a new performance analysis tool in the works at Intel. We picked arbitrary performance thresholds, but these are numbers based on years of game playing experience. We picked frame rates at which you actually notice an impact on how the game feels, not the absolute minimum required to play and enjoy a game. This is where the Athlon 64 really kicks the Pentium 4 in the teeth. Our P4 system spent almost a third of the time, across all games, beneath our target minimum FPS. The Athlon 64 system, on the other hand, spent only 14% of its time there. This is a difference of a whopping 121%!

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: SubtleIntelFreak
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854785,00.asp

Look at those benchmarks fly! And so many pretty colors.

Man, you're just a total weirdo. the article concludes that AMD is still superior, all other things being more or less equal. And the 3500+ is runs a full 1 GHz slower clock than the P4.

I'd sure like to see some Intel people come in who don't have a chip on their shoulder. (heh heh.) Until then, BAN this guy!