OOPS, spent $1925 building my computer

[SampSon]

Those are from tomshardware, though, and tom's just about always tilts things in Intel's favor.

On these tests, which don't have especially high graphics settings, the Intel chips are beaten pretty thoroughly, and thats with a 3.2 ghz P-D, not the 2.8 ghz version. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7

Plus, there's also the problem of the P-D's being the hottest chip on the market. They are known to overheat at stock settings, forcing them to throttle, meaning its very likely your chip will be running <2.8ghz while you're playing a game.

There may not be a giant difference, but there really is no reason to get an Intel chip if you're gaming. They are slower, more expensive, and hotter. Maybe not much slower, or much more expensive, (they are much hotter) but its enough so there's really no good reason to get one.

Last time I checked tom's was a diehard AMD site. Did something change in recent years?

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: OdiN
Congrats. You bought an Intel CPU for a game computer. Horray for you.

Is there really that much difference when you get into such high end components?
Does it boil down to being a battle to squeeze out the extra 5 frames per second?

1 - Yes.
2 - No.

Really?
Exactly how much difference is there?

Lots.

Interesting, are there benchmarks that reflect that?
I'm no longer a hardcore gamer but I never found a huge difference between top notch intel and AMD machines.

Though I suppose the intel is designed for different purposes in mind.

I'm sure there are plenty. Juat ask AMD's PR people for some.

No need, I did some quick searching and the benchmarks I find show that indeed the new AMD processors do generally perform better at gaming applications, but it's not a HUGE difference by any means. It depends on the specific game as usual and in some games the intel processors out did the AMD processors.

So in the end I don't believe that there is such a huge difference between the two cpu companies when it comes to performance. So I guess your original claim was mostly based on fanboi heresay. 😉

No. I was simply bored.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Those are from tomshardware, though, and tom's just about always tilts things in Intel's favor.

On these tests, which don't have especially high graphics settings, the Intel chips are beaten pretty thoroughly, and thats with a 3.2 ghz P-D, not the 2.8 ghz version. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7

Plus, there's also the problem of the P-D's being the hottest chip on the market. They are known to overheat at stock settings, forcing them to throttle, meaning its very likely your chip will be running <2.8ghz while you're playing a game.

There may not be a giant difference, but there really is no reason to get an Intel chip if you're gaming. They are slower, more expensive, and hotter. Maybe not much slower, or much more expensive, (they are much hotter) but its enough so there's really no good reason to get one.

Last time I checked tom's was a diehard AMD site. Did something change in recent years?

Uhm....have you ever read toms? Ever?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Those are from tomshardware, though, and tom's just about always tilts things in Intel's favor.

On these tests, which don't have especially high graphics settings, the Intel chips are beaten pretty thoroughly, and thats with a 3.2 ghz P-D, not the 2.8 ghz version. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7

Plus, there's also the problem of the P-D's being the hottest chip on the market. They are known to overheat at stock settings, forcing them to throttle, meaning its very likely your chip will be running <2.8ghz while you're playing a game.

There may not be a giant difference, but there really is no reason to get an Intel chip if you're gaming. They are slower, more expensive, and hotter. Maybe not much slower, or much more expensive, (they are much hotter) but its enough so there's really no good reason to get one.

Last time I checked tom's was a diehard AMD site. Did something change in recent years?

Tom's has been filled with Intel fanboys and Intel biased reviews since 2004, if not earlier.

 

[uhohs]

since 2004? i remember him always being an intel fanboy. lol

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: SampSon

Those are from tomshardware, though, and tom's just about always tilts things in Intel's favor.

On these tests, which don't have especially high graphics settings, the Intel chips are beaten pretty thoroughly, and thats with a 3.2 ghz P-D, not the 2.8 ghz version. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7

Plus, there's also the problem of the P-D's being the hottest chip on the market. They are known to overheat at stock settings, forcing them to throttle, meaning its very likely your chip will be running <2.8ghz while you're playing a game.

There may not be a giant difference, but there really is no reason to get an Intel chip if you're gaming. They are slower, more expensive, and hotter. Maybe not much slower, or much more expensive, (they are much hotter) but its enough so there's really no good reason to get one.

Last time I checked tom's was a diehard AMD site. Did something change in recent years?

Tom's has been filled with Intel fanboys and Intel biased reviews since 2004, if not earlier.

Yeah, don't you recall their "server showdown" where they conclusively proved Intel makes better server CPUs than AMD, since the Intel server lasted longer?

Only forgetting that it actually FAILED to outlast the AMD server 3 times, and they had to keep restarting it, until it finally DID outlast the AMD server (which was only started the once) after the fourth run.

LOL - Tom's Hardware is the biggest set of Intel fanboys on the Internet. Almost as bad as Driverheaven is for ATI hardware.

Heck - you *surely* remember the video they made such a big deal on their site about for almost a YEAR about how an AMD CPU would actually catch fire if you overclocked it, overvolted it, took the HSF off, and let it run...whereas an Intel CPU would just quietly clock itself down until it was basically not running at all?

Tom's is just a joke - they don't even try and hide their bias. Really a terrible site to use for reviews, don't bother going there. No professionalism at all.

Better sites:
Anandtech
HardOCP
XBitLabs
Digit-Life
Tech Report

 

[Acanthus]

I thought it was going to be some rediculous waste of money bleeding edge rig, then i saw the 2405, nice rig.

 

[SilentZero]

LOL Thats nothing man.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: dderidex

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: SampSon

Those are from tomshardware, though, and tom's just about always tilts things in Intel's favor.

On these tests, which don't have especially high graphics settings, the Intel chips are beaten pretty thoroughly, and thats with a 3.2 ghz P-D, not the 2.8 ghz version. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7

Plus, there's also the problem of the P-D's being the hottest chip on the market. They are known to overheat at stock settings, forcing them to throttle, meaning its very likely your chip will be running <2.8ghz while you're playing a game.

There may not be a giant difference, but there really is no reason to get an Intel chip if you're gaming. They are slower, more expensive, and hotter. Maybe not much slower, or much more expensive, (they are much hotter) but its enough so there's really no good reason to get one.

Last time I checked tom's was a diehard AMD site. Did something change in recent years?

Tom's has been filled with Intel fanboys and Intel biased reviews since 2004, if not earlier.

Yeah, don't you recall their "server showdown" where they conclusively proved Intel makes better server CPUs than AMD, since the Intel server lasted longer?

Only forgetting that it actually FAILED to outlast the AMD server 3 times, and they had to keep restarting it, until it finally DID outlast the AMD server (which was only started the once) after the fourth run.

LOL - Tom's Hardware is the biggest set of Intel fanboys on the Internet. Almost as bad as Driverheaven is for ATI hardware.

Heck - you *surely* remember the video they made such a big deal on their site about for almost a YEAR about how an AMD CPU would actually catch fire if you overclocked it, overvolted it, took the HSF off, and let it run...whereas an Intel CPU would just quietly clock itself down until it was basically not running at all?

Tom's is just a joke - they don't even try and hide their bias. Really a terrible site to use for reviews, don't bother going there. No professionalism at all.

Better sites:
Anandtech
HardOCP
XBitLabs
Digit-Life
Tech Report

I like HOCP but Kyle is a dickwad.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Those are from tomshardware, though, and tom's just about always tilts things in Intel's favor.

On these tests, which don't have especially high graphics settings, the Intel chips are beaten pretty thoroughly, and thats with a 3.2 ghz P-D, not the 2.8 ghz version. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7

Plus, there's also the problem of the P-D's being the hottest chip on the market. They are known to overheat at stock settings, forcing them to throttle, meaning its very likely your chip will be running <2.8ghz while you're playing a game.

There may not be a giant difference, but there really is no reason to get an Intel chip if you're gaming. They are slower, more expensive, and hotter. Maybe not much slower, or much more expensive, (they are much hotter) but its enough so there's really no good reason to get one.

Last time I checked tom's was a diehard AMD site. Did something change in recent years?

They have been wayyyy to blue man group lately. Did you see that "live stability testing" fiasco about a year ago? People watched live as the Intel machine crashed and restarted and the crashes went unlogged, and later the same intel box "catching up" in scores at an impossible pace.

 

[dab]

^^Got links?

 

[JDrake]

I guess it is a nice setup though :/

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: dab
^^Got links?

Text

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: XabanakFanatik
<Insert obligatory anti-Intel statement>

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Last April I spent $480 on my video card 🙁...now you can get the same card for $250.

*cries*

Geeze, and I was sad that my $250 card last June is going for $215 now.