Why Intel processor are adviced than AMD for gaming?

[Roland00Address]

Now if we are talking laptops instead of desktops AMD vision and technology actually makes sense. In laptops AMD apus have some logic over Intel apus since for a similar price point sometimes but often you get better graphics. But even here in the low end (prices less than $450) intel apus are similar to amd apus, and the $700+ area discrete graphics is better than amd apus.

 

[Harrod]

I just wonder when the next 2500k type processor is going to come out.

 

[sm625]

Because you can go to microcenter and pick up a G3258 cpu/mobo/single DIMM RAM combo for $130 that will outperform a top end AMD system, including one with two sticks of RAM.

 

[blackened23]

In many threads,ppl are advised to use Intel processor for gaming or high intensive work instead of AMD processor.I would like have your answer with explanation Thanks

Intel processors are just better for gaming. End of thread.

 

[Headfoot]

Intel's faster

 

[dragantoe]

I just wonder when the next 2500k type processor is going to come out.

the next i5? there have been several

 

[tsupersonic]

the next i5? there have been several

Two generations in fact! The Ivy Bridge i5 3xxx, and Haswell i5 4xxx. Each generation generally brings improvements over the previous.

 

[Blitzvogel]

For typical PC workloads yes Intel is better. If someone was to come along and actually use AMD APUs to their full extent, I think we would see some things that Intel could never hope to do without GPGPU. However, the majority of users still utilize general homogenous multicore processors and no gaming company really wants to target such a small segment of APUs. It would take actual AMD monetary backing. However, there is some hope with the consoles perhaps making companies take notice of what GPGPU-on-APU might be capable of and that could translate to the PC market (especially with multiplatforms), but I'm not too optimistic. There is some chance we'll see it with a few games.

 

[fstime]

Two generations in fact! The Ivy Bridge i5 3xxx, and Haswell i5 4xxx. Each generation generally brings improvements over the previous.

Yes, but both have been said to be a huge waste of money if gaming is your only concern and you're overclocked to 4.5-5.0 GHz.

 

[sxr7171]

this is all that needs to be said about intel vs amd when it comes to gaming

For a hardware maker to bet the farm on an overnight paradigm shift in software design is not very smart. They just did what was cheaper to do.

Overnight shift and software shouldn't even be in the same sentence. It will takes decades for software to reflect the realities of chasing clock speed and IPC.

 

[dragantoe]

Yes, but both have been said to be a huge waste of money if gaming is your only concern and you're overclocked to 4.5-5.0 GHz.

people say that about every generation, you could argue that the 2500k was a waste of money, my 3570k @ 4.7ghz certainly wasn't

 

[tollingalong]

Depends on what you need. Intel is almost always faster (AMD does have their niches). Gaming in my experiences generally doesn't matter a whole heck of a lot.

In some CPU bound gaming I'm seeing like AMD pull 10 fps and intel pulling 15fps... both unplayable. In some GPU bound games I can see like 70fps on AMD and 90fps on Intel... both are beyond the 60fps of my monitor.

I have both CPUs and I do notice AMD works a lot harder to give same experience but I wouldn't call them worthless. Intel is definitely better for everyday use though. Some scientific work I can see people using AMD for better performance.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Please don't open this can of worms!
The system is biased against AMD designs. When games bet more MT optimized then we'll see the vision AMD tried to give to its customers.

#MOARCOARS

Sorry, I think that boat has sailed without a crew. "The future of gaming" is Mantle/DX12, which effectively and efficiently makes general purpose CPU cores less relevant to game performance in the presence of iGPUs and/or dGPUs. We are not likely to see game developers embrace hexcore and octocore CPUs when it would be cheaper and easier to support common GPU hardware that can get better performance/watt than general purpose CPU cores on very specific workloads . . . workloads you find in a lot of modern PC and console games, by the way.

If, by some bizarre turn of events, developers reject HSA, Mantle, and DX12, the entire console gaming market and mobile gaming market collapses, and everyone turns to PCs with lots of general purpose cores (and away from PCs with APUs), then guess who has the performance lead in the MOARCOARS department? Intel, with socket 2011. The sole redeeming value of AMD's octocore processors is that they're cheap.

AMD has a sleeping giant in its Kaveri processor that they left asleep by pricing it too high. Had they pushed the A8-7600 as their top-end chip and flooded the market with it at the $120 price point, they might have enough of an installed base to really wake people up and make them interested in developing for that plucky little APU (had they made it an unlocked k part, all the better). But they pushed the 7850K on us instead (and to a lesser extent, the 7700k which is just an unlocked 7600 at different stock clocks), and well we all know how that turned out.

 

[NTMBK]

Sorry, I think that boat has sailed without a crew. "The future of gaming" is Mantle/DX12, which effectively and efficiently makes general purpose CPU cores less relevant to game performance in the presence of iGPUs and/or dGPUs. We are not likely to see game developers embrace hexcore and octocore CPUs when it would be cheaper and easier to support common GPU hardware that can get better performance/watt than general purpose CPU cores on very specific workloads . . . workloads you find in a lot of modern PC and console games, by the way.

Errm, I think you have that rather backwards... one of the main advantages of Mantle/DirectX 12 is that it improves scaling over multiple threads, and reduces the "driver thread" single core overhead.

AMD has a sleeping giant in its Kaveri processor that they left asleep by pricing it too high. Had they pushed the A8-7600 as their top-end chip and flooded the market with it at the $120 price point, they might have enough of an installed base to really wake people up and make them interested in developing for that plucky little APU (had they made it an unlocked k part, all the better). But they pushed the 7850K on us instead (and to a lesser extent, the 7700k which is just an unlocked 7600 at different stock clocks), and well we all know how that turned out.

The problem is that Kaveri is too big to support those kind of low prices. It was originally planned to support GDDR5M, which is why it has so many GPU cores- but when Elpida went bankrupt that plan fell through. That's why it has so many GPU cores that it can't feed. A smaller die designed around A8-7600 level performance would perhaps have been a better product.

 

[AtenRa]

The problem is that Kaveri is too big to support those kind of low prices. It was originally planned to support GDDR5M, which is why it has so many GPU cores- but when Elpida went bankrupt that plan fell through. That's why it has so many GPU cores that it can't feed. A smaller die designed around A8-7600 level performance would perhaps have been a better product.

FUSION is about Compute, Gaming is not the primary focus, its only an added bonus. That said, Kaveri big iGPU (GCN) was made for Compute and with HuMA and HSA the requirements for Memory Bandwidth has fallen significantly.

Look how much faster 45W Kaveri is than even Core i7 + HD6750 (GDDR-5) in OpenCL.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/14

 

[NTMBK]

FUSION is about Compute, Gaming is not the primary focus, its only an added bonus. That said, Kaveri big iGPU (GCN) was made for Compute and with HuMA and HSA the requirements for Memory Bandwidth has fallen significantly.

Look how much faster 45W Kaveri is than even Core i7 + HD6750 (GDDR-5) in OpenCL.

Comparing a VLIW4 GPU with a GCN GPU in a compute benchmark isn't a fair fight, and you know it. How do you think the i7 would do with a GDDR5 HD7750? (Hint: look at how the 6750 compared to Trinity...)

As for HSA- the software isn't there, and won't be for years to come. The tools are still basically non-existent: HSA drivers, HSA compilers, HSA libraries, they're all still not ready. And even once those software tools arrive, it will be at least another year or two before the first software built with those tools starts to arrive. AMD have totally dropped the ball on HSA software- Kaveri was delayed by an entire year, and they still couldn't get it ready in time!

 

[davie jambo]

I built a budget PC for a friend over the weekend and spent yesterday benchmarking it

Used an intel G850 CPU , 4GB RAM and HD7850 card (2GB). Got it all for less than £150 off ebay

Anyway I was amazed at the performance. I have an AMD machine with a FX8350 and 1x7970 card and the performance in games is maybe 25% better.

Skyrim runs at 60 fps with small drops in towns BF4 MP 30-70 (direct x not sure what mantle would bring)

Watchdogs did not run well at all though , but that is maybe because it's only got 4gb RAM

 

[USER8000]

I built a budget PC for a friend over the weekend and spent yesterday benchmarking it

Used an intel G850 CPU , 4GB RAM and HD7850 card (2GB). Got it all for less than £150 off ebay

Anyway I was amazed at the performance. I have an AMD machine with a FX8350 and 1x7970 card and the performance in games is maybe 25% better.

Skyrim runs at 60 fps with small drops in towns BF4 MP 30-70 (direct x not sure what mantle would bring)

Watchdogs did not run well at all though , but that is maybe because it's only got 4gb RAM

I had a Core i3 2120,and in a number of newer games a mate with an FX6350 had better performance(I ended up upgrading to a Core i5).

Also Watch Dogs hates dual cores without any HT.

 

[monstercameron]

AMD makes it so hard to support them. Hsa is still non-existent nearly a year out, drivers are still spotty[linux atleast]. At this point I am finding it exceedingly difficult to recommend AMD on the basis of HSA and performance in general. Its like AMD doesnt want to make money in the consumer market...is this Rory's will?

 

[davie jambo]

I had a Core i3 2120,and in a number of newer games a mate with an FX6350 had noticeably better performance(I ended up upgrading to a Core i5).

Also Watch Dogs hates dual cores without any HT.

Yeah I think on budget builds though I'd rather get one of those new Pentiums that you can overclock than an FX6300. You could use the savings on a better graphics card or motherboard.

I love my FX8350 but they are a few years old now and if someone were building a new PC now I don't think you could recommend one now I am afraid.

I've got an i7 ivy also , nearly all games it beats the FX8350 but it's not by much

 

[jihe]

In many threads,ppl are advised to use Intel processor for gaming or high intensive work instead of AMD processor.I would like have your answer with explanation Thanks

Ppl are advised to use Intel processor full stop.

 

[dacostafilipe]

Intel is just faster for gaming and going AMD just does not make sense (if you are brand neutral).

But that said, if you want AMD to create a new Athlon, please consider buying AMD if you build a small office computer, a HTPC or something that does not require that much power.

My main computers are all Intel+nVidia, but my HTPC's and m GF's computer is AMD (Kabini + Kaveri).

 

[USER8000]

Yeah I think on budget builds though I'd rather get one of those new Pentiums that you can overclock than an FX6300. You could use the savings on a better graphics card or motherboard.

I love my FX8350 but they are a few years old now and if someone were building a new PC now I don't think you could recommend one now I am afraid.

I've got an i7 ivy also , nearly all games it beats the FX8350 but it's not by much

Maybe if you are replacing it very soon,ie,a year or so, but for anything which needs to last,I would rather get a Haswell Core i3 or FX6300. With the fact we are soon going to get DX12,and the fact Mantle is doing a similar thing,ie,reducing single threaded bottlenecks I would not be really that interested in a dual core now. ATM,the older generation PS3 and XBox360 are also the lead platforms for many games,but there is going to be a shift towards the PS4 and XBox One(Watch Dogs is probably one of the first).

The other thing is not everyone wants to overclock too,and TBH I would rather not support an overclocked rig over time(especially if its a workmate or friend). However,thats just me.

Personally,I think the mate who has an FX6350 is going to end up using it for quite a while,before needing to upgrade. If anything the worst part of the gaming storm will be now,and not the future,and I can see it easily surviving until 2016. By then we should have DDR4,and newer generation stuff from both AMD and Intel,although I doubt AMD will have anything better than a 2016 Core i3 level CPU by then IMHO,due to cost even with the K12 X86 core.

 

[AtenRa]

Comparing a VLIW4 GPU with a GCN GPU in a compute benchmark isn't a fair fight, and you know it. How do you think the i7 would do with a GDDR5 HD7750? (Hint: look at how the 6750 compared to Trinity...)

HD7750 1GB GDDR-5 (512 SPs) has the same performance with Kaveri A10-7850K (512 SPs) in Luxmark 2.0. This proves at least this app doesnt care about Memory Bandwidth that much.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7770-7750-benchmark,3135-13.html

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...-wait-for-the-first-true-heterogeneous-chip/5

As for HSA- the software isn't there, and won't be for years to come. The tools are still basically non-existent: HSA drivers, HSA compilers, HSA libraries, they're all still not ready. And even once those software tools arrive, it will be at least another year or two before the first software built with those tools starts to arrive. AMD have totally dropped the ball on HSA software- Kaveri was delayed by an entire year, and they still couldn't get it ready in time!

Yes HSA needs more time but with so many big companies on the wagon it will liftoff eventually, they all are waiting final hardware and software specs.

 

[AtenRa]

I built a budget PC for a friend over the weekend and spent yesterday benchmarking it

Used an intel G850 CPU , 4GB RAM and HD7850 card (2GB). Got it all for less than £150 off ebay

Anyway I was amazed at the performance. I have an AMD machine with a FX8350 and 1x7970 card and the performance in games is maybe 25% better.

Skyrim runs at 60 fps with small drops in towns BF4 MP 30-70 (direct x not sure what mantle would bring)

Watchdogs did not run well at all though , but that is maybe because it's only got 4gb RAM

I dont even want to ask you to post a picture with that setup in BF4 MP.

Also, i have both Intel and AMD CPUs and with the same GPU latest games are very close to even feel the difference. There are older games that Intel is faster but both AMD and Intel CPUs produce more than enough Frames that actually it doesnt matter if one is faster than the other.
Of course there are Games like Skyrim, Starcraft and some MMOs that Intel is simple the better choice, but generalizing that AMD CPUs are not for gaming is simple BS.
Like those Dual Core Celerons/Pentiums, with certain GPUs and older games are doing just fine, but modern games need at least 4 Threads or more this days and thats going to continue because all major Game Engines support more than 4 Threads.