Intel Opinons

I put this question on a thread in amd cpu's, but I want some first hand knowledge.

Here is were I'm still confused.Intel is faster in single thread applications, but on a gaming stand point, what advantage is there if your getting the max fps on the monitor.If a fx cpu can do that, why would a single threaded speed make a difference?

Gaming should be equal using a 60hz monitor at 1080p.Both will max out fps with a good gpu.I do encoding, extracting large files, multi-tasking and other basic stuff.My FX6300 handles that very well, but what are some everyday single thread applications that make Intel so appealing ? I always went the amd route, so I really cant relate.

A little voice in my head keeps telling me i5 3570k, i5 3570k I think that little voice is every thread I read comparing the FX series to the i5 series, but logically, I only use one monitor @ 1080p / 60Hz.The best fps based on my setup is 60fps, which is fine, I'm happy there, that's why Intel is not so appealing ? FX cpu's have no problems in that senero, so why bother.Most gamers can't tell the difference between 120hz and 60hz.Personally, around 45fps I can't see the difference myself.The only advantage Intel has in my case is better power consumption.I know it wins in single core performance too, but not sure how that benefits my situation.Is the bottom line GPU performance.

I particularly dont like his guy that does these pc reviews.A good smack upside the head is in order, but relevant to my reasoning.I'm not trying to be mean.Ok. I'm lying.



Maybe I should have spent my time doing some more research.Credit goes to Yomama.Great points!

I can say that you will see a major performance increase. I went from an [email protected] to a core i7 [email protected]. According to Passmark on an otherwise identical system the performance increased from 3300 to over 4600!!! In addition to a faster CPU you will get a memory controller that almost doubles the memory throughput, and thus also improves the load time from the HDD/SSD. Graphics scores are also somewhat higher (around 10%), I assume due to the faster memory. Intel chips are more expensive than AMD, but performance overclocking for an AMD 8-core processor requires a motherboard that can handle serious amperage and thus costs accordingly (significantly upwards of $200), and then a cooling system, preferably liquid, and a case that can accommodate all that are required to get rid of all the heat generated by these chips (150W+ for a good overclock). For i5 or i7 you can achieve decent overclocks with less means i.e. cheaper motherboards, possibly air cooling (90W for a decent overclock is way easier to handle). The $285 combo of 3570k and ASRock Extreme4 currently at Newegg or Microcenter plays towards that point.

__________________

I think I already replied this?

Excluding benches, you won't notice Intel or AMD as long as everything else is the same. There's no CPU destroying game that I know of. Intel is faster for games because most games won't use more than 1-2 threads.

txus.palacios said:

I think I already replied this?

Excluding benches, you won't notice Intel or AMD as long as everything else is the same. There's no CPU destroying game that I know of. Intel is faster for games because most games won't use more than 1-2 threads.

Click to expand...

Yes you did relpy.On a gaming standpoint.In general there seems to be other benefits.I didn't disregard your comments, and appreciate your thoughts.

well as for FPS, there is a lot more to it than what is shown on the screen.
a game running at 200+ FPS will feel much snappier than one at 60 FPS.
that is why a lot of gamers (myself included) disable vertical sync.

i know your asking about CPU's, but you did mention FPS so i guess it's on topic.

I don't notice any performance at all above 60 FPS so I use V sync for the screen tarring.

When I press the mouse button to shoot it is the same speed at 60 FPS or 100 FPS.

well TF2 was laggy with V sync enabled/adaptive. same goes for skyrim.
had to edit the config file for skyrim to disable it there.
yes i shoot just as fast but aiming is another story.

i have problems at 60FPS (with V-sync) but Wipeout doesn't.
i say keep your current hardware then Wipeout.

Excluding Source engine (I know it first hand, hitboxes are buggy and how they are calculated do not help), there's no game that I know of that benefits from higher FPSs than the screen rate.

Clutch_Head said:

well TF2 was laggy with V sync enabled/adaptive. same goes for skyrim.
had to edit the config file for skyrim to disable it there.
yes i shoot just as fast but aiming is another story.i have problems at 60FPS (with V-sync) but Wipeout doesn't.i say keep your current.

Click to expand...

Nice find on config file for skyrim.I have not played that yet.In regards to v-sync, it depends on the game.Far Cry 3 for example, my 560Ti ran like garbage, until I went with high settings on DX9, with v-sync off.My 660 FTW SC ran on DX 11 much better, so I left v-sync on.That game is a bad example.It seems poorly optimized.Borderlands 2 is a much better example.Unreal Engine Technology makes gaming better.

txus.palacios said:

Excluding Source engine (I know it first hand, hitboxes are buggy and how they are calculated do not help), there's no game that I know of that benefits from higher FPSs than the screen rate.

Click to expand...

I use an Asus 24" monitor with 2ms refresh rate.That helps.

wingman99 said:

I don't notice any performance at all above 60 FPS so I use V sync for the screen tarring.

Click to expand...

Can you explain screen tarring ? Are you talking jagged edges vs smooth backround, for lack of better words.Video cards are not my strong point, but trying to learn on each game I play.


Most games only use 1 or 2 threads.Finally, that little light bulb in my head just turned on .Intel has a 40% performance gain in single threaded performance.Most people comment on Intel being a better gaming cpu.Now I'm starting to see the advantages in gaming, and single threaded apps.Power consumption, and less volts is another incentive. I'm going Intel on my next upgrade, but not sure what cpu yet.Haswell or current generation.Upgrading will also include, faster ram, and better motherboard vs budget.I can get higher overclocks with a quality motherboard.I can overclock higher with current board, but there's a trade off. First, it's a budget board, so northbridge is suspect on very high oc's.Second, to keep it stable over 4.4g. I have to increase voltage, which reflects in higher temps.On performance gain aspect, its not going to make that big of a difference.I try to find the sweet spot, and park it.

This is what screen tarring looks like.

GTA IV is a CPU destroying game. It doesn't use a lot of CPU but is very badly optimized for multi core CPUs and every bit of gigahertz counts. It is likely that GTA V will be another console port, and will likely also be badly optimized.

wingman99 - When they say a picture speaks 1000 words, this sure does.That image is imbedded in my memory now.lol.I wont forget what screen tarring is anytime soon.Thanks.

Culbrelai- I started a thread in gaming concerning the best / worst optimized pc games.GTA IV was on my list.My only incentive to buy a console was Red Dead Redemption, and sports.Add all the console games that get ported on the pc that are worthless, and that adds up.Such a shame.GTA 4 would have been great on the PC.Console gaming is there meal ticket unfortunately.I always support the developers that actually care about PC gamers.

If you can't tell a difference between 120FPS and 60FPS than you my friend need glasses. It all depends on your application. If you playing an FPS than you can tell a huge difference and mmo not really.

unless you're using a stopwatch, you'll never know. upgrading from the fx6300 to the i5, while it is an upgrade, its an upgrade you will never be able to tell exists... a few FPS here, a few tenths of a second there... not significant enough to matter.