If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Gaming AMD vs Intel
I read the following article
http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa on amdzone.com. Extremetech looks at gameplay experience comparing AMD and Intel CPUs. I'm surprised they used DDR2 533, but then of course if they were on the real ball they would be using faster than DDR400 using the Lanparty board with that 3500+. 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. That's a 13% difference-not tiny, but not large enough to bowl us over. 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%! " So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming. I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games like Doom 3. I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking about the nvidia latest pci-e card. Any thoughts on intel vs AMD? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
ups.com... I read the following article http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa on amdzone.com. [quote from link snipped] So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming. What reviews? I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games like Doom 3. I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking about the nvidia latest pci-e card. Any thoughts on intel vs AMD? Yes, AMD all the way. -- Derek |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... I read the following article http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa on amdzone.com. Extremetech looks at gameplay experience comparing AMD and Intel CPUs. I'm surprised they used DDR2 533, but then of course if they were on the real ball they would be using faster than DDR400 using the Lanparty board with that 3500+. 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. That's a 13% difference-not tiny, but not large enough to bowl us over. 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%! " So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming. I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games like Doom 3. I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking about the nvidia latest pci-e card. Any thoughts on intel vs AMD? Yep, just tell the devs and hardware makers to come up with some 64 bit code now McG. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
You would be happy with AMD or Intel, both would play games just fine.
I personal would go AMD as the price for performance is cheaper with AMD. AMD also beat Intel to coming out with 64 bit CPUs Rumors are that the new ATI coming out soon is faster then NVIDIA wrote in message ups.com... I read the following article http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa on amdzone.com. Extremetech looks at gameplay experience comparing AMD and Intel CPUs. I'm surprised they used DDR2 533, but then of course if they were on the real ball they would be using faster than DDR400 using the Lanparty board with that 3500+. 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. That's a 13% difference-not tiny, but not large enough to bowl us over. 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%! " So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming. I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games like Doom 3. I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking about the nvidia latest pci-e card. Any thoughts on intel vs AMD? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
AMD is more than just cheaper,they are significantly faster in gameplay,run
much cooler,and were the first with dual core,which could take away the one edge Intel had in multi-tasking. As for ATI,they better get a move on if they want to keep pace with Nvidia,so far all I've heard from them is rumors.They've been promising Crossfire for months,while Nvidia's SLI has already been here for months,and the 7800 series gets faster with each new version released. "tod" wrote in message ink.net... You would be happy with AMD or Intel, both would play games just fine. I personal would go AMD as the price for performance is cheaper with AMD. AMD also beat Intel to coming out with 64 bit CPUs Rumors are that the new ATI coming out soon is faster then NVIDIA wrote in message ups.com... I read the following article http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa on amdzone.com. Extremetech looks at gameplay experience comparing AMD and Intel CPUs. I'm surprised they used DDR2 533, but then of course if they were on the real ball they would be using faster than DDR400 using the Lanparty board with that 3500+. 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. That's a 13% difference-not tiny, but not large enough to bowl us over. 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%! " So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming. I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games like Doom 3. I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking about the nvidia latest pci-e card. Any thoughts on intel vs AMD? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On 4 Sep 2005 08:15:25 -0700, wrote:
I read the following article http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa on amdzone.com. Hehe, www.amdzone.com is, not surprisingly, a VERY pro-AMD/anti-Intel site, so don't expect to see anything except "AMD is the greatest" from them! That being said, the article they are quoting is from a much less biased source. So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming. ??? Really? When it comes to gaming Intel has been beaten pretty soundly in virtually all tests I've seen since the Athlon64 was released two years ago. Gaming is one area where AMD has the most definite and obvious performance lead. I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games like Doom 3. AMD's Athlon64 chips are unquestionably the way to go for gaming performance IMO. Their performance/dollar is a fair bit higher than Intel's pretty much across the board, from their low-end (Socket 754) Sempron models right up to their top-end Athlon64 FX chips. Dollar for dollar the AMD chips are usually ~15-20% faster. I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking about the nvidia latest pci-e card. If you can afford it, the nVidia GeForce 7800 GTX is the best out there. Alternatively there is the 7800GT which offers close to the same performance with a price tag that's about $100 less. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I agree that a label is not what makes gaming interesting. I too have used
them all. Although I must admit this is the first time I broke my AMD cherry a few weeks ago and so far am very satisfied/ FX 57. I also just got two 7800 SLI and that's great too. Before that though it was a coup of years or so of ATI which before that was an even longer period of Nvdia in the ATI maybe bad driver support days. The one thing you never hear about is a Creative fan boy because the have been the masters of the monopoly game. They just quietly go about doing nothing all that radical as far as I am concerned. There is not a doubt in my mind that if creative had it's equivalent competitor like in the graphics and cpu arena sound would be better also. Not that there is anything greatly wrong with creative sound ,particularly when most people play their games through low end speakers nowhere comparable to our high end or even middle end home or these days even car speakers. I play my games through my reasonably high end home stereo 5.1 surround system. The sub woofer is 800 watts and it actually hurts to get hit by artillery in Battlefront 2 as I sit right next to it. Never the less to say I can really tell the difference between my various creative live and audigy cards is not really being too forward. they all sound fine to me but not like my DVDs and music disks. I have been gaming since pong in the seventies. I don't ever remember once pc gaming took effect a time when anybody but Creative had any kind of a foot hold. I do remember cursing them in the old DOS days when like 80% of computer problems were sound card related. "Tony Hill" wrote in message ... On 4 Sep 2005 08:15:25 -0700, wrote: I read the following article http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa on amdzone.com. Hehe, www.amdzone.com is, not surprisingly, a VERY pro-AMD/anti-Intel site, so don't expect to see anything except "AMD is the greatest" from them! That being said, the article they are quoting is from a much less biased source. So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming. ??? Really? When it comes to gaming Intel has been beaten pretty soundly in virtually all tests I've seen since the Athlon64 was released two years ago. Gaming is one area where AMD has the most definite and obvious performance lead. I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games like Doom 3. AMD's Athlon64 chips are unquestionably the way to go for gaming performance IMO. Their performance/dollar is a fair bit higher than Intel's pretty much across the board, from their low-end (Socket 754) Sempron models right up to their top-end Athlon64 FX chips. Dollar for dollar the AMD chips are usually ~15-20% faster. I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking about the nvidia latest pci-e card. If you can afford it, the nVidia GeForce 7800 GTX is the best out there. Alternatively there is the 7800GT which offers close to the same performance with a price tag that's about $100 less. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On 5 Sep 2005 16:22:51 -0700, "YKhan" wrote:
wrote: ....snip... I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games like Doom 3. None of those tasks are all that demanding for today's generation of processors. Maybe straight copying is not demanding. Bur burning DVDs from .avi files is (unless NeroVision Express 3 is a piece of crap, which IMO it's not). When it does encoding, both of my (admittedly not-so-new) Opterons 242 are loaded above 90%, and graphics card takes no part of the job. I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking about the nvidia latest pci-e card. Any thoughts on intel vs AMD? Well, you touched on one thing that is very important these days: the graphics card. The performance war at the CPU level has sort of taken a backseat to the war of the video cards for gaming. It's not so much Intel vs. AMD as it is Nvidia vs. ATI. That being said, AMD does offer some interesting advantages to aid your choice of video cards. These days video cards have gotten into a dual-core battle of their own, ATI offers its Crossfire technology, while Nvidia offers its SLI technology. Due to the seperated memory and peripheral connection paths that AMD offers in Athlon 64 these days, both Crossfire and SLI work much better under an AMD processor than in an Intel processor. I think the numbers they have come up with generally show that a Crossfire or SLI system will show a 40% improvement under Intel, but an 80% improvement under AMD. And that's not all, although this is something that's for the future, and won't affect any processor purchase that you make today, there was a rumour that AMD has decided to integrate a PCI-e interface directly into the processor, which would offer even higher performance for SLI or Crossfire. But that's something probably two years out too. Yousuf Khan Agree with all said here about the advantages of A64. So much so that I'd advice to multiply it by 2. Even though the fastest A64 X2 has a notch slower clock than the fastest single core, it gets ahead if you are multitasking. Or, if your pockets allow for it, go for dual dual-core Opteron, making it a quad. Maybe today's games can't take real advantage of multithreading, but I bet the games of tomorrow (and not only games) are already being coded to use multiple cores to their advantage. NNN |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:22:51 -0700, YKhan wrote:
not only improve the design of chips, but it actually redesign some very basic concepts of its chips. One example is that the ubiquitous front-side bus (FSB), namely AMD got rid of it! The FSB was the method by which PC chips had connected to their peripheral devices and its memory ever since the first 8088 IBM PC-XT. AMD threw out the FSB, and replaced it with two seperate connections, one for the memory and one for the peripherals. For clearity, AMD didn't get rid of the FSB, they just stopped calling it a FSB, even though that's what it still is, by definition. They did however move the memory controller onto the cpu, so that ram data now has it's own data path to the CPU. This move, and not the move to an HT link for the FSB is where the major performance gain was made. With the move to the seperate memory bus, the FSB (now a serial HT link, instead of a paralell bus) speed is of little importance. -- KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233) Need good help? Provide all system info with question. My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel found to be abusing market power in Japan | chrisv | General | 152 | March 26th 05 06:57 AM |
Basic Motherboard Upgrade Advice? | [email protected] | Homebuilt PC's | 27 | December 6th 04 01:21 AM |
Intel chipsets are the most stable? | Grumble | Homebuilt PC's | 101 | October 26th 04 02:53 AM |
Can anyone explain Intel's new cpu numbering | jaster | Homebuilt PC's | 10 | October 16th 04 08:07 AM |
Approx price difference between Intel & AMD systems | JAD | General | 23 | September 21st 04 06:19 PM |