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?

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

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.

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?

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?

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

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

wrote:
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.

Those reviews must be several years old now. AMD has been tightening
its hold on the gaming market steady for the past 2-3 years now,
basically since the Athlon 64 first came out. Prior to that there was a
period of time (about 6 years ago to 4 years ago) when Intel and AMD
were trading top spot almost on a weekly basis. Then for a period of
one year, from about 4 years ago to about 3 years ago, Intel had the
crown for itself for about a year, as AMD dropped out to concentrate on
getting the Athlon 64 out.

Now, it's possible that AMD and Intel will switch positions once again
in this field, like they have in the past. But there's some evidence
that AMD will have this crown for several more years still. In the
transition from the Athlon XP to the Athlon 64, AMD took the time to
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. Intel isn't expected to have a similar system till
at least 2007; and it's not likely that AMD will remain stagnant
waiting for Intel to catch up during that time.

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.

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

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

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