why do gamers always choose intel over amd for gaming

[fixx]

In relation to thsi thread, AMD is practically dead now and that is why everyone is going with Intel.

1) You did not answer to any of my questions, instead you gave totally unnecessary lecture.

2) IPC has been higher on Intel processors ever since the "Core" architecture launch in 2006 and there is no point in history when Phenoms or FX processors has had higher IPC than Intel. Today Intel's flagship CPU has over 100% higher IPC than AMD flagship CPU.

3) AMD is not dead. It's doing pretty well on servers (Opteron line) and on cheap-ass price segment with APUs and in dedicated gaming consoles.

[Wiyld]

Same with AMD / Nvidia GPU's. The way I looked at things building my PC, AMD = budget Intel/Nvida = Performance.

Whoa whoa whoa....hold on now.....NVIDIA GPU's are high performance than AMD????

OOOO RLY


Have you paid any attention at all to the R9 series?? The damn R9 290's are smoking fast, pushing out better numbers than the Titan. Thats before er even get into the monster X2 models.

AMD/Radeon GPU's have been competitive for a long time. Remember back in the day when EEEEVERYONe wanted a Radeon 9800?

Oh, and we'll just go ahead and forget for the moment that NVIDIA has been flat out LYING about the performance of their GPUs.

[DarkArchon]

To put it in the most simplest way possible, Intel and Nvidia have always been a baby step ahead of it's rivalry. It's simply taking the leader of the industry.

[unbound]

A few things:

- As others have pointed out, for older games that rely on single-threading, Intel is much better. This includes WoW (WoD has updated code, but the core is still old and single-threaded...that would be a redesign way beyond fixing things like the 16 slot initial bag issue).
- Intel i5 is good for older games, good for newer games, good for general work, and really a good all-around CPU. Compare this to AMD which is slightly worse for older games, great for newer games and 3D modeling / video editting, and good for general work. Intel tends to be favored because it is good at everything, including being consistently good (most of the time superior) for games. If you go head to head with games, Intel wins 9 times out 10 because the per core performance is simply much better.
- If you are on a tight budget, for a gaming machine in general, a great GPU is far more important than a great CPU. If your budget isn't too tight, Intel hands down in general. If you are going for some high-end newer games (e.g. Battlefield4), AMD is just as good (sometimes better) for a better price.

[lloose]

Things change all the time. The industry is dynamic.
I've been around long enough to remember when AMD cpu's kicked the shit out of Intel's cpus in gaming. In the GPU field, its always just a game of hop scotch. Right now Nvidia has the edge because they have new hardware out that slightly edges out AMD's offerings. AMD will release their lineup that will edge out Nvidia. It a tale as old as time.

[Gurushock]

My AMD system had killed every single game I've thrown at it. I play a lot of games too, different types of games. And my AMD build is CHEAP. I got the 4300fx, OC to 4.7ghz with 4.99ghz boost with H80i corsair cooling. Asus GTX 750ti custom clocked. The rest of my build is basic crap, 8gb ram, $50 gigabyte mobo, 1TB HD.

Little note, radeon gpu's are very good as well. Like what was said about the R9 series, it is kicking butt they are super fast. I don't have one in this build because the 750ti I'm using was free =D

With this crap above I can run all the games I want on max settings and get little to no lag.

With wow being my main game I get 80-140 fps in open world, 25-45 fps during world bosses with more than 40 people. 20man mythic I get around 45-65 fps during boss fights.

[fixx]

Have you paid any attention at all to the R9 series?? The damn R9 290's are smoking fast, pushing out better numbers than the Titan. Thats before er even get into the monster X2 models.

AMD/Radeon GPU's have been competitive for a long time.

Competitive yes, better... not right now.

On single GPU cards GTX980 beats R9 290x in pretty much every benchmark today because of better overclockability. And why would you bring Titan to the table, or do you perhaps want to compare the professional card to AMD's FirePro line?


AMD will probably take the speed crown again once R9 300's launch, because that's how it goes. The company that has the newest flagship card out is usually the speed king for few months.

- - - Updated - - -

With wow being my main game I get 80-140 fps in open world, 25-45 fps during world bosses with more than 40 people. 20man mythic I get around 45-65 fps during boss fights.

With 800x600 monitor?

1920x1080 would see those fps numbers less than half of what you claim.

[Gurushock]

Competitive yes, better... not right now.

On single GPU cards GTX980 beats R9 290x in pretty much every benchmark today because of better overclockability. And why would you bring Titan to the table, or do you perhaps want to compare the professional card to AMD's FirePro line?


AMD will probably take the speed crown again once R9 300's launch, because that's how it goes. The company that has the newest flagship card out is usually the speed king for few months.

- - - Updated - - -



With 800x600 monitor?

1920x1080 would see those fps numbers less than half of what you claim.

Main monitor is the Asus VS248, 24'' 1920x1080, second monitor is a 18'' HD. They did drop when I got the new monitor, by about 10fps. But no, they woud not be less than half that I clam. I build computers for a living and this is a POS cheap build that kicks butt because of knowing how to OC correctly.

[Tradewind]

3) AMD is not dead. It's doing pretty well on servers (Opteron line) and on cheap-ass price segment with APUs and in dedicated gaming consoles.

Opterons are a cheap alternative to Xeons, if you're only going to use them for low end virtualization or you have no money. But considering the cost/performance, or performance/wattage, and more importantly the software costs versus hardware there is absolutely no reason to go for any Opteron over a Xeon E5. The Opteron power consumption alone is fucky beyond belief. AMD has no place in the enterprise server market.

[fixx]

Opterons are a cheap alternative to Xeons, if you're only going to use them for low end virtualization or you have no money. But considering the cost/performance, or performance/wattage, and more importantly the software costs versus hardware there is absolutely no reason to go for any Opteron over a Xeon E5. The Opteron power consumption alone is fucky beyond belief. AMD has no place in the enterprise server market.

Opterons are doing pretty well still in both extremes of server markets. For full tower computers small and medium business buys, and for supercomputers where the number of cores per square meter matters more than software cost or electricity bill. It's the standard rack and blade units that are dominated by Intel.

[Tradewind]

Opterons are doing pretty well still in both extremes of server markets. For full tower computers small and medium business buys, and for supercomputers where the number of cores per square meter matters more than software cost or electricity bill. It's the standard rack and blade units that are dominated by Intel.

and yet 4 of the top 10 of the TOP500 are Xeon E5's versus one Opteron AMD's share is about on par with IBM's in that race and not expanding (historically that is), both are dwarfed by Intel's share 3-4x over.

[TrainingKimpas]

OC to 4.7ghz with 4.99ghz boost with H80i corsair cooling.

Um, what lol? You are either at 4.7ghz overclocked OR 4.99 ghz overclocked. Not this 4.7 OC with 4.99 boost. BS I call.

[Deleted]

Because intel processors are twice as good

[Tradewind]

Whoa whoa whoa....hold on now.....NVIDIA GPU's are high performance than AMD????

AMD has seen some marginal success lately as developers adopted Mantle. Which is fun and stuff. DX12 is going to change everything again though.

[Lathais]

My AMD system had killed every single game I've thrown at it. I play a lot of games too, different types of games. And my AMD build is CHEAP. I got the 4300fx, OC to 4.7ghz with 4.99ghz boost with H80i corsair cooling. Asus GTX 750ti custom clocked. The rest of my build is basic crap, 8gb ram, $50 gigabyte mobo, 1TB HD.

Little note, radeon gpu's are very good as well. Like what was said about the R9 series, it is kicking butt they are super fast. I don't have one in this build because the 750ti I'm using was free =D

With this crap above I can run all the games I want on max settings and get little to no lag.

With wow being my main game I get 80-140 fps in open world, 25-45 fps during world bosses with more than 40 people. 20man mythic I get around 45-65 fps during boss fights.

An i3-4130 costs less than that FX4300 and would run all the other games the same and WoW better. It's not that AMD sucks, it's just that intel beats it for less $$$.

[Deleted]

Usually because even though the tech is good, the support is terrible. You can have the best tech in the world, if you don't patch your shit so it works properly for what it is intended then it won't work.

[Sigo]

Well let me just get this out there. I have a amd 8320fx and a msi R9 270x and progession on [The Blast Furnace] on ultra running at 120fps

[Lathais]

Well let me just get this out there. I have a amd 8320fx and a msi R9 270x and progession on [The Blast Furnace] on ultra running at 120fps

and a Haswell i3 would get you even better performance than that for less $$$. It's not that the AMDs are horrible chips, you can just get better out of intel for less.

[Sigo]

and a Haswell i3 would get you even better performance than that for less $$$. It's not that the AMDs are horrible chips, you can just get better out of intel for less.

So my Pc will play my game for me then?

[Asmekiel]

So my Pc will play my game for me then?

Yes, but that's not the point of this thread.