why do gamers always choose intel over amd for gaming

[Deleted]

i have an amd system due to budget, since every gamer has intel does that mean amd is bad for gaming? i only went with amd cos i have litterally no money to afford an intel based system

[WskyDK]

Bad for gaming? No
Not as good for some games? Yes

[Violetti]

try playing mmos with amd

[Pull My Finger]

try playing mmos with amd

Yeah, what's gonna happen? Your loot rolls become worse?

[Arbiter]

Bad for gaming? No
Not as good for some games? Yes

Pretty much this. The only time AMD is going to suffer are from CPU intensive games that rely on single threaded performance. WoW for example. Even then it's still usually playable, just not always enjoyable. Best thing you can do is overclock it as much as possible. It seems like you play WoW a lot, which has been optimized for better CPU performance so AMD is still playable on it unlike MoP being like 20-30fps in raids at best.

Most new AMD users just have this problem where they expect the same performance as Intel users in games like WoW and it's just not going to happen. If you're happy with your performance currently there isn't much reason to be concerned.

[Tradewind]

A lot of games are still terrible at multi-threading/multi-core, intel typically has stronger single core performance than AMD processors. So for games confined to a single core, intel will likely outperform.

[zealo]

Higher IPC.

That's really the long and short, AMD is not even close in that department. Games that are good at multithread/multicore works decently enough on AMD, and games like WoW isn't really a problem before you get into raiding.

[Dern]

I had until this xpack a 6 year old pc with AMD CPU in it and it worked perfectly fine up until 5.4. now i changed my PC for a intel because i had a good deal not because i think its better. and i never try my old system with the new xpack so wouldn't be able to tell you if WOD made things easier to run for my old rig, but anyways AMD did it just fine for the last 6 years for me

[chazus]

i have an amd system due to budget, since every gamer has intel does that mean amd is bad for gaming? i only went with amd cos i have litterally no money to afford an intel based system

Unfortunately, you can make an intel bases system on the same budget at AMD these days, so there's little reason to get AMD. You don't need an i7 to play games.

[Deleted]

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...=6&subcat=1671 i3 ivybridge = £60

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...=5&subcat=2307 Gigabyte B75M-D3V Intel B75 (Socket 1155) DDR3 Micro ATX Motherboard £55

but thats the cheap of the cheap for intel and the motherboardl ooks like it has 0 features as its micro atx

[Tradewind]

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...=6&subcat=1671 i3 ivybridge = £60

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...=5&subcat=2307 Gigabyte B75M-D3V Intel B75 (Socket 1155) DDR3 Micro ATX Motherboard £55

but thats the cheap of the cheap for intel and the motherboardl ooks like it has 0 features as its micro atx

It's calling saving up You could settle for "ok" or save a bit longer and get "better."

[chazus]

but thats the cheap of the cheap for intel and the motherboardl ooks like it has 0 features as its micro atx

And?

Whats the problem with micro-atx?

What 'features' are you missing out on?

[Torgent]

AMD used to be slightly better at the very bottom of the price ranges. Intel has always been better at the higher. Lately, Intel has caught up at the low ranges and continues to be way ahead at the higher. AMD is not bad, they just aren't as good as Intel for gaming based on performance and price.

[tielknight]

What 'features' are you missing out on?

More slots to cram cards/memory into is about it, pretty much every other feature can be found on a mATX board and some ITX boards are starting to get more and more features with some creative building.

This bit sums up my feelings on why intel is often chosen/recommended.

AMD used to be slightly better at the very bottom of the price ranges. Intel has always been better at the higher. Lately, Intel has caught up at the low ranges and continues to be way ahead at the higher. AMD is not bad, they just aren't as good as Intel for gaming based on performance and price.

[AzazeltheRuthless]

AMD used to be slightly better at the very bottom of the price ranges. Intel has always been better at the higher. Lately, Intel has caught up at the low ranges and continues to be way ahead at the higher. AMD is not bad, they just aren't as good as Intel for gaming based on performance and price.

I don't know w hat happen to them, but that isn't accurate either for your statement. AMD was the king for modders for a long time even up to about 1-2 years ago, their FX architecture was great if you were into overclocking, heck, they set the world record with the amount of customization you could do. Then they came out with this APU bs, and the A series chips and they were just garbage for everything. Intel really just started pumping out straight up a better product, if you still go to CPU Benchmarks, AMD's best performing processor, is still an FX one they released nearly 4-5 years ago,..that's just sad.

[fixx]

I don't know w hat happen to them, but that isn't accurate either for your statement. AMD was the king for modders for a long time even up to about 1-2 years ago, their FX architecture was great if you were into overclocking, heck, they set the world record with the amount of customization you could do. Then they came out with this APU bs, and the A series chips and they were just garbage for everything. Intel really just started pumping out straight up a better product, if you still go to CPU Benchmarks, AMD's best performing processor, is still an FX one they released nearly 4-5 years ago,..that's just sad.

Are you talking about clock speed, or something that actually matters? And what kind of "customization" you're doing on a CPU?

None of the FX CPUs has ever beaten the four core i7's in any performance test when both processors are overclocked to max.

[Replica]

Classic thread lol

Single core performance is your answer.

[thunterman]

Just because something has more Mhz doesn't make it better. The simplistic way of looking at it, is AMD's products are steriod junkies, Intel hit the gym for years.

Think of a Intel quad core, at 3.5Ghz - That would actually perform better than a quad core 4Ghz AMD cpu, simply because its allot smarter and more efficient with the way it handles things. Intel also pour an unimaginable amount of money into R&D, developing new tech which allows them to squeeze more performance from smaller frequencies.

It's the way it's always been and always will be, if performance is top priority, you go Intel. No questions. Same with AMD / Nvidia GPU's. The way I looked at things building my PC, AMD = budget Intel/Nvida = Performance.

2500K is still my alltime favorite CPU though, 4.5 ghz is not an unusual clock speed, Many even manage 5ghz. Do AMD even sell a CPU that can outperform that?

[AzazeltheRuthless]

Are you talking about clock speed, or something that actually matters? And what kind of "customization" you're doing on a CPU?

None of the FX CPUs has ever beaten the four core i7's in any performance test when both processors are overclocked to max.

Considering clock speed, is the speed at which a processor, processes an instruction. All processors exist for are to process instructions, that seems like a pretty important matter when talking about processor. The faster a processor can computer an instruction set to it, the faster the computer. That's the most basic concept of processor's. Comparing the ancient FX series which is still using a 32nm dye, versus Intel's 22nm dye, soon to be a 14nm, just simply won't matter Intel is just getting more transistors on the platter.

Now you have the IPC to worry about, which is the instruction per cycle the processor can hold and that is where clock speed become irrelevant, due to you can only process as many instruction as the CPU can physically contain. AMD historically use to have to clock faster to hold up performance wise, issue was, AMD could be clocked even faster, so it just literally outperformed Intel's processor as they weren't able to match the amount of customization that was being done to the processor.

Today, though AMD just simply can't compete anymore, no matter how fast they make it due to other contributing factors. In the end to summarize all this, CPU while important have other factors about the computers holding them back, you can spend thousands on a CPU and still get the same performance you could have been one for $100, RAM, HDD, Bus Speed, all sorts of other factors are involved. Honestly, should worry about those other ones before you even really get to big into the CPU.

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

[Lathais]

Because for gaming, single core performance/IPC is what matters most. Intel beats AMD in single core performance/IPC hands down without a question. If you are on a budget, AMD is still the worse choice. Look at this:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Pentiu...vs-AMD-FX-8350

The FX8350 has a significantly lower Passmark Score for single core. It costs over $100 more than the G3258. When on a budget, I would pick the $50 Chip.

Now that G3258 is a fairly weak CPU when it comes to overall power. However, as most games run on a single thread on a single core, especially MMOs which have an even larger thread that must be run on only one core, that single core score is what matters for gaming.

This is also not even considering, AMD is a failing company. The only reason they are currently remaining afloat is because intel gave them a lot of money to keep them in business so they don't have to deal with anti-trust issues. It would be much more costly and a much larger headache for them if AMD just went away, like they should. At no price point does AMD even come close to competing with intel for gaming where IPC matters so much. 2 strong cores is better than 8 mediocre cores.