Intel better for gaming?

kn2k10

Can anyone explain why, I'm new to this and a bit confused.
In the high end processors, the AMD Fx series vs Intel Core i5 Ivybridge and Haswell doesn't make sense.

Fx generally has higher boost clock speeds than intel, more cores (multitasking relevance) and about even cache. The only downfall I see in the amd processors is power consumption.

Are intel CPUs better in overclocking if you really push them, or am I missing something else?

frozenfrozen

You can't compare clock speeds across different architectures. Most games aren't made to handle dual cores let alone hexa or octa core cpus. 4 cores is about as much as will be used by games and thus the better clock for clock performance across the board on intel cpus makes them better for gaming.

BloodBath

The intels have better per core performance. It's around 20%-30% faster, depending on which architecture, clock for clock compared to the fx. However the fx 6300/50 and 8320/50 have 6 or 8 cores.

Most games use 2-4 cpu cores so the intels perform better usually more so on the 2 core cpu limited games like starcraft 2. A lot of games will be limited by the gpu long before the cpu though so they end up performing identically in a lot of games.

Next gen consoles are using 6 cores for gaming so we should see better multi thread optimised games that will even things up. This can already be seen in some of the newer titles like far cry 3 and crysis 3.

If you want value the fx 6300 is hands down the best processor at the moment. Overclocked it has almost as much power as an i5 3570 in programs that will make use of all 6 threads and it costs half the price.

I wouldn't bother with the 8320 or 8350 for gaming. The extra threads are pretty useless and the 6300 will perform identically.

It all depends on your budget.

kn2k10

When you guys speak of architecture what exactly is it? Is it like how the processor is built internally?

BloodBath

Pretty much yes.

raymix

kn2k10 wrote: »

When you guys speak of architecture what exactly is it? Is it like how the processor is built internally?

this should shed some light.

Also I call bs on power consumption, the amounts are irrelevant, especially if you never OC because of speedstep or CNC technologies, gotta love how people ignores the fact that GPU will consume most of the power, not even talking SLI/Crossfire here (not to mention amount of components hooked to 12V rails with moving parts ie hdd/fans). :eek:

BloodBath

A highly overclocked 8320/50 can use 200w+ of power. That adds up to a significant amount of extra power consumption and more than a lot of graphics cards so it's not complete bs

Hdd's and fan's use feck all despite being mechanical parts.

raymix

Yes, stressed at 100% 24/7, apart from stress testing, how realistic is that kind of power draw (ie gaming)? Personally I dont mind quick reboot to set my OC profile before gaming, keeping all the power saving features for casual use:)

Also we can't ignore fact that it is still only a 32nm CPU. 22nm CPU will naturally consume less power. Lets see what AMD brings us in near future.

BloodBath

Probably half of that for gaming since it won't be utilising all of the cores. I'd go for a 6300 for a gaming pc anyway over the 8320/50.

raymix

I'd go i5 for gaming alone at the price range, 6300 for budget. 83xx is awesome for rendering at it's price, gotta love seeing all those cores fully utilized.

BloodBath

Not really.

A xeon E3 1230v2 is better value. It works out at the same price or cheaper than an 8320 with a good board and cpu cooler and uses about half the power.

It can't be overclocked but it will still beat an overclocked 8320/50 for that type of work.

Lord Khan

BloodBath wrote: »

A highly overclocked 8320/50 can use 200w+ of power. That adds up to a significant amount of extra power consumption and more than a lot of graphics cards so it's not complete bs

Hdd's and fan's use feck all despite being mechanical parts.

AMD's one of their newest (not sure if it's be released though) uses 225/275 watts and it's not overclocked. overclocking anything will ramp up the power needed in both CPU or GPU, but the main part has to be the heat.

Anyway, I've both intels over amds for past while. Yes they are much dearer that AMDs (both cpus and nvidia with the gpus).

i5 is best for gaming, i7 if you are editting on the same box. it's been the 2 core but the last year games have been using the 4 cores fully. Next year we should see if Intel will release the new gen of cpus. But either way atm it is the GPU that most cash expensive if you want the best gfx.

raymix

You get what you pay for. Anyway it comes down to personal preferences and lets say - principles.
Lets see what steamroller brings us, really hoping that it will perform better than 3770k

lukepaddy2

In games that have been released in the last one or two years there is really no difference between. You might get an extra 5 FPS on an Intel but most of the time they are on par. Battlefield 3 runs better on AMD processors and Battlefield 4 is been optimized to run on AMD hardware better. A lot of new games will be using more cores and console ports will run better on AMD hardware

raymix

Sorry, I just don't buy that console core optimization thingy myth. There are some technical issues when coding multi core support, simply put - scaling just like sli/crossfire. You can split various work loads of different tasks, but you can't really split one task between several workers. Imagine what happens when you assign several dudes to chop down a tree, cut it, paint it and nail it at exact same time. Or shoot one bullet from 8 different guns. Now, imagine drawing a single frame when one of cores is lagging behind the rest with it's duty - while the workload was shared fair and square, your fps will drop with 7 out of 8 cores "idling".

Guess it will highly depend on type of the game, but you guys shouldn't put your hopes up or believe in some sort of magic in technology. Just because consoles will have 8 cores, nobody said that games will be utilizing them all.

However I do agree on "running better on AMD hardware" part, it is very plausible. We all know that both CPUs work they magic differently, each with its strengths and weaknesses. If a software is designed to calculate data one way, obviously it will work better with that CPU and create extra workload for the other CPU to end up doing the same thing. It would be nice to be able to download executables separately for intel and amd, just like you do with 32bit and 64bit

BloodBath

Battlefield 3 runs better on AMD processors and Battlefield 4 is been optimized to run on AMD hardware better.

No it doesn't. They are on par.

It's a bit of an assumption to say console ports will run better on amd hardware. You have no evidence to support this yet. I'd say there will still be no difference between them outside of the 2 core cpu limited games like the total war series and starcraft 2.

It's down to how much you want to spend. The 6300 is the obvious choice for lower budgets. The i5's are still the better choice over the 8320/50.