Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Nothing between Intel and AMD for gaming

Comments

  • #2
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    bezerk wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHnsfIJtZ2o

    Is an i5 really worth the extra 100?

    It depends on the game. Some games are only optimised for 2 cores (Starcraft 2 etc) and in these games the 3570k is literally 50% faster.

    An FX-8350 is also not a 100 more, but motherboard costs might push it in that range. The 3570k also draws a lot less power.


  • #3
    bezerk
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 148 ✭✭bezerk


    Gumbi wrote: »
    It depends on the game. Some games are only optimised for 2 cores (Starcraft 2 etc) and in these games the 3570k is literally 50% faster.

    An FX-8350 is also not a 100 more, but motherboard costs might push it in that range. The 3570k also draws a lot less power.

    I get that but an fx6300 can be overclocked to basically the same levels and just has two less cores which games are not utilizing at the minute. Only two games I see that has a massive difference are Skyrim and Starcraft cause there badly optimized, everything else is on par


  • #4
    raymix
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭raymix


    Those 2 chips are only compared because of close price range, that's all. They are different generations and got different thread counts. Also they uses different way of doing calculations and all other crap. It is not really fair to compare the two, 8350 should be compared to sandy bridge to make it fair in terms of generation, performance, price and watts.

    Either way, you could go with 63xx, it is a same chip as 83xx, just 2 less cores for gaming. If you are also steaming, encoding or rendering, you will love 8350 over any CPU mentioned above, however hexacore shouldn't lag behind that much. And good AMD motherboards are little cheaper than descent z77 or z78 chipset boards.

    Third game I'd add to this would be Arma 2, Intels gets twice as many frames most of times even on stock vs OCd 8350, which is just an example of badly optimized game.

    What I suggest is don't rush buying new CPU now, wait until Christmas, both AMD and Intel promises to come up with new generation CPUs at the end of 2013


  • #5
    Monotype
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,710 ✭✭✭Monotype


    raymix wrote: »
    What I suggest is don't rush buying new CPU now, wait until Christmas, both AMD and Intel promises to come up with new generation CPUs at the end of 2013

    Isn't it only APUs that we're expecting from AMD and LGA 2011 CPUs from Intel?
    Neither are really for the mainstream gamer.


  • #6
    raymix
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭raymix


    Monotype wrote: »
    Isn't it only APUs that we're expecting from AMD and LGA 2011 CPUs from Intel?
    Neither are really for the mainstream gamer.

    You mean Kavery, featuring steamroller cores expected at early 2014.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    raymix wrote: »
    Those 2 chips are only compared because of close price range, that's all.

    But at the end of the day, isn't that the most important one?


  • #8
    raymix
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭raymix


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    But at the end of the day, isn't that the most important one?

    Yes, but it's still not fair to ignore limits of generations. For example Let's take a good old beast 45nm Intel QX9650 that still costs around 200€ and compare it to FX-4300 that only costs half the price. This Vishera chip should come up with around 130% stock performance increase and overclocks much higher on air.

    Now let's take fx-8350 that is closer to it's price (still cheaper)... boom ~170% performance increase on stock.

    I'm sorry, price or not, there should be some limits when comparing 2 different generations.

    I am really hoping that Steamroller will keep 200-300€ price range on it's 8 core chips and beat the living crap out of current king 3770k in current generations. Pretty soon we will be restocking our popcorn supplies.


Advertisement