AMD or Intel?

[thedrunk]

From a gamers perspective, quad core CPUs' actually have a very large disadvantage.
1) Windows isn't natively optimised for quad core processing, which means the game natively has to support it or you will actually see a performance decrease while using a quad core for gaming.

2) 90% of games STILL are not optimised for quad core processing. So unless 2 of your quads' cores' are faster in clock speed than a dual core, the dual core will out-perform the quad core in gaming.

3) Dual cores will also over-clock better than any quad core on the market, further increasing the performance gap in favour of teh dual cores for a gamer.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3559&p=10

And the real benchmarking sites, which don't lie and are well trusted, blatantly show AMD being the leader in gaming performance still.
Not a surprise. AMD's strength which works well for gaming has always been it's low cache & FSB but high multiplier.
Race cars vs trucks basically, intel with it's higher FSB and cache can carry a larger load in the 1 trip, so they're the trucks.
Having the responce there out of a higher multiplier is what makes AMD's so good for gaming.

My e7300 Core2Duo oc'd to 3.33ghtz STILL runs the stock multiplier of 10.
My FSB is raised to 333 / core.
Back in the days of the athlon 2600+ x1 they'd already hit 100 Mhtz FSB x20 multipler = 2000 Mhtz, which was the actual clock speed of the processors.
Or was it 2.4ghtz? either way you get my drift, AMD has always been superior for gaming because of different systems for speed implementation and intel never really caught on, preferring to tempt corporate buyers with their non-gaming benchmark results.

That works extremely welll for intel actually, since on bulk orders they're actually cheaper than AMD.

Thanks you mind if i quote you on another forum ??

 

[sexytool]

Nah go for it thedrunk it's important info for gamers, can save you alot of money.

 

[Thrax]

Everything after the anandtech link is more or less false. I don't even know where to begin:

Having low cache is about the worst thing you can do for a processor. More cache means more CPU instructions and more data can be armed in the single fastest section of memory on the PC, and that means that the processor can execute tasks faster. More cache = good. Period. This is basic CPU architecture, and the reason why CPU cache keeps increasing.

Secondly, a high multiplier has nothing to do with the speed of the CPU outside of the frequency. It sets the CPU's clockspeed and has no further advantage. The FSB is also less important than ever, primarily because the Core i7 and the Phenom HAVE no FSB. They both use a reference clock with up to five separate multipliers that set frequencies for the DRAM and the CPU. The base clock does not matter because it is only used to determine the final frequencies of other board elements. In the case of the Core i7, a Core i7 system offers higher total bandwidth, more instructions per cycle, and more performance in everything but cryptography which the Phenom II is particularly good at.

AMD is not superior for gaming -- it hasn't been since 2006 -- and you have yet to produce a single link from one of these "real benchmarking sites" that proves your claim.

Here's a review of the Phenom II 955 BE, AMD's leading chip from one of the most respected sites on the internet, Anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=1

You'll note that AMD loses to Intel in every test, even falling prey to Core 2 Duos that are 1 and 2 years old on several occasions.

Just look around, sexytool. Your figures are all wrong and you're trying to sell fabricated misinformation as fact. It's disappointing.\\\

Want more proof?

Techreport: http://techreport.com/articles.x/16796/5 -- Loses to Intel in every gaming test.
Neoseeker: http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii955/ -- Loses to Intel in every gaming test.
Techgage: http://techgage.com/article/amd_phenom_ii_x4_955_black_edition/9 -- Loses to Intel in every gaming test.
Hexus: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=18149&page=8 -- Loses to Intel in every gaming test.
Bit-tech: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/04/23/amd-phenom-ii-x4-955-black-edition-cpu-am3/7 -- AMD loses half the tests to Intel.

I could go on and on.

 

[sexytool]

Excuse me, you would know how?
Do you even run any of these games?

EDIT: in fact these benchmarks actually support my claims, not yours.
i7's are a generation ahead of the Phenom II and they are STILL damn close to matching them.
I see ONE Dual core beating the phenom in those links and that's onyl in ONE game.
That's actually phenominally good for the phenom, considering it's a quad core

Get your facts straight before you blatantly insult your board members Thrax.

 

[Thrax]

I'm not insulting you. I'm trying to make sure that this forum is filled with proper facts regarding CPU architecture and the current state of the microprocessor industry.

Making outlandish and incorrect claims about frequencies, multipliers and cache does nothing but distort the reality and serve to potentially confuse future members who may come across this thread.

You prefer AMD, and that's fine, but the numbers and process node advancements clearly indicate that Intel holds the technological and upgrade advantage at the present time.

I'm sorry my mythbusting gets under your skin.

 

[clifford_cooley]

I see ONE Dual core beating the phenom in those links and that's onyl in ONE game. That's actually phenominally good for the phenom, considering it's a quad core

This is funny - Standing behind a Quad core CPU because its only been beat once by a Dual core CPU
My book this is bad

 

[sexytool]

Well for starters; this is wrong.

Having low cache is about the worst thing you can do for a processor. More cache means more CPU instructions and more data can be armed in the single fastest section of memory on the PC, and that means that the processor can execute tasks faster. More cache = good. Period. This is basic CPU architecture, and the reason why CPU cache keeps increasing.

Once you've met the data size chunk capabilty of the ram, e.g size of the data chunk / FSB, you need to make tbe best use of it's responce time / latency.
Which a higher CPU multiplier will do, games are perfect examples because they often need to load and dump small amounts of memory very quickly.
That's why AMD's have consistantly performed better than intels in this area for such a long time.
You say they haven't since 2006 - well buddy that still leaves twenty years before hand that AMD were beating intel.
In all areas, including servers. Just ask the linux community how badly Athlons beat intel servers.

You prefer AMD, and that's fine, but the numbers and

And clearly delusional opinions? Have to even LOOKED at the benchmarks YOU linked?
The Phenom is beating almost every single intel CPU that it has been designed to beat.
Forgive me if i seem condescending here Thrax but do you even understand the implications of that sentance?
The phenom II had been out for OVER A YEAR before the i7's were released, there's not a chance of them beating an i7 because intel have specifically designed the i7's to beat the phenoms and they had a year to study the phenom II and ensure they could.

Comparing an i7 to a phenom is like comparing a turbo-deisel engine to a STEAM engine for gods' sake, they're that technologically different.
And the Phenom STILL is only under-performing the i7 by around 10%.

That is bloody fantastic.

Intel doesn't hold the "technological and upgrade advantage", they've simply got the NEWEST processor.

This is funny - Standing behind a Quad core CPU because its only been beat once by a Dual core CPU
My book this is bad

Read the thread before you form ignorant opinions.

EDIT: forgot to touch upon this point;

Just look around, sexytool. Your figures are all wrong and you're trying to sell fabricated misinformation as fact. It's disappointing.

Three attempts at insulting me in the one sentance? You can't honestly beleive you didn't intend insult there. That would just be an outright lie.

 

[clifford_cooley]

you should pay more attention as to how you word your post - Im not interested in reading every link that comes through this forum

 

[sexytool]

From a gamers perspective, quad core CPUs' actually have a very large disadvantage.
1) Windows isn't natively optimised for quad core processing, which means the game natively has to support it or you will actually see a performance decrease while using a quad core for gaming.

2) 90% of games STILL are not optimised for quad core processing. So unless 2 of your quads' cores' are faster in clock speed than a dual core, the dual core will out-perform the quad core in gaming.

3) Dual cores will also over-clock better than any quad core on the market, further increasing the performance gap in favour of teh dual cores for a gamer.

That's pretty clear and well worded actually. And it's only a few posts previous to this one.
Read the thread or keep your opinions to yourself.

 

[clifford_cooley]

That quot wasnt the one in question - Which quot did I comment on - This is my last post on your behalf - Im not wasting anymore time on this stupid argument

 

[sexytool]

90% of games don't work better on quad cores.
That's just a hard fact. Build a few and test it yourself all you want.
You will see i'm speaking the truth about the matter.

Your comment was out of line, i was referring to their gaming performance and that's all.
In other areas sure, quad cores will perform better than dual cores.
But for gaming that is the exception not the rule.

This is funny - Standing behind a Quad core CPU because its only been beat once by a Dual core CPU
My book this is bad

Just shows what little experience you have in gaming, how little you understand why and is a reasonable insult to any serious gamer.

 

[clifford_cooley]

Is this thread about gaming? no
I never said I was a gamer!! Who is throwing the insults now
There is much more to consider when judging AMD vs Intel than Games!

 

[sexytool]

You were quoting me and taking me out of context then
Honestly buddy, you either read the thread, understand it and contribute or you don't read it and end up mis-understanding other peoples' posts.

Quit trying to have a dig at me for your mistake.
You screwed up when you assumed i was talking about all performance in general when i wasn't, i was talking specifically about gaming performance.

 

[clifford_cooley]

Ill read Thrax's links anyday over your - Because you dont make any since

 

[Thrax]

I feel this thread has run its course. Locked.