# is intel really better then amd



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 2, 2008)

I really don't want to start a flame war here, but i gotta ask.  My friend has an intel core 8400 at 3.8ghz and i've got my 5000 be at 3.4ghz. we have the same ram, simalar hdd's same monitor and video cards.  he's complaining about the framerate he was getting in a game so i decided to boot it up and bench with the ingame bench tool running the same settings.  low and behold i get almost the exact same score.  This leads me to believe that the game is just very gpu limted.  also going forward the framerate avg's about 67 and dips to 32 and has a high of about 110.  so my question is, amd's really aren't bad for gaming but intels are so popular, is it the benchmarks that make it popular? or is the intel really just a better gamer and this is just a fluke??


----------



## regan1985 (Mar 2, 2008)

his overclock might not be stable, also the game might also be single treaded game so the fact that you have 2 cores  doesnt matter!

intel are better performance cpus atm,amd are far behind


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 2, 2008)

well at the moment his current oc is 24 hours orthos stable. memtest ran fine through multiple passes.  but i think it goes deeper then that, i honestly don't think intel is "far" ahead of amd.  I think at a low res where the cpu becomes the limitation the intel rig is faster but at high res it seems to be pretty even??


----------



## Wile E (Mar 2, 2008)

You're correct in assuming that the game was probably primarily gpu limited. Only a few games truly benefit from the faster cpus. As far as strictly gaming is concerned, it doesn't matter which you have, the gpu is much more important. But when serious cpu work is involved, Intel currently dominates.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 2, 2008)

Just to add... the E8400 is a dual core, not a quad.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 2, 2008)

Wile E said:


> You're correct in assuming that the game was probably primarily gpu limited. Only a few games truly benefit from the faster cpus. As far as strictly gaming is concerned, it doesn't matter which you have, the gpu is much more important. But when serious cpu work is involved, Intel currently dominates.



So that preatty much levels the playing field when you come down to it, as far as gaming..? Benchmark scores arn't everything... real frame rates are.


----------



## Ravenas (Mar 2, 2008)

When you need a processor that can handle the amount of load that a game such as Supreme Commander can put on a computer, Intel is the way to go plain and simple.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 2, 2008)

Bluefox1115 said:


> So that preatty much levels the playing field when you come down to it, as far as gaming..? Benchmark scores arn't everything... real frame rates are.


In most cases, gaming is equal between the 2, because it's the gpu that's getting the shit kicked out of it, not the cpu. lol.

But if you do anything like encoding, or any kind of content creation, then the Core2 is definitely faster.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 2, 2008)

yeah that sounds right. lol


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 2, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> When you need a processor that can handle the amount of load that a game such as Supreme Commander can put on a computer, Intel is the way to go plain and simple.



please read this benchmark, if i'm reading it correctly, it throws your notion of superiority out the window.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/12091/4


----------



## Ravenas (Mar 2, 2008)

exodusprime1337 said:


> please read this benchmark, if i'm reading it correctly, it throws your notion of superiority out the window.



A game like supreme commander will take a serious beating on your cpu. Intel currently has the best quads. This isn't some intel fanboy talk here, the market speaks for itself right now.

While yes, the gpu does most of the work in games, a game like supreme commander (and there aren't any I know of), will take a serious beating on your cpu.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 2, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> A game like supreme commander will take a serious beating on your cpu. Intel currently has the best quads. This isn't some intel fanboy talk here, the market speaks for itself right now.



sorry i forgot to include the link, please go here


http://techreport.com/articles.x/12091/4


----------



## Ravenas (Mar 2, 2008)

This is mainly because, even as stated in the article, developers of games aren't fully jumping on the quad core band wagon. Supreme commander uses the quad core for mainly sound (i think) and not much else. IF developers would support multithreaded processors more readily than they do now, this question would be obvious.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 2, 2008)

exodusprime1337 said:


> sorry i forgot to include the link, please go here
> 
> 
> http://techreport.com/articles.x/12091/4


Those are run on outdated hardware. SupCom is one of the few games that do benefit from a better cpu. SupCom is a little different in that it will slow the game clock, to compensate for slower cpus. Meaning, 60seconds of game time could take 90sec or more of real time.

This is a better explanation, and representation of the differences.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/660-3/supreme-commander-benchmark.html


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 2, 2008)

but apparently they are not at the time, and it would seem as if you're hoping for the future to work in your favor, but alas at this point in time today it does not.  and once again, this started out as a question over 2 dual core's and not your quad core, and you jumped in and started flaming right of the bad, can you offer any proof that in supreme commander your quad core stomps my 5000?? probably not.  and i didn't start the thread asking if my 5000 wil be able to handle a quad core optimized game in 2 years, it was about real world frams in a real world environment.  the differences in the games these days are nil a high res's. the only place it makes a huge difference is in the benches.  and in heavy cpu apps such as encoding/compiling and thankfully i didn't build the think for encoding so it looks like i'm good.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 2, 2008)

exodusprime1337 said:


> but apparently they are not at the time, and it would seem as if you're hoping for the future to work in your favor, but alas at this point in time today it does not.  and once again, this started out as a question over 2 dual core's and not your quad core, and you jumped in and started flaming right of the bad, can you offer any proof that in supreme commander your quad core stomps my 5000?? probably not.  and i didn't start the thread asking if my 5000 wil be able to handle a quad core optimized game in 2 years, it was about real world frams in a real world environment.  the differences in the games these days are nil a high res's. the only place it makes a huge difference is in the benches.  and in heavy cpu apps such as encoding/compiling and thankfully i didn't build the think for encoding so it looks like i'm good.


Read the post above yours for some answers.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 2, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Those are run on outdated hardware. SupCom is one of the few games that do benefit from a better cpu. SupCom is a little different in that it will slow the game clock, to compensate for slower cpus. Meaning, 60seconds of game time could take 90sec or more of real time.
> 
> This is a better explanation, and representation of the differences.
> http://www.behardware.com/articles/660-3/supreme-commander-benchmark.html



very nice and thank you for providing hard evidence of a difference though, but the difference appears to be minimal when speaking of the 2 core vs 2 core amd vs intel scenario.  mainly it's about 2-4 fps for the most part, i don't consider that a "huge" increase over amd.  and on top of it, we were still working with dual cores here, i wasn't starting a flamewar over quad cores.  i don't even own one guys??


----------



## Wile E (Mar 2, 2008)

exodusprime1337 said:


> very nice and thank you for providing hard evidence of a difference though, but the difference appears to be minimal when speaking of the 2 core vs 2 core amd vs intel scenario.  mainly it's about 2-4 fps for the most part, i don't consider that a "huge" increase over amd.  and on top of it, we were still working with dual cores here, i wasn't starting a flamewar over quad cores.  i don't even own one guys??


Oh, I wasn't talking quads either, but I also wasn't talking strictly fps differences either, look at the time scale differences between the Intel and AMD. That will absolutely effect the quality of gameplay, but not necessarily the graphics, as the game actually slows the engine down, making everything move slower, but still at a smooth fps. If that explanation makes any sense to you. lol.


----------



## Ravenas (Mar 2, 2008)

I was purely speaking in terms of quad for processing power, not products someone here owns. Supreme Commander supports quad cores, so I used the quad core as an example. In terms of how effectively does Supreme Commander use the quad core, I would say very little. As you noted, a 4 fps gain.

Supreme Commander has always touted that it utilizes the Quad core...But in my opinion, it utilizes it in a very small way. As I said, it just a matter of time before developers make the multicore leap.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 2, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> I was purely speaking in terms of quad for processing power, not products someone here owns. Supreme Commander supports quad cores, so I used the quad core as an example. In terms of how effectively does Supreme Commander use the quad core, I would say very little. As you noted, a 4 fps gain.
> 
> Supreme Commander has always touted that it utilizes the Quad core...But in my opinion, it utilizes it in a very small way. As I said, it just a matter of time before developers make the multicore leap.




understandable, i just became very confused when i asked a question comparing 2 dual cores and you jumped in with the quad, it completely threw off the topic. as far a dual core the two flavors of cpu i feel are hardly different in real world apps. when it comes to raw cpu performance i'll get down on my hands and knees and kiss your feet, you win by a long shot, i just feel that the intel bandwagon is somewhat misled, yes the intel is a little faster, but it's a hell of a lot more expensive imho then an amd rig to get roughly the same performance, i mean, think about it 4fps is not a difference at all really. it's just a small change that is hardly noticable.  i guess the whole thing made me feel pretty good i guess that even though i choose to stay amd, i'm not really missing out on the gaming experience.  

btw i just hit 3.5Ghz 1 hour stable on orthos which is pretty killer for my 5000 blacky


----------



## trog100 (Mar 2, 2008)

games like sup/com also benefit from faster core speeds as well as more cores.. it is becoming a bit of a boring bloody chestnut thow cos it is only one game and its guaranteed to get brought up.. 

controling all those ai units and weapons trajectories takes cpu power.. period.. but it is a one off..

a decent amd system will play games perfectly okay and most games are still gpu limited..

fritz chess is about the only true multicore game..   not exactly popular with the average shooter type thow.. he he he

as for crysis.. my amd system played it just as well as my intel one does.. 

trog


----------



## kwchang007 (Mar 2, 2008)

Well ok you're game might be gpu limited.  But you're looking at the fastest of the fast.  What about people like me who have slower chips (just disregard the fact it's a laptop lol) and can't overclock them to speeds like 3.8 ghz.  Then the better Intel chips will start shining through just because of how well they can process info.  But if you're talking about 3.5 ghz 5000+ with a 8800 gts that's running top res and everything, then you're defiantly going to be bottlenecked by the gpu, but if you run at lower frequencies....such as 2.0 ghz, there's a way better chance the cpu will be the bottleneck, especially paired with a 8800 gts.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 2, 2008)

Today's games aren't as CPU dependent as they were. Of course the role of a CPU is in the spot-light when a game does CPU-accelerated physics, is multi-threaded and exploits specific CPU instruction-sets.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2008)

can i just point out without oc'ing there really is negligible difference between intel/AMD the 6400+ lines up with the E6850 the 9600BE with the Q6600/6700 and for the most part the AMD chips are a little cheaper. plus you get the added fact that you don't have to buy a new mobo every 6months when intel stops letting older chipsets work with new cpus either by ramping up the FSB or changing the voltage requirements. so performance wise you have an edge choosing intel but its a slight one that you will _only_ see if you oc or spend $1000+ on your cpu, *but* with AMD chips you get the bonus that with a new BIOS your old AM2 board will likely support the newest chips and if you are stuck on an older socket you still get the same performance of the newest chips ie. my s754 setup was still able to keep up in games with dual-core AMDs. in the end its your choice who you want to call the winner since IMO most games end up being gpu bottlenecked and you wont see but 2fps increase (if any) by spend 2x the money on a new intel rig and end up purchasing a new one everytime you want to upgrade or you get an AMD and can get years of top end *gaming* performance.


----------



## Basard (Mar 2, 2008)

My theory... Just about every game is mostly GPU limited, any game worth playing anyways.  And the games that aren't will run smooth like butter on an AMD system...  Unless you're some kinda "professional computer dude", or just plain wealthy, then AMD is better... for gamers, because it's cheaper mostly. Even though slower than Intel, it's still fast enough, and you're gonna be GPU limited anyways. 

So it seems the question really is:  Who is better ATI or Nvidia?


----------



## mandelore (Mar 2, 2008)

well.. on the front page one of the recent reviews by xxx website with the black edition phenom and intels lest gen extreme cpu think maybe qx6700?

showed AMD having the lead in crysis. but getting a pounding in most other things.

stock speed vs stock speed. equally clocked AMD/Intel cpu's are on par, and sometimes AMD comes off on top.

but when it comes to overclocking, intel pull way ahead, often so far its pretty silly.

thats why most hard core gamers go intel. 

I for one was going to go with a phenom, but after much hype and MUCH dissapointment, i thought im not going to waste my money, so invested in the best of the best at the time. paying monthly for my QX9650 anyways so thats pretty sweet 

However, even Intels cheapo cpu's like my old E2140 (which im selling btw £30 shipped  )
is 1.6ghz and costs a pittence when you can EASILY overclock it to 2.9ghz on a fractional voltage bump. These kinds of overclocks from intel, even on cheapo cpu's is why intel leads atm.

Comparison: (both have same cache and are dual core)

my older Opteron 185 (2.6ghz stock) could barely manage over 2.9ghz (300mhz oc) on pretty high voltages and cost me £200 at the time. (im aware 165's oc great, just comparing my old cpu's)

the sub £40 E2140 (1.6ghz stock) managed a whopping 3ghz (1.4ghz oc) without much increase in vcore at all. 

ofcourse, each chip is different, and i know some AMD chips can oc great!


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 2, 2008)

I think everyone has probably come to the conclusion that there are not enuff games out there to warrant a "special" quadcore purchase where there is really a decent difference.

Like anything, even on topic, if I forget about quadcore and just look at dual core AMD versus Dual core Intel, lets take the Windsor 6000+ versus the E6850 for an example, both stock clocked at 3gig, now some games wont show much difference, we can all find those games if we look for them, then again some games will show a HUGE difference, the key here is how the game is developed and programmed, now if we look at say Quake 4 with the MP patch, although this link will show you how a 2.4gig kentsfield Quad at stock clocks of 2.4gig will beat faster clocked AMD chips, more importantly...to stay on topic, see how the AMD 6000+ compares with the E6850......I think you will find, depenadant on the resolution anything from 28FPS in the Intels favour.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/08/intel_skulltrail_part_3/page9.html


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2008)

mandelore said:


> well.. on the front page one of the recent reviews by xxx website with the black edition phenom and intels lest gen extreme cpu think maybe qx6700?
> 
> showed AMD having the lead in crysis. but getting a pounding in most other things.
> 
> ...



just to point it out you can do similar things on AMDs low end chips you compared an already near top clocked chip to a very low clocked one. how about a sempron going for 1.6ghz to 3.2ghz? or a 3000+ going from 1.8ghz to 3.4ghz? or the 3600X2 brisbane from 1.9ghz to ~3ghz?


----------



## mandelore (Mar 2, 2008)

cdawall said:


> just to point it out you can do similar things on AMDs low end chips you compared an already near top clocked chip to a very low clocked one. how about a sempron going for 1.6ghz to 3.2ghz? or a 3000+ going from 1.8ghz to 3.4ghz? or the 3600X2 brisbane from 1.9ghz to ~3ghz?



im aware of my comparison, as i stated the opty 165 oc really well... just going on what chips i have had.  just from my experience intel cpu's often require lower voltage to acheive that oc than AMD. but its all chip dependant and that may not apply to all.

but i agree AMD and intel can both clock high on lower end chips.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2008)

mandelore said:


> im aware of my comparison, as i stated the opty 165 oc really well... just going on what chips i have had.  just from my experience intel cpu's often require lower voltage to acheive that oc than AMD. but its all chip dependant and that may not apply to all.
> 
> but i agree AMD and intel can both clock high on lower end chips.



yea it is i have had mixed luck with AMD chips and need for volts i have had 2x 3000+'s and one did 2.44ghz @1.568v the other did 2.44ghz @1.625v but the one that liked volts toped out @2.59ghz @1.81v, but oddly enough @1.81v the chip still ran cooler than the 1st one @1.568v? 

and then you look at intel chips my celeron 351 does 4.2ghz @1.4v  whivch is +.03v from stock


----------



## mandelore (Mar 2, 2008)

cdawall said:


> yea it is i have had mixed luck with AMD chips and need for volts i have had 2x 3000+'s and one did 2.44ghz @1.568v the other did 2.44ghz @1.625v but the one that liked volts toped out @2.59ghz @1.81v, but oddly enough @1.81v the chip still ran cooler than the 1st one @1.568v?
> 
> and then you look at intel chips my celeron 351 does 4.2ghz @1.4v  whivch is +.03v from stock



lol yeah thats the truth..

so when including the cost of the cooling needed, i think intel still comes out on top...

I mean, if you happen to have a spare phase unit or full TEC system lying about by all means go for AMD (tho actually, it would still be better to go intel coz ud get even more oc from it lol )

Hell.. personal choice at the end of the day. chips are dying the moment you use it, its just a matter if they can make it till your next upgrade, which 99% of the time will be the case 

anyways, I still really like AMD chips, will be good to see some sweet ass chips finally come from their fabs


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2008)

that was 1.81v on the stock AMD cooler and loaded under 50C idled ~33C


----------



## mandelore (Mar 2, 2008)

cdawall said:


> that was 1.81v on the stock AMD cooler



 was it glowing by any chance?


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2008)

mandelore said:


> was it glowing by any chance?



no infact it still works! and if you think thats bad i took my 3400+ up to 2v trying to break 2.4ghz damn C0 clawhammer


----------



## trog100 (Mar 2, 2008)

if a faster cpu gives a genuine increase in frame rates its down to one thing and one thing only.. a crap none gaming resolution is being used.. if a more gaming realistic resolution is being used the increase would not be there.. the system would be gpu limited..

2006 is out of date its default resolution is too low.. it lies thru its f-cking teeth as does any other "gaming" cpu benchmark on the web..

at real gaming resolutions.. this mythical need for a fast cpu or even a quad cpu just does not exist.. sup/com apart before some bugger who cant be arsed to read the thread brings the damn thing up again..

gaming is about grafix card. grafix card.. grafix card.. simple..

trog


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 2, 2008)

trog100 said:


> if a faster cpu gives a genuine increase in frame rates its down to one thing and one thing only.. a crap none gaming resolution is being used.. if a more gaming realistic resolution is being used the increase would not be there.. the system would be gpu limited..
> 
> 2006 is out of date its default resolution is too low.. it lies thru its f-cking teeth as does any other "gaming" cpu benchmark on the web..
> 
> ...



So the fact that I would guess around 75% of the world games on 17-19 inch LCD monitors or if not probably still game at that res on older CRT's is irrelivant when it comes to benching at 1280 x 1024??? why do you think reviewers still bench at that resolution?  cus most people game at it!


When I look at a gfx card review for example, I dont look at which is faster in the conclusion page, I look at the benches at 16xx x 10xx because thats what matters to me.


----------



## Fizban (Mar 2, 2008)

exodusprime1337 said:


> and once again, this started out as a question over 2 dual core's and not your quad core, and you jumped in and started flaming right of the bad,



I don't see anyone flaming you at all...



exodusprime1337 said:


> can you offer any proof that in supreme commander your quad core stomps my 5000??



Your own benchmark proved just that:

Your 5000: 8468
The Lowest Quad Listed: 8805

That's in a game that still isn't very well multi-threaded, but even without taking that into context the lowest Quad listed does indeed beat out a 5000 by around 4%, not a huge difference, but it is indeed a difference. (Especially as that Quad is only a 2.4 GHz Kentsfield, not a beast like a overclocked 4 GHz Yorkfield.)


----------



## mandelore (Mar 2, 2008)

is the supreme commander bench only ingame? or is it stand alone also? coz that would make an awesome cpu bench if it uses all 4 cores well

(never played the game)


----------



## trog100 (Mar 2, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> So the fact that I would guess around 75% of the world games on 17-19 inch LCD monitors or if not probably still game at that res on older CRT's is irrelivant when it comes to benching at 1280 x 1024??? why do you think reviewers still bench at that resolution?  cus most people game at it!
> 
> 
> When I look at a gfx card review for example, I dont look at which is faster in the conclusion page, I look at the benches at 16xx x 10xx because thats what matters to me.



firstly lets take 2006.. its been out too long.. the futuremark policy used to be.. when current high end hardware gets near the 10000 mark.. they brought out a new one to load the grafix card more and slow things down... they knew that when scores got near the 10000 mark the bench became way to cpu speed dependent.. it was intended to be a gaming related grafix card bench.. not an advert for intel..

secondly.. when a cpu review comes out the idea is to show how much better or worse than alternatives the review cpu is.. games are often used to do this.. but at high resolutions all cpus produce the same scores.. so they deliberately pick high frame rate low resolutions.. all very well.. except it paints a totally false (gaming) picture.. 

reviewers bench at low resolutions because its only low resolutions that show the difference between one cpu and another in gaming benches.. not much point in making em all the same is there.. except all the same is nearer real gaming reality than big differences..

now if most people still game at lower resolution they have fairly low end systems or old monitors.. most gamers dont use high end grafix cards either.. in this case their gaming is still limited by the grafix card not the cpu..

let me take an example.. lets say 60 fps is good enough for most people.. most people play at less than this but lets use 60 fps as being good enough anything more is wasted....

so the average reviewers low resolution gaming bench showing  one cpu banging out 200 fps and another only banging out 150 fps from a real life gaming point of view is rubbish.. both are more than good enough..

a fast cpu might well turn 150 fps into 200 fps but it will not do what matters.. turn 25 fps into 35 fps.. only a better grafix card will do that..

trog


----------



## erocker (Mar 2, 2008)

Fizban said:


> I don't see anyone flaming you at all...



He's correct, there is no flame!  I am shocked and just want to congratulate all of you posting in this thread for being classy.  Btw, tests around the world prove that Intel is currently fater than AMD.  Does that make AMD a bad chip?  No.  Does that make AMD a bad chip for gaming?  No.  Game on!


----------



## mandelore (Mar 2, 2008)

Amen to that Bro!


----------



## WarEagleAU (Mar 2, 2008)

Agreed. You have to see that Intel rested on its Laurels when AMDs Bartons and Durons and all that werent really competing with their older chips. All of that changed when AMD brought out the Athlon 64 architecture, and for the first time that I can remember, Intel wasnt on top with wattage, performance, heat, costs, etc. Well, fast forward a couple of years and Intel took a few pages from AMD, added their own flavor, and brought out a kick ass chip that caters to enthusiasts and OCs like a mother. Thats a good thing they did. AMD now has to follow suit and add their own twists.

Intel is an awesome chip right now, their E series and their Quad series. AMD has some awesome chips, but they just arent up there with Intel yet. Bottom line though, most folks have said it, GPU limits FPS...and a cpu will bottleneck that on the really high end cards.

Also, Ravenas, as Wile E said, I played SUPCOM (dont really care for it personally, the damn players were just too small) and it played fast and well. Of course, it probably did scale down so that 60 seconds took 90 seconds, but it was very playable on my current system I got now 

Lots of useful info in here and I appreciate that guys, keep it up!!


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 2, 2008)

trog100 said:


> firstly lets take 2006.. its been out too long.. the futuremark policy used to be.. when current high end hardware gets near the 10000 mark.. they brought out a new one to load the grafix card more and slow things down... they knew that when scores got near the 10000 mark the bench became way to cpu speed dependent.. it was intended to be a gaming related grafix card bench.. not an advert for intel..
> 
> secondly.. when a cpu review comes out the idea is to show how much better or worse than alternatives the review cpu is.. games are often used to do this.. but at high resolutions all cpus produce the same scores.. so they deliberately pick high frame rate low resolutions.. all very well.. except it paints a totally false (gaming) picture..
> 
> ...



I was not talking 2006.....I was talking anything, if there are no benches at 1280 then how on earth are the majority of owners supposed to guage the performance is all I am saying, your points on 2006 are valid and I agree but they defaulted to 1280 for a very good reason is all I am saying....because thats what most people use, and most people download the free version so they cannot change res.  The rest of your stuff I agree however........


and........I quote........"now if most people still game at lower resolution they have fairly low end systems or old monitors.. most gamers dont use high end grafix cards either.. in this case their gaming is still limited by the grafix card not the cpu.."

Monitors mostly, if you look at the guys in this forum, some with serious hardware are running at 1280 or equivilent....even someone with a QX9650!!  And I agree that the graphics card tends more often than not to be the limiting factor BUT........to get max potential out of a graphics card you need a cpu to back it up,(otherwise the GPU will be bottlenecked even before it's trying to render) for example, the 2900XT was so CPU bound that with a weak CPU it was fairly average, with a strong CPU there was no stopping it.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 2, 2008)

back when 2006 first came out.. the defaults resolution was quite high for the day.. i had an ati 9700 and probably gamed at 800 x 600.. 2006 was a pretty looking slide show.. then i moved to ati 850 pe.. i gamed at 1024 x 768 2006 was still a pretty looking slide show.. a move to a 1900xtx put me around the 5000 marks.. i gamed at the 2006 default resolution..

now i game at 1680 x 1050..  2006 should have been dead and buried long ago.. but to give futuremark their due.. it must be hard to arrive at a bench that will accommodate everyone.. hardware variations have never been greater..

i know one thing.. my current intel cpu which i would estimate to be in real cpu performance terms to be at least 50% faster than my previous amd system dosnt improve my gaming frame rates or my day to day computer use.. except for when i run benchmarks.. 

but it could be argued that my previous amd system didnt have a weak cpu just a relatively weak one..

trog


----------



## beyond_amusia (Mar 2, 2008)

Basard said:


> So it seems the question really is:  Who is better ATI or Nvidia?



ATI!  lol.


----------



## Fizban (Mar 3, 2008)

trog100 said:


> back when 2006 first came out.. the defaults resolution was quite high for the day.. i had an ati 9700 and probably gamed at 800 x 600.. 2006 was a pretty looking slide show.. then i moved to ati 850 pe.. i gamed at 1024 x 768 2006 was still a pretty looking slide show.. a move to a 1900xtx put me around the 5000 marks.. i gamed at the 2006 default resolution..




Yeah, it's a still a pretty slideshow for me....whopping 1109 3DMarks on 2006 on my laptop.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 3, 2008)

exodusprime1337,

In order to properly answer your question and get some closer regarding the 5000 vs E8400 we will need to know:
-What game are you talking about?  Having people guess in an attempt to help you isn't very nice.
-What resolution was used for that game
-What in game settings where used

Last but not least what exactly is your firend's PC setup:
-MB
-RAM
-sound card
-Video card (for clarity)
-OS

Once we have all the information we can then proceed in offering some advice with data to back it up.


----------



## Fizban (Mar 3, 2008)

Basard]So it seems the question really is: Who is better ATI or Nvidia?
[QUOTE=beyond_amusia said:


> ATI!  lol.


[/QUOTE]

Really now?

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=722&chart=318

I believe that says it all.


----------



## erocker (Mar 3, 2008)

Fizban said:


> Really now?
> 
> http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=722&chart=318
> 
> I believe that says it all.



Nope.  You are getting off topic sir!  ATi / Nvidia do not exist in this thread.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 3, 2008)

Fizban said:


> Really now?
> 
> http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=722&chart=318
> 
> I believe that says it all.



it might except its missing one particular card.. still that might change again soon..

but the red and green difference aint quite as great as the intel amd cpu differences..  and that dosnt look to change  any time soon if ever..

most of us have more cpu power than we need so in many ways it dosnt matter .. but the simple answer to the original question is.. yes an intel cpu is better than an amd one.. this is no longer in dispute..   the only thing in dispute is does it matter..?? my answer to that is no it dosnt..

trog


----------



## strick94u (Mar 3, 2008)

Fizban said:


> Yeah, it's a still a pretty slideshow for me....whopping 1109 3DMarks on 2006 on my laptop.



Wow thats double my score with my laptop but mine is dx 10


----------



## MilkyWay (Mar 3, 2008)

Its a fact that if you have a good graphics card then a better cpu will give you more frames per second and will obviously perform better in tasks.

A good pc must have good ram and a good motherboard. Its all graphics card orientated its a fact if you have an average cpu a good buy would be a better card.

The resolution dosnt come into play until you get high then a better cpu will give you better frames.

I game at 1280x1024 and full graphics i get 60fps and im happy, i get lower in some games and higher in others, First person shooters high frames per second is a must but RTS a lower FPS is okay ive found.
Crysis i get 30fps average at all medium spec directx 10 2xAA it looks fine and plays fine is all that matters.
COD 4 i get 100fps max settings.
I noticed that some games benefited from more ram some from better ram, as i went from 3gb of cheap ddr2 to 800mhz 2gb ddr2.

AMD is a good choice for budget gamers coz the boards and cpu are cheap and clockable, then its up to whatever for the card ram ect.
AMD isnt bad its just that with AMD its all about price, Intel when clocked high is unbeatable for performance but costs more.


----------



## hat (Mar 3, 2008)

Thanks for that SUPCOM benchmark.
Heh, AMD CPU's are much cheaper and the good boards are much cheaper. I have one of the best AM2 boards in existence and I paid $120 for it lol... and they perform about the same too.


----------



## strick94u (Mar 3, 2008)

Intel AMD its all about power or value I think we will see AMD take the top spot again someday who knows. I know for most users AMD is more than enough so you would think it would sell better than it does. My wife has no clue her pc is an AMD x2 all she knows is its fast. It reminds me of 1977 when Oldsmoble Started using Small block chevys in their cars everyone cried foul the chevy is cheaper yet most people who knew nothing about cars would have never known, it ran fast and reliable.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 3, 2008)

I have gone thru the link I posted at Post 27 and from what I can see, across the games and all the major apps the AMD 6000+ Windsor at stock 3gig wins only about one in every ten tests (if it's lucky) against the E6850 also stocked at 3gig.....speaks for itself really.


----------



## wolf (Mar 3, 2008)

at present, intel = win. clock for clock they're generally faster, and after you take over clocking into account its very clear cut. core 2 marchitecture rocks.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 3, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Today's games aren't as CPU dependent as they were. Of course the role of a CPU is in the spot-light when a game does CPU-accelerated physics, is multi-threaded and exploits specific CPU instruction-sets.



Then why do people buy good CPU's for gaming?


I do think Intel is better then AMD even for gaming, But AMD will more likely come back with somthing that will be at least up to Intels CPU's hopfully. The Core 2 Duo in my system specs is actually my first Dual core system. But i don't see a huge difference in the games, but i think it is becausethe games i have dont really use both cores. Is there any games that use both the cores?


----------



## btarunr (Mar 3, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> Then why do people buy good CPU's for gaming?
> 
> 
> I do think Intel is better then AMD even for gaming, But AMD will more likely come back with somthing that will be at least up to Intels CPU's hopfully. The Core 2 Duo in my system specs is actually my first Dual core system. But i don't see a huge difference in the games, but i think it is becausethe games i have dont really use both cores. Is there any games that use both the cores?



Of course, the Unreal 3 engine based games are multi-threaded, so are new generation DX 10 games. In fact Remedy claims its upcoming title, Alan Wake to perform best with quad-core processors. There was even a presentation by Remedy during a recent IDF event.

My point is that the CPU isn't as big a determining factor with game performance as it was a few years ago while it still is a decisive component. The spotlight is on the GPU way more than ever before.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 3, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Of course, the Unreal 3 engine based games are multi-threaded, so are new generation DX 10 games. In fact Remedy claims its upcoming title, Alan Wake to perform best with quad-core processors. There was even a presentation by Remedy during a recent IDF event.
> 
> My point is that the CPU isn't as big a determining factor with game performance as it was a few years ago while it still is a decisive component. The spotlight is on the GPU way more than ever before.



So what if i keep my E4400(at stock) and i get a 8800 GT, will i get better frames and will the games perform better? Or will i need a better CPU to really see a difference?(thinking about getting a Q6600)


----------



## btarunr (Mar 3, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> So what if i keep my E4400(at stock) and i get a 8800 GT, will i get better frames and will the games perform better? Or will i need a better CPU to really see a difference?(thinking about getting a Q6600)



Like I said, the role of a CPU is in the spot-light when a game does CPU-accelerated physics, is multi-threaded and exploits specific CPU instruction-sets.

Games using the Havoc Physics acceleration are CPU intensive, games like the upcoming Alan Wake claim to 'dedicate a processor core for physics computation'. 

A game could process different elements on different processing threads all together so a multi-core/thread processor is favoured. 

It was seen when Quake III came out about how a game engine could exploit CPU-specific instruction sets, this became more prevalent with games such as Doom 3 that exploit newer SIMD instruction sets such as SSE 2 or 3. Processors such as K7 felt the pinch as Doom 3 wouldn't exploit AMD 3DNow! Professional. Reason? SSE standards are openly shared between Intel and AMD (ofcourse with licensing obligations) With the SanDiego core, AMD brought in the SSE 3 but there's a slight deviation with SSE4. For AMD K10 it's SSE4A and for Intel it's SSE 4.1....You could look up for exactly what the differences are but te point is:

A CPU is a vital component that determines the overall system performance, no doubt but the influence of CPU over games' performance is not as much as it was, it's GPU now, everthing is centred around the way GPU's are built.

A Q6600 is a nice buy for a gaming PC. At least for $270, it's the best processor there is, right now.

Oh, if you're asking about whether your next upgrade should be a Q6600 or a 8800 GT, I'd say upgrade the video-card.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 3, 2008)

I think WarEagle hit it on the head when he referred to the power consumption and heat. In my book, you measure a CPU on performance, power consumption, and heat generation - and Intel wins in all 3 areas in almost every class of CPU.

The ONLY area, IMO, where AMD competes, is in the budget performance class. AMDs are great CPUs, and great for most applications - but for just a few dollars more, you can get an Intel that top it. 

And in the long run, it is worth spending the extra money, as it will pay off in electricity and facility cooling costs. 

I don't see AMD ever catching up to Intel. As mentioned before, Intel sat on its laurels and watched as AMD zoomed by. That was a real smack in the face, an embarrassment they will not allow themselves to endure again.

That said, I hope AMD continues to try. It will keep the fire under both companies, and that can only mean good stuff for us.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 3, 2008)

@Eastcoast, here is the specs

-MB-Evga 680i
-RAM-2x1gig crucial 1066... not sure on timings
-sound card: creative xfi extreme gamer
-Video card (for clarity): evga 8800gts320
-OS: windows xp

the cpu is at 4.1Ghz however i'm not sure how he's reached it and i havne't really asked because i dont' use nor do i know how to oc an intel.  my rig is as such

MB: evga 590
Ram: 2gig corsair xms2 at 960 4,4,4,12
sound: creative audigy 2 se
video: 8800gts 320
os: windows xp as well

i'm currently at 3.35 240x14 1.475v.

Once we have all the information we can then proceed in offering some advice with data to back it up.


----------



## Sh00t1st (Mar 4, 2008)

i think it all boils down to your ethics, do you join the monolith or route for the underdog, i prefer the underdog. David Goliath he he, intel amd.


----------



## wolf (Mar 4, 2008)

ill always be an AMD fan over intel at heart... ALWAYS, but this round intel wins, and i love overclocking, so my choice was very clear cut. sorry AMD i still love you !!!


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 4, 2008)

exodusprime1337 said:


> @Eastcoast, here is the specs
> 
> -MB-Evga 680i
> -RAM-2x1gig crucial 1066... not sure on timings
> ...



Ok thanks.  Are either of you OC'ing your video card or are they both at stock?

Also what games do you both play where you are not seeing a difference?


----------



## trt740 (Mar 4, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> I have gone thru the link I posted at Post 27 and from what I can see, across the games and all the major apps the AMD 6000+ Windsor at stock 3gig wins only about one in every ten tests (if it's lucky) against the E6850 also stocked at 3gig.....speaks for itself really.



Yes but he asked was intel really better and in bench marks it is but let face it even a 5000+ and a e4500 when overclocked, with good high end cards could handle just about any game out at or near max setting and if you didn't know what was in each machine you couldn't tell. AMD chips are still more than enough to handle anything out there. So the answer is no they are not that much better, better and starting to pull away but not at any level any person would notice. Now at the top end if you rendering high end graphics a Q9650 against a Quad Amd 9600+ you would see a difference but not enought to justify the 650.00 seperating those two chips. Get back to me in a year and things might change drastically believe it or not intel is holding back not trying to kill AMD (because of monopoly lawsuits ETC) or we would have seen a dual core at 4.0ghz stock and a Quad at 4.3ghz or higher. Which intel could produce with current chips at about 250.00 and make a profit killing AMD.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 4, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> I think everyone has probably come to the conclusion that there are not enuff games out there to warrant a "special" quadcore purchase where there is really a decent difference.
> 
> Like anything, even on topic, if I forget about quadcore and just look at dual core AMD versus Dual core Intel, lets take the Windsor 6000+ versus the E6850 for an example, both stock clocked at 3gig, now some games wont show much difference, we can all find those games if we look for them, then again some games will show a HUGE difference, the key here is how the game is developed and programmed, now if we look at say Quake 4 with the MP patch, although this link will show you how a 2.4gig kentsfield Quad at stock clocks of 2.4gig will beat faster clocked AMD chips, more importantly...to stay on topic, see how the AMD 6000+ compares with the E6850......I think you will find, depenadant on the resolution anything from 28FPS in the Intels favour.
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/08/intel_skulltrail_part_3/page9.html



okay if your getting 100+ frames what does 28 more do for you? Sorry Tatty I'm kinda picking on ya and a better comparison is a 6400+ and a e6850 because of price and on chip memory difference a 6000+ and a e6850 are not in the same range anymore. The 6400+ is still cheaper and comes very close inperformance because its clock is 200Mhz faster at stock, to make up for half the on chip memory and because it has a better memory controller than the e6850. Bang for the buck the 6400+ is a better chip aswell. Still in the future AMD is doomed as a CPU company if they don't pull a rabbit out of the hat. As a gpu company they are starting to kick into high gear 3870x2 might save AMD. Plus they are getting innovatives as hell example onboard GPU that can run crossfire with a added on card how cool is that. Remember this comes from a ultra AMD fan boy Me.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 4, 2008)

AMD always was better than intel. Even in the very early days lower mhz amd chips Used to beat higher mhz intel chips because they were better in design because they used shorter pipelines.
the theory is if you put sand through a short straw  and a long straw at the same time the sand in the short straw will come out first simply because its shorter.

Well this is how the cpus worked amd short pipes Intel longer pipes.

Also amd ran lower voltages they were better to oc and cool.

My old athlon xp3000 used to beat a 3.4ghz pentium with a 1mb cache on benchmarks by quite alot and cost less too.

Its only since the core 2 duos came out This took Amd by suprise. It was a sucker punch and amd fell flat on there butt.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 4, 2008)

Amd was actually doing dual core before intel but it was just 2 cpus on one board the mp athlons.But the preformance gain wasnt as good as todays dual core designs because each cpu had to fight over the same system memory this would slow preformance alot rather than speed it up.

Intel took this idea and improved it.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 4, 2008)

> i think it all boils down to your ethics


Ethics? Ummm, hand that boy a dictionary. Choosing between AMD and Intel has nothing to do with morals or right from wrong.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 4, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> AMD always was better than intel. Even in the very early days lower mhz amd chips Used to beat higher mhz intel chips because they were better in design because they used shorter pipelines


That's not true. AMD wasn't in the lead until the whole p4 fiasco. Prior to that, they were either equal, or slightly behind.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 4, 2008)

Bill_Bright said:


> I think WarEagle hit it on the head when he referred to the power consumption and heat. In my book, you measure a CPU on performance, power consumption, and heat generation - and Intel wins in all 3 areas in almost every class of CPU.
> 
> The ONLY area, IMO, where AMD competes, is in the budget performance class. AMDs are great CPUs, and great for most applications -<b> but for just a few dollars more, you can get an Intel that top it. <b>
> 
> ...





a few dollars more is quite a lot when you think about it and actually price it out. try and find an Intel board with a chipset that will supply communication to from CPU/Memory,etc, at the same rate and latency of an AMD, for about $150(including memory). I don't think you will.. AMD= onchip memory controller= cheaper boards due to no need of a chipset to control memory,etc= better latencies/timings/speeds. No need to go and OC memory seperately, or not at all with AMD, it just does, unlike Intel. As for equality? Of course an Intel is going to beat an AMD, but with a higher price tag. Take the E6600 for example. I beat or meet it overclocked, even when the E6600 itself is overclocked to say 3.4GHz, I also paid half the price for the chip, and no hassles trying to find a board that would satisfy my OCing needs, along with SLI, for a price under $400 for CPU, memory, and board. A 680I SLI board runs easily into the $200 range, and have far more problems with memory and such than the amd counterpart of 590SLI. The playing field levels out. Does just having a Core 2 E6600 mean you're gonna boost your frame rates by 100FPS in games over an AMD 5600+ OCed or a 6000+? No.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 4, 2008)

You don't meet or beat an E6600 OCed to 3.4. I had both a 6000+ and 6400+ OCed over 3.4 (mind you, these chips are slightly faster than yours, even at the same clocks due to the 2x1MB L2), and I also had an E6600 at 3.75GHz. The E6600 beat them in almost everything. The AMDs tied a couple and won 1 or 2, but the Intel pretty much made a clean sweep.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 4, 2008)

Wile E said:


> You don't meet or beat an E6600 OCed to 3.4. I had both a 6000+ and 6400+ OCed over 3.4 (mind you, these chips are slightly faster than yours, even at the same clocks due to the 2x1MB L2), and I also had an E6600 at 3.75GHz. The E6600 beat them in almost everything. The AMDs tied a couple and won 1 or 2, but the Intel pretty much made a clean sweep.



My 5600+ is clocked the same as a 6400+ at 3.4GHz, and has the same amount of Cache, 2x 1MB. And as you stated, an E6600 clocked at 3.75Ghz beat the 6400+ at 3.4GHz, that's a given, it's 350MHz faster... And as you also stated, the AMD's tied, or beat it in some cases and also cost less, yes? The Alcpone 3Dmark06 thread is a place to start. If my setup is so inferior, then why do I beat Q6600's, nevermind the E6600's, even with the same graphics card? I mean, after all... it was stated here earlier that Quad cores blow dual cores out of the water..


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 4, 2008)

No disrespect or hard fealings to any of you in this thread, I know most of you are all fairly intelligent. I'm not here to disown Intel, or AMD, or Nvidia, or ATI, just show real world facts. FPS> than any benchmark score. It's all about gaming, quality and performance, and in-game experience, not numbers. FPS and benchmarks are just a comparison on how your system should or will handle different games and applications, and how it will make your experience, although higher FPS makes for a better visual experience.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 4, 2008)

Bluefox1115 said:


> My 5600+ is clocked the same as a 6400+ at 3.4GHz, and has the same amount of Cache, 2x 1MB. And as you stated, an E6600 clocked at 3.75Ghz beat the 6400+ at 3.4GHz, that's a given, it's 350MHz faster... And as you also stated, the AMD's tied, or beat it in some cases and also cost less, yes? The Alcpone 3Dmark06 thread is a place to start. If my setup is so inferior, then why do I beat Q6600's, nevermind the E6600's, even with the same graphics card? I mean, after all... it was stated here earlier that Quad cores blow dual cores out of the water..


My bad, I misread your specs. Thought you had a 5*0*00+

And I also had a typo, the E6600 was at 3.*3*75GHz, not the 3.75 previously typed.

So no, your AMD does not meet the E6600 clocked to 3.4GHz.

And don't just look at the overall 3dmark score to compare. Go into ORB and look at just the cpu scores of Core2's clocked the same as yours. You lose, and by a significant margin. Of course you might be able to outpace a few Intel systems, but I bet those people didn't clock their cards or cpus as far as you. As far as 3Dmark06 cpu scores, it only took 2950MHz for my E6600 to beat my 3.4GHz AMD, with the same card and ram.

You really have no grounds to stand on, I've owned all the chips you just mentioned, and know this from first-hand experience.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 4, 2008)

I love Intel/NVidia branded applications like 3DMark. *cough* Optimized for? Yep. Also, yes Intels are faster. They use a FSB, where as AMD's do not, we use a reference clock in conjunction with a multiplier. Also, memory clocks higher, and so does the FSB on Intels, where as AMD's are kind of limited.. memory clocks and timings make a HUGE difference in the numbers.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 4, 2008)

Bluefox1115 said:


> I love Intel/NVidia branded applications like 3DMark. *cough* Optimized for? Yep. Also, yes Intels are faster. They use a FSB, where as AMD's do not, we use a reference clock in conjunction with a multiplier. Also, memory clocks higher, and so does the FSB on Intels, where as AMD's are kind of limited.. memory clocks and timings make a HUGE difference in the numbers.


That's a BS argument. Before Core2, AMD dominated these benchmarks. Don't pull out the conspiracy theory because you don't like the truth of the matter.

And technically, the fsb of the Intel is a disadvantage. AMD's HT link is much more efficient, as is their memory performance. Your argument is completely backwards.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 4, 2008)

compareResultId=2524014


For a processor that costs $83+ more than mine, it didn't beat me by much.. a mere 162 points and also has 4MB cache compared to my 2x1MB, and a memory speed anywhere from 1066MHZ to 1400MHZ, FSB anywhere from 1066 to 1400 compared to my HT and memeory of 1160MHZ. His higher clocked memory and FSB, and 2MB more cache make up for the 279MHz difference. 3201 to 3480.  355FSB vs 290Reference. 9xMulti vs 12xMulti. There's a difference between a 5000+ BE setup Clocked and Configured the same as mine, just because of the difference in cache, about 400points or so. I think it's a very good comparison.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 4, 2008)

And for the record, I never stated, quoted, or suggestion of any conspiracy theory. I'm not denying a Core 2 can beat an AMD, in benchmarks, or even games. I'm not denying or ignoring any thruth(s). Intels have more cache than any AMD, which makes a difference, they utilize way higher clocked ram than any AMD, which also makes a difference. Intel has better chips, yes, but most come at a price. This was never about Intel being the best or worst, the 3dMark06 record is held by an Intel, and this thread isn't even about benchmarks, but raw performance, noticeable to the naked eye.. I believe this whole thread was about cost comparison between the two companies and their performance similarities and differences?


----------



## Wile E (Mar 4, 2008)

What's your compare link? You state this stuff, but I don't have yours to compare to theirs.

And the bus speeds aren't the determining factor here. Take the E4400. 200fsb (800 in Intel speak) 10 multi and compare it to the 3800+ X2, that also runs on a 10multi and 200 bus speed. The E4400 mops the floor with it.

And again, just because the Intel may have ram running at a higher Mhz, doesn't mean it's faster in use than the AMD. It takes a lot less ram frequency from AMD to achieve the same memory performance as the Intel. Intel's design is actually a drawback, thus the reason they plan to move to their version of on-die controllers and HT called CSI, on the Bloomfield cpus.

As far as the price is concerned, that wasn't what we were discussing originally, we were discussing clock for clock performance. On the price front, you have to realize that E6600 was only being used as an example. It's EOL, so the newer chips are actually cheaper. So for the price vs price argument, the E4600 fits the bill. It even has the same bus speed and cache amount as your 5600+, and it's a dead even match to your chip in performance. Until you overclock both chips, that is. Then, as we all know, Intel takes the lead.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 4, 2008)

this is turning into fanboyism. stop before this is closed.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 4, 2008)

cdawall said:


> this is turning into fanboyism. stop before this is closed.



Sorry cd. I'm just stating facts.


----------



## candle_86 (Mar 4, 2008)

trog100 said:


> games like sup/com also benefit from faster core speeds as well as more cores.. it is becoming a bit of a boring bloody chestnut thow cos it is only one game and its guaranteed to get brought up..
> 
> controling all those ai units and weapons trajectories takes cpu power.. period.. but it is a one off..
> 
> ...



I can get CnC3 to lag on my system from CPU lag lol, i had 100 avatars all firing at the same time on a scrin base while my vertigos took care of there carriers, and right before the action started it was smooth as butter, as soon as that happened, the game crawled lol. 

Then again i can also make RA2 lag still, build 400 harriers and use them all at once, you will see what i mean lol


----------



## cdawall (Mar 4, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Sorry cd. I'm just stating facts.



haha and i agree currently C2D beats out AMD X2 by ~300mhz when you go clock for clock ie a E6850 and X2 6400 come pretty close to each other, but the e6850 takes the lead in most benches...still


----------



## candle_86 (Mar 4, 2008)

trog100 said:


> if a faster cpu gives a genuine increase in frame rates its down to one thing and one thing only.. a crap none gaming resolution is being used.. if a more gaming realistic resolution is being used the increase would not be there.. the system would be gpu limited..
> 
> 2006 is out of date its default resolution is too low.. it lies thru its f-cking teeth as does any other "gaming" cpu benchmark on the web..
> 
> ...



not quite, i noticed one hell of a diffrence between Sempron 3400 and x2 4200 in games like CSS, went from having 23FPS 16xAA 16xaf @ 12x10 to 98FPS average 16xaa 16xaf


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 4, 2008)

compareResultId=4495926


We all know Intels have greater headroom for OCing. It is a fact. It's also a fact and an earlier statement made by you that, AMD/Intel are about equal for gaming, which, is what the question posed by this thread is asking. Does the <b>playing field</b> level out somewhere? And the answer is YES. That's the fact.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 4, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> not quite, i noticed one hell of a diffrence between Sempron 3400 and x2 4200 in games like CSS, went from having 23FPS 16xAA 16xaf @ 12x10 to 98FPS average 16xaa 16xaf



cache size comes into play there you went from 256kb to 2x512kb which makes a huge difference


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 4, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> I can get CnC3 to lag on my system from CPU lag lol, i had 100 avatars all firing at the same time on a scrin base while my vertigos took care of there carriers, and right before the action started it was smooth as butter, as soon as that happened, the game crawled lol.
> 
> Then again i can also make RA2 lag still, build 400 harriers and use them all at once, you will see what i mean lol



Good comparison. No machine, not even the world record 3DMark06 Intel rig can own up to RA2's wrath. it all depends on the application coding.


----------



## candle_86 (Mar 4, 2008)

now to see if i can make CnC Gold lag


----------



## Wile E (Mar 4, 2008)

Bluefox1115 said:


> compareResultId=4495926
> 
> 
> We all know Intels have greater headroom for OCing. It is a fact. It's also a fact and an earlier statement made by you that, AMD/Intel are about equal for gaming, which, is what the question posed by this thread is asking. Does the <b>playing field</b> level out somewhere? And the answer is YES. That's the fact.


As far as purely gaming, then yes, it doesn't really matter unless you get the oddball situation were a couple of fps make the difference between playable and unplayable. I was taking your statement in more of a general sense, thus my response. Sorry about the misunderstanding.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 4, 2008)

No worries.. like I said before.. no hard feelings or disrespect to anyone in the thread... I saw the fanboy come out in everyone, even me. lol.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 4, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> now to see if i can make CnC Gold lag



LOL 

I miss playing RA2. Do they still have servers? and how do I get it to stop freezing or blowing up all my units in XP? lol


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 4, 2008)

So does anyone dare to rival my AM3 CPU score? Or how about my 3DMark05 CPU Score? LMAO


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 4, 2008)

omg!! what have i done, it was a simple quesiton, and could've been answered by a practically yes or no answer.  To be honest with you, i'm a budget gamer.  i chose amd way way way way way back in the k6-2 days which really isn't so long ago.  i stayed amd all the way into 2k4 where i decided to try a p4 and... i didn't like it, it wasn't even performance it was just not right, i didn't like the architecture, the quality of hardware to support the thing, the heat... oh god the heat.  so i played around for 6-8 months with it and then went on to other things.  Then there was the a64.  i remember the day i brought home my 3500 and packed in in my dfi nf4 sli-dr(god of all s939 oc'ing boards), i spent all my time at dfi-street tweaking the crap out of it and then i moved up to 4000 and hit 3.2Ghz and i was souped.  

and then there was the core 2... well yeah it's faster... shiny new chip sitting on the same old tech.. sure that same old tech is working out for it but hey i like the innovation amd offers.  the chipsets they shipped for it. just the at home feeling of and amd

and here i am today.  x2 5000 black edition-nothing to shake a fist at but it does the job. just popped in my 8800gts g92 and hit 770/1850/2130 without a hitch.  and my gaming... just the way i like it smooth as silk, pretty, and well it's cool.  after some small mods to my cpu's ihs i don't even hit 40 full bore with this baby.  not to many intel's can claim that, the voltage to get to 3.40Ghz 1.45 after vdroop.. not bad. and my video card shiny not even 24 hours old yet.. i know i haven't slept since i got it, chuggin away tearin up frames like there's no tomorrow.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 4, 2008)

you wanna know what's even better.  the dude above me bluefox, is a personal friend, and although a bit mislead sometimes. he means well.  he's doing alright with his rig, check the amd overclockers club, he leads in cpu scores that put him almost on par with many intel rigs.  but the real kicker is that at his 3.5Ghz mem at over 1100Mhz, and his gtx.  I can match and even beat his scores 150mhz less on my cpu and over 200Mhz less on my mem not to mention the conspiracy theorist himself the htt.  Even in the same brand, video cards make a difference. 

not enough people focus on them.  i got my card today and it's all video card now.  i just want my video card to go max with no issues.  and i'm gonna get there.  and my cpu will always stay as it is.  and when something better from amd comes around... well i'll move up to the next great thing.  that's that


----------



## trog100 (Mar 4, 2008)

i aint entirely sure whats its really worth but its a super pi score that shows up the difference between amd and intel.. my gently overclocked amd 6000+ at 3.350 managed 26 seconds... to 1 million digits.. 

my gently overclocked intel E8400 does it in 11 seconds... 

even as they come out of the box both at 3 gig the amd would be around 28 seconds the intel around 14 seconds.. twice the performance..

the intel will overclock by 50% the amd 15%..

we really are talking nearly a 150% performance lead intel has over amd in raw cpu power.. i am talking the fastest chips from both sides overclocked to their real potential..

the real problem being as time passes this silly lead intel has is getting larger.. its hidden in real life by other factors such as grafix cards and slow hardrives but from a pure cpu power point of view amd has lost the plot entirely..

sad but true.. out of the box 100%.. overclocked way more.. super pi has to mean something.. its what clinches the deal for me anyways.. a simple test of raw cpu power..

trog


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 4, 2008)

Geesh Dude - you are all over the place on this.





			
				BF1115 said:
			
		

> a few dollars more is quite a lot when you think about it and actually price it out. try and find an Intel board with a chipset that will supply communication to from CPU/Memory,etc, at the same rate and latency of an AMD, for about $150(including memory).


 Sorry Dude. But that's another BS argument, or you really don't know what you are talking about. When you talk money, that's economics, not performance. 

The question was, "is Intel really better?" The answer is "Yes." 

Does Intel cost more? Yes. But that was not the question. 

And yes, for a few dollars more "_upfront_", you can get better performance with an Intel package that, in the "_long-run_" consumes less kilowatts and over the life time of the "typical" PC (3 years), and places less demands on the home or facility cooling. 





> AMD= onchip memory controller= cheaper boards due to no need of a chipset to control memory,etc= better latencies/timings/speeds.


Oh come on! Not that old onchip controller crap again. This is one, one area where AMD made a better decision - but that one area is no where near enough to put AMD back in front of Intel - in terms of the "better" CPU. 

I like both, and build with both. And for my personal machines, I build depending on budget and purpose, not on brand loyalty (although I do like Gigabyte boards - ). Based on that, unless AMD does something unexpected in the next 6 months, my personal PCs will all be Intels. 





> No need to go and OC memory seperately, or not at all with AMD, it just does, unlike Intel.


So? You are just nitpicking. That has nothing to do with end result. 

You seem to feel CPUs are all about how much you can OC it.  Sorry, but that is a very limited, and minority, viewpoint. Most people, fortunately, do not OC. 





> It's all about gaming, quality and performance, and in-game experience, not numbers.


And then you say,





> So does anyone dare to rival my AM3 CPU score? Or how about my 3DMark05 CPU Score? LMAO


No. I'M LMAO!





> As for equality? Of course an Intel is going to beat an AMD, but with a higher price tag.


And isn't that what I said all along? Thanks for backing me up!


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 4, 2008)

seems to me trogg you're leaning away from the point as well.  the whole thread started about games.  you guys are terrible at staying on topic.  like horrible. it's almost sad.  if i bought a cpu to run superpi.. well this thread wouldn't exist probably.  yeah raw power.. ok... whatever... wow intel has raw power.... and this matters to high res gaming how much???  

Trog if you could, please show me how much 150% in raw cpu power over amd has made any game perform lets say... 150% less on an amd then on an intel??  not gonnna happen is it...

and answer this.. how many people bought their e8400's just to overclock??? because given the fact that intel's show up in almost all deskop store bought pc's and in notebooks doesn't seem like their selling point is "hey come to us our shit overclocks like there's not fucking tomorrow!!" 

another point... how much of intel's market is made up of "enthusiasts" such as yourself??

the most important part of anybody's gaming experience is one thing.  the end result.  How does the game play.  Does it lag? Is the framerate acceptable? Can it even handle the game?

The answer to all those questions is almost always a possitive answer. no it isn't laggy, framerates good, games runs smooth.  and i can bee on your e8400 that you preach so highly about or i could be on my 5000.  i played cod4 maxed out 1680x1050 and stayed around 80-91Fps the whole time (91 being the cap online), ut3 runs maxed out same rez without a hitch. wic runs fine as well high 40's almost maxed out. crysis even runs pretty good 50's for the most part.  

so you see the forums have a bias towards whatever is the latest and greatest, a couple years ago all the same talk was going around but it was about amd because they were the latest and greatest.  in fact i might even remember you here when i was just browsing the forums in 05 and maybe even before you were here in 04.  and now intel has the "latest and greatest" and the whole forum went back to intel.  it's just the way it is. people on the forums don't want what half the world settles for.  we want the best we can get.  and then there are those that stick with what they trust.  i hate intel like i said in a previous post.  they suck, always will, they'll never get my dollar.  and it's not because i think amd is better, it's because i don't like the company that intel is, and as a consumer i've got a right to chose.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 4, 2008)

@Billbright-you state you build systems, and i understand you're points and they're valid, but when was the last time you built a system?? your specs look about 2003-2004ish?? i'd suggest you put up a pie chart and provide proof because however right you may be this has gone beyong my original question and you've just joined the ranks of all the others who turned my valid thread into a flamewar... except you apparently don't even own a core 2??


----------



## Ravenas (Mar 4, 2008)

@ exodusprime: You state you're not trying to start a flame war, but the title of the post is "is intel really better then amd"...You're avatar looks like you might be an amd fanboy yourself. You make a topic like this and then you get pissed off when flame wars start? No point in trying to calm certain people down.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 4, 2008)

???

My bold added:



> @Billbright-you state you build systems, and *i understand you're points and they're valid*, but when was the last time you built a system??


My experiences go way beyond what I personally own - see the bio link in my sig - you can decide from there if (1) I'm who I say I am, and (2) if my words are worth anything. 


> *put up a pie chart and provide proof *because however right you may be this has gone beyong my original question and you've just joined the ranks of all the others who turned my valid thread into a flamewar


Sorry dude, but again a narrow vision of the issue. A single PC, whether mine, yours, or BF1115's proves nothing. There are ALWAYS exceptions. If you want to talk specifics, that would be for another thread. For the big picture, in terms of "performance, power consumption, and heat generation, Intel's is on top, and AMD has some serious catching up to do.

You are correct that my personal day-to-day PC is outdated - I am not a gamer, so this "Intel"  PC has, and still, serves me well - but it is near retirement, as I have been holding off for VistaSP1. But being in this business, I build new stuff all the time for clients, both AMD and Intels - though since the Core 2 Duos, not many AMDs. And when the client takes possession, they are not overclocked - unless, as in the case of "turbo" graphics cards, the board maker overclocks it.

No flames meant from me - if taken that way, I am sorry. As I said, I don't care which one is better, as long as AMD is still competing, we all win.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 4, 2008)

u miss my point exodus.. u also miss half what i write.. i mostly say amd is perfectly good for games that extra cpu power is wasted.. that its nearly all grafix card..

the thread title says is intel really better than amd..  do i buy a cpu just to run super pi.. no but yes.. he he he

intel has more cpu power than amd.. but it isnt really needed.. or even put to good use by most of us..

i tend to favour the little guy.. always have..  i dont like intel.. i dont like microsoft.. 

but amd is no longer any good for my e-penis.. this place is about my e-penis.. he he he

i aint even sure amd is cheaper any more.. intel can play with amd pricewise to their hearts content.. they have the upper hand in every respect..

i admire your loyalty dude.. but the rest of your argument dont hold water..

and sometimes in real life.. in fact mostly.. Goliath does flatten David.. he he

and from where i stand amd is well and truely f-cked..  Goliath has picked himself up and wacked the little upstart and will make sure from now on that it stays this way..

trog


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 4, 2008)

Both intel and amd have had there days at being the best end of story lol

Could be worse you could have bought a MAC


----------



## cdawall (Mar 4, 2008)

currently unless you have a massive budget or want a benchmark machine AMD*=*Intel in games and day to day activities, but when you start to oc the Intel machines embarrass the shit of the AMD chips not even the FX/BE chips can come close to the E6850 and thats not even the current flagship cpu from Intel. If you want a good machine and can't/wont oc get a top end AMD it is cheaper and holds its own at stock speeds. Now if you want to go around and show off your epenis be my guest spend the money and join the masses who have jumped to the Intel ship i am personally shooting for the underdog and will push the holy hell out of my $75 rig and keep up with most of you Intel owners. And i don't care who switches over just throw your old parts on TPU so i can buy them dirt cheap!


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 4, 2008)

trt740 said:


> okay if your getting 100+ frames what does 28 more do for you? Sorry Tatty I'm kinda picking on ya and a better comparison is a 6400+ and a e6850 because of price and on chip memory difference a 6000+ and a e6850 are not in the same range anymore. The 6400+ is still cheaper and comes very close inperformance because its clock is 200Mhz faster at stock, to make up for half the on chip memory and because it has a better memory controller than the e6850. Bang for the buck the 6400+ is a better chip aswell. Still in the future AMD is doomed as a CPU company if they don't pull a rabbit out of the hat. As a gpu company they are starting to kick into high gear 3870x2 might save AMD. Plus they are getting innovatives as hell example onboard GPU that can run crossfire with a added on card how cool is that. Remember this comes from a ultra AMD fan boy Me.



Lol your only looking at it from one angle, lets forget about the 100fps a second and think about Crysis, lets suppose you are struggling to get 25fps with a C2d @ 3.6gig, do you think an AMD would match that 25fps???  Crysis is very GPU dependant but if CPU is bottlenecking your GPU before it even starts to render then the system is struggling even more.......remember just how good your 2900XT was with a good CPU behind it?

Your comment about price is irrelivant, the OP did not talk about price, he simply asked which is better (not whats the best bang for buck.....thats another story), the facts show clearly that graphic cards powered by a 3gig C2D run generally much faster than if they are run by an AMD dual core CPU at 3gig.......from what my eyes see....there is no disputing that.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 4, 2008)

> Lol your only looking at it from one angle, lets forget about the 100fps a second and think about Crysis, lets suppose you are struggling to get 25fps with a C2d @ 3.6gig, do you think an AMD would match that 25fps??? Crysis is very GPU dependant but if CPU is bottlenecking your GPU before it even starts to render then the system is struggling even more.......remember just how good your 2900XT was with a good CPU behind it?



tatty my friend u are "assuming" again.. u havnt played crysis on an amd machine and compared it to an intel machine.. 

i have done exactly this.. take my work for it.. crysis struggles at 27 fps on high settings with an intel machine just like it struggles at 27 fps on high with an amd machine.. there isnt any noticeable difference.. 

crysis is well and truely grafix card limited at 27 fps.. fact..

trog


----------



## mandelore (Mar 4, 2008)

a recent review was comparing phenom to qx6700, the phenom actually got higher fps at higher resolutions


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 4, 2008)

> -MB-Evga 680i
> -RAM-2x1gig crucial 1066... not sure on timings
> -sound card: creative xfi extreme gamer
> -Video card (for clarity): evga 8800gts320
> ...



exodusprime1337,

Are either of you OC'ing your video card or are they both at stock?

Also what games do you both play?


Seems like my previous post about this got buried in this thread.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 4, 2008)

trog100 said:


> tatty my friend u are "assuming" again.. u havnt played crysis on an amd machine and compared it to an intel machine..
> 
> i have done exactly this.. take my work for it.. crysis struggles at 27 fps on high settings with an intel machine just like it struggles at 27 fps on high with an amd machine.. there isnt any noticeable difference..
> 
> ...



Your asssuming I am assuming and you would be wrong in that assumption, please remember I still have my old S939 Athlon 4000 on an Epox 9NPA NF4 ultra+ mobo, with 2gigs of Kingston HyperX PC3200 and a palit 1gb 8800GT, although my oldest daughter has it ATM cause her laptop went lava and let me tell you now, although I can only speak for the demo version but at max detail with AA enabled on 16xx x 10xx there is only one of the 2 machines that can even get a choppy FPS, the other one collapses, although funnilly enuff the AMD is clocked at 3.1gig and my quad at 3.6gig.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 4, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> @ exodusprime: You state you're not trying to start a flame war, but the title of the post is "is intel really better then amd"...You're avatar looks like you might be an amd fanboy yourself. You make a topic like this and then you get pissed off when flame wars start? No point in trying to calm certain people down.





no maybe not, actually the avatar is all about the 2 girls really.  and no i wasn't trying to start a flamewar.  I asked a valid question and supported it with my own experience and was trying to work out an issue my roomate was having with his computer.... and that question was answered way back on pg 1 of this thread and it's still going on, except none of you are contributing to my situation?? so no i'm not trying to start a flamewar, but you sir appear to be supporting it.


----------



## Ravenas (Mar 4, 2008)

exodusprime1337 said:


> no maybe not, actually the avatar is all about the 2 girls really.  and no i wasn't trying to start a flamewar.  I asked a valid question and supported it with my own experience and was trying to work out an issue my roomate was having with his computer.... and that question was answered way back on pg 1 of this thread and it's still going on, except none of you are contributing to my situation?? so no i'm not trying to start a flamewar, but you sir appear to be supporting it.



I'm not in support of it, just telling you why it's happening. I tried to comment on your post, as did various others, but you keep telling us that we are just off topic and not talking about what you are. Maybe a better approach would be to reword, clearly, what you are trying to say. "is intel really better then amd" sparks a fire in some people.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 4, 2008)

God I love AMD all this talk makes me want my old 939 opty 170 , DDr500 redline, X850Xt,and my ever lovin DFI ultra D. The darkside pulled me in and now Intel has me Ahhhhhhh!!!!! I'm intels bitch this is worse than crack Ahhhhhh!!!!!! I'm so ashamed


----------



## trog100 (Mar 4, 2008)

tatty dude i am assuming u are assuming simply because u are wrong.. u wouldnt knowingly give false info now would u.. he he

okay lets say any game needs xxx cpu power to work.. but a decent amd cpu has that power.. either amd or intel could lack the power to run todays games if u go far enough down the scale or far enough back in time.. 

my comparison was with an uptodate fast amd system and and uptodate fast intel system.. the amd system was a 6000+ clocked at 3.35 gig with four gigs of ram.. one 3870 grafix card

the intel system E6750 clocked at 3.6 gig with 4 gigs of ram.. one 3870 grafix card.. 

both systems did an equally bad job of playing crysis at high setting.. no discernible differences.. the games benches pulled the same kinda figures with both systems..

my current intel cpu at 4 gig still pulls the same figures with one card.. however i now get a 20% gain with two cards in crossfire..  crysis at gaming resolutions is well and truely grafix card limited..

i still got the same figures with one of my cores switched off.. about 27 fps..

i swapped from my amd system i had only just put together for one main reason..  amd wasnt very good at playing the benchmark game.. he he.. but then again neither would a slower intel system be..

as for the magic 2006 the amd system was good for about 11000 my current  intel system about 13000.. however if the resolution was bumped up and some AA fed in both systems would be very similar except for a small gain in the cpu score.. 2006 would become grafix card limited like it was when it first came out..

with 2005 with its even lower resolution  the amd system pulled 17000 my current intel system pulls 23000 with one card

but again if the resolution was bumped up high (in my case 1680 x 1050) and some AA and AF fed in both systems would score roughly the same in 2005.. 

this really is all about resolutions.. go high enough and intel or amd it  dosnt matter.. 

trog


----------



## warhammer (Mar 4, 2008)

trog100 and tatty one I have Q6600 have benched crysis @3.6 and @3.0 Its all GPU FPS is about the same.


benchmark score of CPUs:QX6850,QX9650,Phenom X4.

http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29/1193590532d6599.html


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 4, 2008)

trog100 said:


> tatty dude i am assuming u are assuming simply because u are wrong.. u wouldnt knowingly give false info now would u.. he he
> 
> okay lets say any game needs xxx cpu power to work.. but a decent amd cpu has that power.. either amd or intel could lack the power to run todays games if u go far enough down the scale or far enough back in time..
> 
> ...



Yep we agree on that but where you say a game needs xxx cpu power to run, which of course they do as they list a CPU in a games recommended specs, I am also saying, seperate to the game running, a GPU, to work at it's full potential needs an effective CPU to throughput the info, in an intensive game with a powerful gfx card, the CPU has to be sufficient to cope with the pace of the GPU otherwise you get that bottlenecking effect, now that element is not directly software related as in the game, but hardware related as in the ability to process the mass of information that system is crunching in order to keep up.

I hear what your saying about most "modern" CPU's have the power to keep up and I dont deny that, but I am sure, to varying degrees.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 5, 2008)

tatty

no i dont know the point where one takes over from the other.. but it is frame rate controled.. with two factors involved.. one is the cpu power required to run the games ai.. the other is the cpu power required to feed the grafix card..

back in the old days when i had an 850 card and 2005 was the bench it scored about 6500 i could mess with my cpu speed take it down to the sandys 2.4 gig.. or take it up to 3 gig.. it made no real difference to the 2005 score.. it was a pure grafix card bench..

when i swapped to my 1900xtx.. cpu speeds did make a big difference.. 2.4 gig produced 9000-ish 3 gig produced 10500..

which is why future mark used to update their grafix card bench every so often.. so at whatever fps produced a score of 6500 and whatever fps produced the 10000 score.. things changed from being entirely grafix card limited to part grafix card and part cpu..

now if the 2005 resolution was raised to drop the score and the frame rates down to 6000 again with the 1900xtx card.. the cpu speed changes would not have made the difference.. back to square one a pure grafix card bench again..

i recon frame rates below 60 are not cpu affected or at least not much.. once they start to go up over 60 the cpu starts to limit things as well as the grafix card and a faster cpu will give higher fps.. but they are wasted increases..

200 frames per minute can be turned into 300 frames per minute by a faster intel system..  a benchmark for example.. but this dont translate down to turn 20 frames per minute into 30 frames per minute.. at those fps we are back to making no difference.. 

trog

ps.. one current example i can give.. a 2005 example.. one card scores 23000.. two cards score 25000.. the cards are well and truely limited by my intel cpu at 4 gig at the 2005 default resolution.. i could raise the benches resolution and chuck in some AA.. the score would still be around 25000 with two cards.. one card would drop right off thow.. a faster cpu would boost the default resolution score.. another grafix card wouldnt.. he he


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Mar 5, 2008)

Yeah this is rediculous. THEY ARE EQUAL WHEN NOT OVERCLOCKED! and yes Intel overclocks more, I think Ethiopians even know that. And where did the Quad cores come into play here? there was no mention of them and all of a sudden bullets are flying back and forth about quads, dual cores, amd, intel, me you, that other guy in the corner. END THE WAR, STFU, AND JUST GO GAME. Kthnxbye


----------



## mandelore (Mar 5, 2008)

ROOOARGH!

nuff said.

Now play nicely


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 5, 2008)

> THEY ARE EQUAL WHEN NOT OVERCLOCKED!


Oh? Please, show us a legitimate review site that claims that "AMD = Intel" (unless overclocked). I would be really interested in reading that.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 5, 2008)

Still looking for an answer to my questions


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 5, 2008)

Theres so much software to compare both cpus against you'll never get to the answer.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 5, 2008)

Bill_Bright said:


> Oh? Please, show us a legitimate review site that claims that "AMD = Intel" (unless overclocked). I would be really interested in reading that.



They are equal when not overclocked if the Amd chip has say 400 MHz stock over the intel chip. Then that statement would be about right example e6600 or e6700 and 6000+. In some benches the 6000+ will win and in most will come close. Most of the time intel will win between 5 and 15 percent faster at stock. However, if AMD is lighting fast and Intel is lightning fast plus 15 percent, then both chips are still lightning fast so who really cares unless your benching.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 5, 2008)

we all have more cpu power than we need so in many ways it dosnt matter. .. but clock for clock amd and intel are far from equal..

if price for price they are equal its down to one thing and one thing only..  intel offer crippled intel chips to match amd prices and performance.. 

having just owned an amd 6000+ chip clocked at 3 gig and now owning an intel chip that comes clocked at 3 gig i dont see much equality.. 

i see one doing a super pi run in 28 seconds the other doing the same work in 14 seconds.. both not overlcocked.. 

i see one cpu out performing the other cpu by a factor of 100 f-cking percent.. 

i also see a whole bunch of sad amd supporters who just wont (cant) see the truth no matter how plainly its pointed out to em..

am i an intel fanboy.. no just a realist..

trog


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 5, 2008)

> i also see a whole bunch of sad amd supporters who just wont (cant) see the truth no matter how plainly its pointed out to em


The sad thing is, these CPUs, they are inanimate objects, with no political ties. Brand loyalty is fine, but if something better comes along, see ya! Over the years, I've done that with McAfee, Norton, ZoneAlarm, ATI, jobs, the X and Ford. With _my_ computer, I can swap out my Intel motherboard/CPU for an AMD motherboard/CPU, and I can swap out my NVIDIA card for an AMD/ATI card, and I can switch from cable to DSL, but once I get my desktop, programs, email, and monitors setup the way I want, it is still _my_ computer - with everything where I expect it, including all my data, favorites/bookmarks, contacts, taxes, email, going as far back as my first PC, a Gateway 486DX in 1993.

And besides, folks, lets get real here too - for games, it's more about graphics horsepower than CPU horsepower. 





trt740 said:


> However, if AMD is lighting fast and Intel is lightning fast plus 15 percent, then both chips are still lightning fast so who really cares unless your benching.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 5, 2008)

warhammer said:


> trog100 and tatty one I have Q6600 have benched crysis @3.6 and @3.0 Its all GPU FPS is about the same.
> 
> 
> benchmark score of CPUs:QX6850,QX9650,Phenom X4.
> ...



Thanks very much, but the point was, if you had an AMD S939 running at 3gig you would get a few FPS less (I think) than a Q6600 running at 3gig, as the thread title goes.....is Intel better than AMD?

Trog thinks otherwise but he did state a "modern" AMD, I cannot vouch for that, I said my old S939 4000+ gave less FPS with the same graphics card runing at the same speed, maybe a AM2 6000+ at 3gig would give the same as the Intel.....IDK.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 5, 2008)

trog100 said:


> tatty
> 
> no i dont know the point where one takes over from the other.. but it is frame rate controled.. with two factors involved.. one is the cpu power required to run the games ai.. the other is the cpu power required to feed the grafix card..
> 
> ...



So what if you are playing a game with a low end card that cannot get near to 60fps???


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 5, 2008)

Bluefox1115 said:


> Yeah this is rediculous. THEY ARE EQUAL WHEN NOT OVERCLOCKED! and yes Intel overclocks more, I think Ethiopians even know that. And where did the Quad cores come into play here? there was no mention of them and all of a sudden bullets are flying back and forth about quads, dual cores, amd, intel, me you, that other guy in the corner. END THE WAR, STFU, AND JUST GO GAME. Kthnxbye



They are not equal when not overclocked, mhz for mhz the C2D is 20% faster...check my post and the link at post 27 and look at the AMD 6000+ and the E6850 both stocked at 3gig.....no overclocks.

To be fair.....the E6850 is a lot more pricey, but the title of the tread did not mention "bang for buck".

Now if like Trt you said, if the stock clocks of an AMD were some 400+mhz higher than the stock clocks of a C2D then the AMD would be as fast.....yup no probs!  but again, the title of the thread does not say that.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 5, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> So what if you are playing a game with a low end card that cannot get near to 60fps???



if the gaming problem is low frame rates (by low i mean less than 40 fps) and u have a decent amd system intel aint gonna help in the slightest.. a faster cpu will not make a poor graifx card game better.. 

in crysis it wont make a bloody top end grafix card game better either..

trog


----------



## trt740 (Mar 5, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Lol your only looking at it from one angle, lets forget about the 100fps a second and think about Crysis, lets suppose you are struggling to get 25fps with a C2d @ 3.6gig, do you think an AMD would match that 25fps???  Crysis is very GPU dependant but if CPU is bottlenecking your GPU before it even starts to render then the system is struggling even more.......remember just how good your 2900XT was with a good CPU behind it?
> 
> Your comment about price is irrelivant, the OP did not talk about price, he simply asked which is better (not whats the best bang for buck.....thats another story), the facts show clearly that graphic cards powered by a 3gig C2D run generally much faster than if they are run by an AMD dual core CPU at 3gig.......from what my eyes see....there is no disputing that.



Ah Tatty may your nutts be infected with the larva of 1000 flees LOL  Also when it comes to money nothing is irrelavant. 

I hate it when hes right damn Britts


----------



## trt740 (Mar 5, 2008)

*I say it again*



trt740 said:


> God I love AMD all this talk makes me want my old 939 opty 170 , DDr500 redline, X850Xt,and my ever lovin DFI ultra D. The darkside pulled me in and now Intel has me Ahhhhhhh!!!!! I'm intels bitch this is worse than crack Ahhhhhh!!!!!! I'm so ashamed



 Ahhh  Intel has me


----------



## trt740 (Mar 5, 2008)

trog100 said:


> we all have more cpu power than we need so in many ways it dosnt matter. .. but clock for clock amd and intel are far from equal..
> 
> if price for price they are equal its down to one thing and one thing only..  intel offer crippled intel chips to match amd prices and performance..
> 
> ...




Gee trog thats only one test WOW!!!  and your chip costs about 70.00 to 90.00 more than a 6400+ . Try running at test with floating point a 6400+ will kill a similar C2d chip ( yours is not a good example since it has 3 times the on chip memory). Also a 6400+ will multitask in vista better aswell. AMD chips are hardly slow. In some types of audio converstion AMD chips are faster clocked the same.  In science mark 2.0 AMD chips regularly beat C2D chips clocked the same or even overclocked higher. Intel is not faster in everything with similar chips. AMD chips are fine for gaming and everyday use.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 5, 2008)

trt740 said:


> Gee trog thats only one test WOW!!!  and your chip costs about 70.00 to 90.00 more than a 6400+ . Try running at test with floating point a 6400+ will kill a similar C2d chip ( yours is not a good example since it has 3 times the on chip memory). Also a 6400+ will multitask in vista better aswell. AMD chips are hardly slow. In some types of audio converstion AMD chips are faster clocked the same.  In science mark 2.0 AMD chips regularly beat C2D chips clocked the same or even overclocked higher. Intel is not faster in everything with similar chips. AMD chips are fine for gaming and everyday use.



kinda have to agree especially since SP is a know intel bench...


----------



## Mussels (Mar 5, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Thanks very much, but the point was, if you had an AMD S939 running at 3gig you would get a few FPS less (I think) than a Q6600 running at 3gig, as the thread title goes.....is Intel better than AMD?
> 
> Trog thinks otherwise but he did state a "modern" AMD, I cannot vouch for that, I said my old S939 4000+ gave less FPS with the same graphics card runing at the same speed, maybe a AM2 6000+ at 3gig would give the same as the Intel.....IDK.



yes.

For those interested, check mini 2.0 in my sig - an AMD FX 62 @ 2.8GHz got the EXACT same score in 3dm05 as a Q6600 @ 2.4GHz.

AMD are slower per clock, if not by a huge amount on the 1MB cache models.
Phenom is slower than A64 per clock.

Effectively, you need between 250 to 500MHz over an intel for AMD to be equal - but the intels OC 1GHz plus while the AMD's are lucky to get 300MHz. some AMD's OC better than others (black edition most notably) but if you're picking the best AMD, pick the best intel and compare it to the new 45nm chips that do 4GHz+ on air cooling.

Summary: Intel is faster per clock, AND overclocks higher.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 6, 2008)

Mussels said:


> yes.
> 
> For those interested, check mini 2.0 in my sig - an AMD FX 62 @ 2.8GHz got the EXACT same score in 3dm05 as a Q6600 @ 2.4GHz.
> 
> ...



so your saying put a 1,100.00 chip against a 180.00 chip and thats fair.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2008)

trt740 said:


> so your saying put a 1,100.00 chip against a 180.00 chip and thats fair.



... i'm sorry, what? i never mentioned quad cores, intel has lots of dual core 45nm chips out on the market. THere may be shortages on some models, but they certainly are for sale at decent prices.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 6, 2008)

In basics, neither is better than the other.

Need some budget gaming and barely any overclock? Go with AMD. Do alot of photo/video editing and don't mind tinkering with overclocking? Go with Intel. Just my opinion here, anything modern will work beautifully.


----------



## blkhogan (Mar 6, 2008)

trt740 said:


> They are equal when not overclocked if the Amd chip has say 400 MHz stock over the intel chip. Then that statement would be about right example e6600 or e6700 and 6000+. In some benches the 6000+ will win and in most will come close. Most of the time intel will win between 5 and 15 percent faster at stock. However, if AMD is lighting fast and Intel is lightning fast plus 15 percent, then both chips are still lightning fast so who really cares unless your benching.



Love it!  this sums it all up in plain english. I am personally an AMD person have been from about 1992 when i got my first system. I do know even being an AMD supporter that Intel does have the edge in the clock vs clock speed race most all the time. I choose AMD because they have been good to me over the years. They make a quality product (most of the time.... stupid phenom crap) for a resonable price range.  The intel vs AMD wars will never end unless one of them fell off the face of the earth.  I compare it to the age old Ford vs Chevy arguments you hear year after year. I use AMD because I choose to its that simple. If you like Intel then you'll use Intel.

-Hogan


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2008)

what you quoted from TRT740 is also backed up by the benchies i did and mentioned before.
the AMD had a 400MHz lead, and it was exactly the same performance.

I only changed to intel, because i've had shit all luck with OCing AMD. even with the best of hardware, the CPU's never did that well (i could never break 2.5GHz on any AMD chip i tried) yet with the same PSU/similar cooling, i can do 3.5GHz+ on intel... for a LOT more performance.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 6, 2008)

so if we totally ignore the 100% lead intel has over amd in doing a super pi run.. which by the way isnt intel biased.. two years ago amd did it qulcker.. take a look back in the super pi thread.. 

what the f-ck do we use to test cpu power..

we cant use games cos they are grafix card limited..  

we cant use anything that shifts data cos thats hardrive limited..

back to square one.. we have more cpu power than we can use..

but its hard to convince me that i got rid of my "equal" amd system for nothing thow..  he he he

and if cpu power isnt worth anything why did i upgrade to a better amd sytem in the first place..???

in fact why the hell do any of us bother overclocking cpus.. its quite clear the extra power  dosnt matter in the slightest.. he he he..

trog

ps.. they do say irony is wasted on an american.. he he


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2008)

trog100 said:


> so if we totally ignore the 100% lead intel has over amd in doing a super pi run.. which by the way isnt intel biased.. two years ago amd did it qulcker.. take a look back in the super pi thread..
> 
> what the f-ck do we use to test cpu power..
> 
> ...



too many paragraphs... bleh.

I use superpi to test overclocks. compare stock to OC'd to see if the systems faster, comparing AMD to intel isnt worth it. I found 3dmark 05 to be good to see if a CPU is faster or not, unfortunately its not multithreaded.

To be honest, i just judge it from personal experience - thats why i buy or borrrow at least one CPU from each generation to get a feel for how they run. The only exceptions atm being intels Extreme series (expensive), amd phenom (LAME) and AMD black edition (no AM2 boards atm)


----------



## blkhogan (Mar 6, 2008)

I like your view on it Mussels. Get one of each and try it for yourself. That sounds like a great idea will have to do that from here on out.  
AMD is fighting a up hill battle to say the least when it comes to catching up with Intel right now. AMD doesnt seem to be thinking straight right now... case and point the "Phenom". My god what a gaggle F*k that is right now. Come on atleast test the crap before sending it out to the public. No, they throw some more transisters on some silicon give it a fancy trade name and call it a quadcore just because Intel is doing it.  They would have been better off holding it back and doing more T&R on it and released it at a later date. Yes they would be behind the cutting edge that Intel holds, but it might have neted themselves a better responce to thier product. As it stands right now the "Phenom" is a joke in the tech world and its their own fault. 

-Hogan


----------



## cdawall (Mar 6, 2008)

Mussels said:


> what you quoted from TRT740 is also backed up by the benchies i did and mentioned before.
> the AMD had a 400MHz lead, and it was exactly the same performance.
> 
> I only changed to intel, because i've had shit all luck with OCing AMD. even with the best of hardware, the CPU's never did that well (i could never break 2.5GHz on any AMD chip i tried) yet with the same PSU/similar cooling, i can do 3.5GHz+ on intel... for a LOT more performance.



really 2.5ghz even i have broken that not using bus locks  you need more volts


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 6, 2008)

I think this topic needs to come to a close lol its clearly getting no where. End of the day we all use our systems for our own things wever its gaming /surfing the web / music etc. as long as it meets your own personal requirements with satisfaction does it really matter?


----------



## AsRock (Mar 6, 2008)

Armed Assault is another game that requires a lot of CPU it's take what it can get even more so with the dedicated server side of it.

From my 3800 x2 i could of waited another year and been ok considering what gains i got in some games even at 4.0GHz.  But i am sure more use will come soon when never games come out when when i get Crysis which is not worth $50 to me at this time lol.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 6, 2008)

interesting how these threads work.. it runs for six posts which say it all.. your god is better than my god.. blah blah blah.. okay guys everbodies god is okay.. follow whichever one suits u..

all said and done in six posts.. then it starts all over again.. new folks join the thread read the last couple of posts and off we go again for another six post argument.. so what stops it.. running out of newcomers i recon.. he he he

trog


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 6, 2008)

trt740 said:


> Gee trog thats only one test WOW!!!  and your chip costs about 70.00 to 90.00 more than a 6400+ . Try running at test with floating point a 6400+ will kill a similar C2d chip ( yours is not a good example since it has 3 times the on chip memory). Also a 6400+ will multitask in vista better aswell. AMD chips are hardly slow. In some types of audio converstion AMD chips are faster clocked the same.  In science mark 2.0 AMD chips regularly beat C2D chips clocked the same or even overclocked higher. Intel is not faster in everything with similar chips. AMD chips are fine for gaming and everyday use.



Lol, not that old chessnut again!   You mention 2 calculations/processes, what about the other 35 it dont win at?  And yes I agree, I too have come from the light to have me doughnuts gripped by Intels Darkside, and the fact is it's so hard to get those dark steely hands off yer doughnuts once they are firmly in the dark hands grip 



cdawall said:


> kinda have to agree especially since SP is a know intel bench...



So why then less than 2 years ago was the top 10 places in the thread all held by AMD?....but that was of course before the C2D arrived   In fact i held first place for quite a while 



trog100 said:


> if the gaming problem is low frame rates (by low i mean less than 40 fps) and u have a decent amd system intel aint gonna help in the slightest.. a faster cpu will not make a poor graifx card game better..
> 
> in crysis it wont make a bloody top end grafix card game better either..
> 
> trog



Very true!  It just get's to the point where it is useless, so I start playin around with folk, a nasty trait of mine


----------



## trog100 (Mar 6, 2008)

> Very true!  It just get's to the point where it is useless, so I start playin around with folk, a nasty trait of mine



i gathered that dude.. i piss folks off without trying really trying.. on one UK forum i had a whole bunch of em wanting my "addy" so as they could come round and pay me a night time visit.. being as the plonkers were only forty odd miles away i made a strategic withdrawal.. 

taught me a lesson that.. 3000 miles of water tween me and the protagonists is a godsend.. he he he he

trog


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> So why then less than 2 years ago was the top 10 places in the thread all held by AMD?....but that was of course before the C2D arrived   In fact i held first place for quite a while



and back then, everyone said it was a known AMD bench because of AMD's onboard memory controller...

its really, really obvious: at floating point AMD has a power per clock advantage, but at everything else intel whups its ass.

people can argue all day long about theoretical stuff, but the simple version is this: most people choose the best hardware for the job, after deciding themselves - and on this forum thats turned out to be core 2 duo/quad. Lots of hardcore AMD people (including myself) switched to intel because it offered a lot better performance.

one argument that keeps cropping up that annoys me is that intels C2Q is a 'fake' or 'sticky taped' quad core, while the phenom is a 'TRUE' quad core, and therefore phenom has better performance.
To be honest thats a retarded argument. if it needs ALL four cores at 100% to match a core 2 with all 4 cores at 100%, its screwed on todays market where most apps barely use dual core. The few apps it would help with (encoding/compressing) intel has the advantage anyway, so it ends up about even... but with the phenom slower for single/dual core tasks (the majority)


----------



## Bill_Bright (Mar 11, 2008)

Interesting, and timely is Tom's Hardware article *AMD Triple Core Phenom, 2/28/08*. I note the following extracts:





> Who knows where processors would be today if Intel had not had its wall back to the wall with the Pentium 4 facing fast and efficient competition from the Athlon 64 family between 2003 and 2006...
> 
> Phenom is not capable of competing with Intel's Core 2 Quad processors at current clock speeds of only up to 2.3 GHz.
> 
> ...



And from *Tom's Hardware AMD CPU Efficiency, 1/30/08*:





> If you want to go for an AMD processor, the Athlon X2 or Athlon 64 X2 still are the most reasonable choices. These processors are affordable - some are even downright cheap - and they still deliver sufficient performance. Enthusiasts with a demand for high performance under threaded workloads should look instead for a Phenom (once the B3 stepping is available) or Intel's Core 2 processor family, which still is the champion when it comes to performance, and often the leader in performance per watt as well.


----------

