gaming performance intel vs. amd cpus

[aedipuss]

http://techreport.com/articles.x/23246

[jagabo]

Nothing new here. Intel is at the top in performance and price. AMD is at the bottom in performance and is priced accordingly.

[FulciLives]

I thought AMD was very good at multi-threading applications outside of games ... for instance video encoding or compiling of software etc.

[jagabo]

Intel's better IPC usually makes up for the difference in core count of similarly priced AMD CPUs. There are a cases where AMD with more cores is faster. For example, the second pass of x264 encoding is faster on a AMD Phenom II X6 1100T (8 cores, 8 threads) than the similarly priced Intel Core i5 2500K (four cores, four threads). Both were good mid-range processors selling for around US$200 a year ago.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/compare,2421.html?prod[4757]=on&prod[4789]=on

Or, a more recent comparison, the AMD FX-8150 (8 core, 8 thread) and the Core i5 3470 (4 core, 4 thread), both currently around US$200:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5871/intel-core-i5-3470-review-hd-2500-graphics-tested
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i5-3470-Ivy-Bridge-Processor-and-HD.../Media-Encodin

If you add in the time it takes to perform the first pass of those two-pass encodes the results are much closer.

Basically, Intel rules the top in both price and performance. AMD is competitive in the middle and lower range where they price their CPUs a few dollars less than equivalent Intel processors. AMD has no choice. If they charged more nobody would buy them. If the charged less they would be leaving money on the table.

[fritzi93]

That article is disappointing in that it merely confirms Intel's dominance. Not that I care about gaming, but it seems that gaming benchmarks sell processors. And AMD is getting marginalized into the niche jagabo spoke of.

Those of us who care about x264 encoding speeds are in a decided minority. When I built this machine, a Phenom II x6 was pretty much tops for multi-threaded encoding speed, *at its price*, and taking account of the price of compatible motherboards. It's been more than satisfactory.

It just seems like AMD has stood still ever since. Too bad.

[jman98]

It just seems like AMD has stood still ever since. Too bad.

AMD is stuck in a game where the rules are stacked against them and they cannot ever win. You might as well complain about Linux being unable to dethrone Microsoft.

AMD lacks Intel's financial resources. Among non-techies, which is the majority of the human population, there are some issues at work that favor Intel.
1) There is a general perception that Intel is 100% fantastic and their "competitor" (few people could even name AMD if their lives depended on it) makes cheap ass junk that only suckers buy. My best friend knows almost nothing about PCs except (barely) how to use them and he is convinced that ONLY Intel makes a quality product.
2) Even with the infamous Pentium bug, very few consumers were willing to try other processors even though those did not have the bug.
3) Even when AMD absolutely obliterated Intel some years ago with the x64 architecture and Intel's original plan was as big a technology failure as the industry has ever seen, AMD was unable to maintain its share in business sales. Intel had the financial resources to dump an entire processor line as a failure (an ENTIRE line!) and rebuild from ground 0 following AMD's model. They suffered absolutely no ills effects from this in the marketplace once they caught up.
4) Intel's greater resources mean that the vast majority of the time they will be the technology leader and AMD will be playing catch up. Every now and then AMD will get lucky with a guess and take the lead (see #3) but it won't last (also see #3).
5) AMD's loss of the Apple contract reinforced the perception by non-techies that they make cheap junk and aren't a quality producer of CPUs. This 10% or so of the computer buying public that are Apple users are permanently removed from the class of possible AMD users simply as a result of this. Speculation is that AMD lost the job to Intel because AMD lacked the ability to scale up to the level that Apple needed in a supplier.
6) To try to mitigate Intel's lead, AMD gambled that buying ATI was going to set them apart from Intel and lead to increased sales. They lost this gamble and frankly didn't really have the money to buy ATI in the first place. Paying off that debt has handicapped them to where they can't really afford to do the R&D necessary to ever have a chance to regain the technology lead. Their gamble on hybrid CPU/GPU chips hasn't really worked out like they thought it would.

Intel is like Microsoft in that no matter how much they screw up, the marketplace will never hold them accountable and they've got the money to just shrug it off and start over.

[RabidDog]

For TCO (total cost of ownershop) tho the cost is much nearer, as AMD mobos tend to be cheaper and/or better stacked for the same price.
I would agree that AMD gambled buying ATI, but really there was no other option for them to get the gfx knowledge they needed. Intel not only scrapped a CPU line they scrapped a whole gfx line which ended with larrabee, their contender for the gfx crown, which was a flop. They did learn from that and now their CPU's sport gfx whigh are getting better and better with every iteration. the writing is really on the wall for low and midlle range gfx cards, as that will be totally covered by Integrated gfx within two to three yaers.
As to gamong perf, which Cpu you have is almost irrelevant. a few FPS here and there, but the GPU makes a helluva difference.

[mammo1789]

Yes it looks like the fight of David and Goliath, but if you forgot AMD first brake the 1ghz barrier and in that time had more advanced and "better" processors than Intel and it is because of the trust of the investors that amd didn't end up like 3dfx and similar companies so money did came in the right time for them in those years( although not yet as much as Intel).purchase of ATI was big gamble but Intel still doesn't have answer in that field even close ( except in cheap laptops), and AMD is shoulder to shoulder with Nvidia ( in discrete graphics market Intel is not even close ) so is not so bad as it seems.

And most important thing is that average joe doesn't decide the battle, but the big corporations and US government and their firms and contractors, which almost exclusively use this 2 brands ( Microsoft and Intel). That is where the big money come from not from average consumers. The marketing is also the key figure in capitalism ( which is bullshit) and not the quality of the products, you see some celebrity that hears his/hers music on Ipod ( overrated too expensive average fancy mp3 player) and you want to buy it and so as your friend and relatives and so on and so on.

I read some couple of years ago that in this world you don't choose your own clothing ( even if it looks that way ) but the biggest designers and fashion houses do that for you, you are just another "pig" ready for slaughter.

That being sad AMD has some pretty good products and has been pioneer in many things before its competitors.

[mammo1789]

As to gamong perf, which Cpu you have is almost irrelevant. a few FPS here and there, but the GPU makes a helluva difference.

I must agree partially although Intel wants to show that its processors rule for gaming the truth is that in lower resolutions ( today that includes even full hd 1920x1080 ) the cpu doesn't make so much difference as gpu does, but in bigger resolutions and more "complex" games cpu does matter

[yoda313]

but it seems that gaming benchmarks sell processors

That and video encoding. The average joe and jane doesn't even know what ghz means anymore or even what a "core" is.

However I have long since dropped out of pc gaming. Its just too damn expensive. Replacing whole computers just to get the latest and greatest is too demanding.

I've happily accepted becoming a console gamer - well 2 console gamer - ps3 and xbox 360. Once you got hd gaming on the home console front the whole one upmanship (in terms of computer specs for the "latest" game) didn't seem to matter as much to me. I just want a game that looks decent, won't crash and is fun to play.

[FulciLives]

I'm with you Yoda ... got a PS3 in the fall of 2007 and have been happy with it. Plus it's a gas to play a game on a 51" HDTV from your couch.

[ranchhand]

I remember back in the 80s in the day of the XT and 286 chips, and Intel was the only provider. AMD was there, but nobody knew anything about them. An Intel 286 chip went for something like $1600 +or- if I remember right. Suddenly AMD was there with a competitive chip and kicked Intel in their wallet. Now that there was competition, the price of components started to drop drastically and home building was born. Now we have retail giants like Newegg who specialize in computer components, and I guess I feel a bit loyal to AMD for that reason. I have never been disappointed in their chip performance, I think most of the chip-performance discussion is largely academic when it comes to daily application running.

[TBoneit]

Ranchand, that isn't the way I remembered it so I did some looking around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices

In February 1982, AMD signed a contract with Intel, becoming a licensed second-source manufacturer of 8086 and 8088 processors. IBM wanted to use the Intel 8088 in its IBM PC, but IBM's policy at the time was to require at least two sources for its chips. AMD later produced the Am286 under the same arrangement, but Intel canceled the agreement in 1986 and refused to convey technical details of the i386 part. AMD challenged Intel's decision to cancel the agreement and won in arbitration, but Intel disputed this decision. A long legal dispute followed, ending in 1994 when the Supreme Court of California sided with AMD.

And that's the way it was.

Cheers
TB

[FulciLives]

I seem to recall having a 386DX 40Mhz that I think was AMD (Intel made nothing faster than a 386DX 33Mhz). Or maybe it was a slightly over clocked 486 ... I can't remember now. But that was the first computer I built from scratch by buying parts and putting it together myself.

Man that seems like ages ago (no I'm NOT getting old) LOL

[yoda313]

Intel made nothing faster than a 386DX 33Mhz

I think thats the computer I have under my bed. I have been meaning to get rid of it but haven't done it yet. It was a COMPUDYNE computer. I think it came with dos 5.0 but it was upgraded to dos 6.2 and windows 3.1. This was the computer that I first did anything to by adding an 8 bit isa mono soundblaster soundcard. Ahh those were the days.

So far as I know it still works and survived y2k - at least as far as a working computer. I don't remember if I tried to do any of the patches that were developed for it or not. But I did turn it on at least once after the new millienium came and it did work.

But I've got to get around to taking out the harddrive and drilling some holes in it then chucking the rest. I don't think there would be any benefit of trying to find a place to donate it to or to sell it.

Though could there be a market on ebay for that era of computer parts? Could I part it out and sell stuff from it? It was all stock except the soundcard. Who knows maybe the soundcard is worth something. I think I might still have the install discs and manual somewhere......

[FulciLives]

I bought the very first Sound Blaster and the first game I played that supported it was the then new (and first) Monkey Island game. That was on my first PC which was an Intel 386SX 16Mhz

I remember around the same time (give or take) that King's Quest V came out and it was a big deal because it was the first game to use 245 colors at once LOL

[yoda313]

because it was the first game to use 245 colors at once LOL

Wow.

With todays games I wonder how far in you'd have to zoom to find JUST 245 colors. Probably in halo or assassins creed you'd have to zoom into a characters eye or hand to limit it that much (or closer).

Its definitely come a long way.

was the then new (and first) Monkey Island game.

I don't know if it is on the psn or not but they did a graphic upgrade of both Monkey Island games on Xbox Live for download. You can hit the back button and play it in the "low res" version. It was a fun game. I bought both and finished the first (admittedly with lots of help from the hints - ya lazy I know but I wanted to finish it). I started the second but haven't gone through it.

If you're interested you could check out if they are in the playstation store yet. Probably are.

[Noahtuck]

Intel, AMD, yadda yadda yadda.......

All I can say is I play every modern game out with zero issues and killer framerates on my AMD system and for waaaaaay less than the same system with an Intel chip.

I have bought AMD chips Since the first year they came out and I will continue to until they stop making chips.

But I do think it was a mistake for them to take on ATI as I have never been a fan of ATI anything.....

[FulciLives]

I actually bought the 1st Monkey Island from the PSN store and I think the 2nd one is there as well. I played a bit of the first one and the graphics were very nice but I never did end up playing the whole thing. I'll have to do that one of these days (after all I paid for it ... twice LOL).

I did actually finish the game way back when it first came out.

Oh and I miss typed before when I said 245 colors ... it was really 256 colors (big difference I know)

[yoda313]

Oh and I miss typed before when I said 245 colors ... it was really 256 colors (big difference I know)

You know it did seem a bit off for some reason but I couldn't put my finger on it.....

I played a bit of the first one and the graphics were very nice but I never did end up playing the whole thing. I'll have to do that one of these days (after all I paid for it ... twice LOL).

Its worth it.

Hey I've bought a lot of star wars games twice from 3 1/2" floppy versions to cd versions and sometimes thrice with a special edition cd version. So ya I've done that too....

Although some of those star wars versions were "upgrades" with either newly enhanced sounds or voices added and things like that which were not technically possible or would have taken dozens or hundreds of floppy disks to accomplish - compared to a single or double cd set of course.

Edit - and don't feel bad fulci it is actually is a "different" game since its got voices and a new graphics layer - ok maybe a 1.5 game than