Originally Posted by CptDanko
Leave it to a programmer to give his misinformed opinion on hardware....
In case you didn't see the benchmarks AMD 8350 scores 3rd on benchmarks for BF4, the only intels that beat it cost 1000$.
As a programmer I did see that. Not everyone on planet earth uses his PC as a gaming machine for BF4.
Misinformed , no. Just a realist. Please also have in mind that BF4 is optimized for AMD , so don't just give one example to compare a product. Nearly for the past three decades, Intel CPUs have been the top notch in terms of everything. eg: power consumption, temperatures, technology and performance per mhz etc etc....
As you should also know, AMD lost the game for CPUs as they are letting the FX series and developing their APUs, which is a bad move in terms of profit(they lose all the gaming and workstation potential they had). Again, as you must be a gamer, to even be named a gamer you must play at least more than one game. So if the FX 8350 is only good (only in BETA where no optimization was made for hyper threading or even any hardware) at BF4 and not any other game/upcoming games, then what is the point?
If i went by your point, Batman Games make AMD products literally half the performance of what nvidia and intel gets. That does not make AMD GPUs weak. no, just not optimized for the specific game. However, if the same thing happens to most of the games( meaning with all AMD CPUs never reach top 5) then there is a problem not with optimization but with the hardware its self.
Please don't take my comment as an elitist for intel/nvidia. I love AMD gpus, but not their cpus. that simple.Edited by fedrosishere - 10/26/13 at 3:33pm