Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Why Intel Sucks at PC Games?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Intel Sucks at PC Games? - Page 2  

post #11 of 38
True, intel does produce mad performance. But am I the only one who has shopped for a cpu? Mine cost $100 - a decent AMD costs a HECK of a lot less than a decent intel. What can intel get for $100? A 2.something celeron? Please...

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that doom3 is slower on linux primarily because the windows version has sse2 optimizations while they didn't feel like fixing up the code to get them working on linux...VC++ doesn't run too hot with gcc
iMac
(13 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMMonitor
i7-2600 6970M 4GB 27" 
Mouse
Logitech M570 trackball 
  hide details  
iMac
(13 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMMonitor
i7-2600 6970M 4GB 27" 
Mouse
Logitech M570 trackball 
  hide details  
post #12 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by soloz2
it's true, the gpu is more important when gaming... but still I switched from an Intel P4 530 (3.0Ghz) to my AMD 3200+ and noticed a difference in games. And that was with a single 6600GT and both cpus at stock speeds.

Could be the placebo effect lol...
But seriously, hardcore gamers could prolly tell the difference. Normal person like me, probably not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ouroboros1827
True, intel does produce mad performance. But am I the only one who has shopped for a cpu? Mine cost $100 - a decent AMD costs a HECK of a lot less than a decent intel. What can intel get for $100? A 2.something celeron? Please...
It's a fact. When going for a budget system. you do not need to look any further than an amd. sempron perhaps .
Just ordered my aunt a system for her shop, 3000+ sepmy, i'lll mess with it and see how it goes.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core 2 Duo E8500 Asus P5B-Deluxe Radeon 4850 4GB 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro Asus 24" Filco Blue MX Thermaltake 750W Toughpower 
CaseMouse
Antec P900 Logitech G9 
  hide details  
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core 2 Duo E8500 Asus P5B-Deluxe Radeon 4850 4GB 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro Asus 24" Filco Blue MX Thermaltake 750W Toughpower 
CaseMouse
Antec P900 Logitech G9 
  hide details  
post #13 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoscoeMcGurk
Exactly, theyre actually not screwing themselves at all. They want you to buy a cpu now, and another in a year again. They milk it at each little step, like most things it's all about money, not advancing technology really. Don't think theyre actually releasing the highest technology they've come up with at each step. It's all collusion between these companies, they plan this stuff out many years in advance.

If not for money, technology would be vastly more advanced than it is now. It actually is quite advanced, but you won't see it until they've made their millions at each little tiny step. They all do it, Nvidia could have released something like the 7800GT years ago, but they would have made a crap load less money that way. They all talk to each other, like "ok, next year when you increase your mobo that tiny bit, we'll increase our gpu a tiny bit" scratching each others backs. It's sad but true. Notice how they won't release a 7800GT agp version? One clue for you, it has nothing to do with agp 8x not being able to handle a 7800. They want to force you to also spend $500 on a new cpu and mobo, so their intel and mobo buddies get theirs too. Or vice versa if you do buy that new cpu and mobo, you also have to buy a new vid card so their nvidia buddies get theirs. Either way, they all win.

They could have had dual or quad processors many years ago. They'd like you to think they've had some breakthrough with 65nm technology, like they just figured it out or something lol. It's bs, they've known how to do it for quite some time now, but first they had to make you buy a willamette, northwood, then prescott, then 775 prescott (and you did right? ). Then they'll change the socket again, for no other reason than to make you buy a new mobo and probably vid card again, they love scratching each others backs, they all make more money that way.
Well said player..well said...

Welcome to the state of Capitalism...
Black Phenom
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
9850 BE Asus M3A32-MVP delux/wi-fi Asus EAH3870 "TOP",BFG 9600 GT OC 4Gb OCZ Reaper 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
160Gb WD, 320Gb WD Optirac DVD burner,LG Blu/HD-DVD Win XP 32bit LG 22" LCD 
PowerCase
ABS Tagan BZ 800-watt Antec 900 
  hide details  
Black Phenom
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
9850 BE Asus M3A32-MVP delux/wi-fi Asus EAH3870 "TOP",BFG 9600 GT OC 4Gb OCZ Reaper 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
160Gb WD, 320Gb WD Optirac DVD burner,LG Blu/HD-DVD Win XP 32bit LG 22" LCD 
PowerCase
ABS Tagan BZ 800-watt Antec 900 
  hide details  
post #14 of 38
Folks, remember to keep your posts as factual as possible. Although there have been some good posts in here supported by facts, the thread is getting a bit out of hand. Please compose your thoughts and post back here in a while, once I've had a chance to clean up the post to get it back on topic. Any further opinionated posts that don't have a least a little factual basis in them will be removed. Thanks.
Sig rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 23A Asus P5K Deluxe Wifi HD 3870 2x2 GB G.Skill DDR2-800 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x250 GB Seagate RAID 0 + 320 GB Seagate Samsung SATA DVD Windows XP Pro/Vista Ultimate 64 bit Viewsonic VA2012wb 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Saitek Eclipse Corsair HX620 Lian Li V2000b Logitech G7 
  hide details  
Sig rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 23A Asus P5K Deluxe Wifi HD 3870 2x2 GB G.Skill DDR2-800 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x250 GB Seagate RAID 0 + 320 GB Seagate Samsung SATA DVD Windows XP Pro/Vista Ultimate 64 bit Viewsonic VA2012wb 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Saitek Eclipse Corsair HX620 Lian Li V2000b Logitech G7 
  hide details  
post #15 of 38
Folks, I will add a couple of points.

First Intel does not suck at gaming, it may not be as fast as AMD in most cases but thats far from poor performance, they work better and worse on different games.
So what do you all think could play games faster?
A Intel Pentium 4 650 with a 512MB 7800GTX or a AMD FX57 with a ATI Radeon X1300.
Well your answer is the Intel processor, system specifications can really change results here especially with a better graphics card.

Secondly if we had a game that was coded for SSE3 then the Intel processor would take a pritty good lead because it can work with these extensions a little better, mainly as they are Intel's own extensions. It just so happens that we don't. There are some applications that can make use of the lower end ones like SSE. A good example is 3DMark05, the scores there are a bit closer as they can compensate via the use of these extensions.

All in all the gap is not very big, if I was to say Intel sucked at UT2004 compared to AMD then I would be lying, there will not actually be a big difference here. The term "Intel sucked" could only be used if they lost by lets say 30FPS or more with their top CPU vs AMD's top CPU.
post #16 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Manual
Folks, I will add a couple of points.

First Intel does not suck at gaming, it may not be as fast as AMD in most cases but thats far from poor performance, they work better and worse on different games.
So what do you all think could play games faster?
A Intel Pentium 4 650 with a 512MB 7800GTX or a AMD FX57 with a ATI Radeon X1300.
Well your answer is the Intel processor, system specifications can really change results here especially with a better graphics card.

Secondly if we had a game that was coded for SSE3 then the Intel processor would take a pritty good lead because it can work with these extensions a little better, mainly as they are Intel's own extensions. It just so happens that we don't. There are some applications that can make use of the lower end ones like SSE. A good example is 3DMark05, the scores there are a bit closer as they can compensate via the use of these extensions.

All in all the gap is not very big, if I was to say Intel sucked at UT2004 compared to AMD then I would be lying, there will not actually be a big difference here. The term "Intel sucked" could only be used if they lost by lets say 30FPS or more with their top CPU vs AMD's top CPU.
Here, here! Well said my good man! Ya the vid card is a huge part of the puzzle, the biggest part really. No processor will play todays games without a good vid card behind it. Some people like to take that little bit of edge one has over the other, and they say the other one sucks only because it doesn't perform quite as well. The way I think of it is, what's the difference between 100fps and 90fps to the human eye? There is no difference at all. Once your over a certain fps like say 30, smooth is smooth. No need to swat flys with an anvil.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 920 D0 @4GHz Asus P6X58D-E evga gtx260 896mb core216 superclocked 6GB Kingston HyperX 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
4x WDRaptor 74G Raid0 BenQ DW1655 Win7 Home Premium 64bit Samsung 226BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Seasonic S12 600W Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G7 
Mouse Pad
S&S Steel 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 920 D0 @4GHz Asus P6X58D-E evga gtx260 896mb core216 superclocked 6GB Kingston HyperX 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
4x WDRaptor 74G Raid0 BenQ DW1655 Win7 Home Premium 64bit Samsung 226BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Seasonic S12 600W Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G7 
Mouse Pad
S&S Steel 
  hide details  
post #17 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Manual
Folks, I will add a couple of points.

First Intel does not suck at gaming, it may not be as fast as AMD in most cases but thats far from poor performance, they work better and worse on different games.
So what do you all think could play games faster?
A Intel Pentium 4 650 with a 512MB 7800GTX or a AMD FX57 with a ATI Radeon X1300.
Well your answer is the Intel processor, system specifications can really change results here especially with a better graphics card.

Secondly if we had a game that was coded for SSE3 then the Intel processor would take a pritty good lead because it can work with these extensions a little better, mainly as they are Intel's own extensions. It just so happens that we don't. There are some applications that can make use of the lower end ones like SSE. A good example is 3DMark05, the scores there are a bit closer as they can compensate via the use of these extensions.

All in all the gap is not very big, if I was to say Intel sucked at UT2004 compared to AMD then I would be lying, there will not actually be a big difference here. The term "Intel sucked" could only be used if they lost by lets say 30FPS or more with their top CPU vs AMD's top CPU.
Thats hardly a fair comparison.. Intel doesnt suck at gaming, but its not as good as AMD because of the way the architectures are. I dont think its because its not "optimized".. AMD has the superior architecture for gaming; I dont think they designed a "gaming processor" intentionally.. With Intel its because Netburst was just a bad choice to go into with these processors. If they elaborated on the Tualatin/Pentium M architecture with their P4's they would be alot closer to AMD performance in everything, and it would likely just be neck-to-neck in like.. everything.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 3600+ X2 Biostar Tforce 550 BFG 7600GT OC Corsair XMS DDR675 2x1024 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 160GB + WD 80GB SATA Windows XP Pro Compaq MV720 Logitech 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
FSP FX600-GLN Aspire X-Cruiser Black Razer Copperhead Tempest Ratzpad GS 
  hide details  
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 3600+ X2 Biostar Tforce 550 BFG 7600GT OC Corsair XMS DDR675 2x1024 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 160GB + WD 80GB SATA Windows XP Pro Compaq MV720 Logitech 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
FSP FX600-GLN Aspire X-Cruiser Black Razer Copperhead Tempest Ratzpad GS 
  hide details  
post #18 of 38
Thread Starter 
Honestly, when it comes to gaming, it doesnt really matter which CPU you have. No one is going to run a game at 1024 X 768 at the lowest settings unless they have a horrible graphics card. Once you turn on the eye candy and turn up the resolution, both AMD and Intel CPUs will perform exactly the same. Why? Because the GPU is doing all the work.
Desktop
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core 2 E2140 @2.67GHz Abit IP35 Pro Radeon X1900XT 512MB 2x1GB GSkill HZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x500GB Samsung HD501LJ + 2x80GB (1.16TB total) 2 X NEC ND-3550A Windows XP Home 24" Acer LCD (AL2324W) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Saitek Executive PC P&C Silencer 610W AeroCool AeroEngine II w/ 2x140mm intake fans Logitech MX518 
Mouse Pad
Generic foam rubber pad 
  hide details  
Desktop
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core 2 E2140 @2.67GHz Abit IP35 Pro Radeon X1900XT 512MB 2x1GB GSkill HZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x500GB Samsung HD501LJ + 2x80GB (1.16TB total) 2 X NEC ND-3550A Windows XP Home 24" Acer LCD (AL2324W) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Saitek Executive PC P&C Silencer 610W AeroCool AeroEngine II w/ 2x140mm intake fans Logitech MX518 
Mouse Pad
Generic foam rubber pad 
  hide details  
post #19 of 38
I have to also say Intel doesn't suck... Ok so AMDs run at lower temps and run a little better but Intel has worked hard too!

For the record i have to add AMD now has the "HT" technology and intel has the "64" they swopped - they did a deal! Now as for the gaming - AMD does take the lead on some games but i have been playing game son my 3.4 with a crappy ATI x300 for sometime and i still can play quake 4 OK at medium setting.

So if i can run that on an intel - intel is pritty dam good! Im just going to upgrade before xmas so
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
P4 3.4Ghz 650 (OC to 4.0) Asus P5WD2-Premium XFX 520M 7900GT (RMAED) 2GB Corsair 5400 DDR2 PRO 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 200GB, 1x 320GB SG Windows Vista Ultimate Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP Logitech G15, Zboard FANG 
PowerCaseMouse
Hyper 580 Modular Black Akasa Eclipse-62 Logitech G5 Gaming 
  hide details  
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
P4 3.4Ghz 650 (OC to 4.0) Asus P5WD2-Premium XFX 520M 7900GT (RMAED) 2GB Corsair 5400 DDR2 PRO 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 200GB, 1x 320GB SG Windows Vista Ultimate Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP Logitech G15, Zboard FANG 
PowerCaseMouse
Hyper 580 Modular Black Akasa Eclipse-62 Logitech G5 Gaming 
  hide details  
post #20 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeleFragX
I have to also say Intel doesn't suck... Ok so AMDs run at lower temps and run a little better but Intel has worked hard too!

For the record i have to add AMD now has the "HT" technology and intel has the "64" they swopped - they did a deal! Now as for the gaming - AMD does take the lead on some games but i have been playing game son my 3.4 with a crappy ATI x300 for sometime and i still can play quake 4 OK at medium setting.

So if i can run that on an intel - intel is pritty dam good! Im just going to upgrade before xmas so
AMD's "HT" and Intels "HT" are completely difference. AMD's "HT" is Hyper Transport. Its a direct CPU-RAM link and its 2 way, giving AMD's a "FSB" of 2000 effective on 939 and 1600 on 754 (at stock). Intel's Hyper threading is just having 1 physical and 1 logical processor.. But they both run off of the same clock so its not true dual core.

Edit: Goat.. Proof? AMD's always perform better in games, regardless of the resolution..
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 3600+ X2 Biostar Tforce 550 BFG 7600GT OC Corsair XMS DDR675 2x1024 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 160GB + WD 80GB SATA Windows XP Pro Compaq MV720 Logitech 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
FSP FX600-GLN Aspire X-Cruiser Black Razer Copperhead Tempest Ratzpad GS 
  hide details  
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 3600+ X2 Biostar Tforce 550 BFG 7600GT OC Corsair XMS DDR675 2x1024 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 160GB + WD 80GB SATA Windows XP Pro Compaq MV720 Logitech 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
FSP FX600-GLN Aspire X-Cruiser Black Razer Copperhead Tempest Ratzpad GS 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Why Intel Sucks at PC Games?