Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Intel for gaming?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel for gaming? - Page 3

post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ropey
I have not had a processor (AMD or Intel) on stock since the days of the 386 so I can't really speak of the Intel 3.2 @ 3.2.

I can however speak of the Intel 3.0 over clocked to 4.0 and married to an X800Pro flashed to X800 XT PE @ 460/1220. There is not a game that I can't play and play well with that machine. My sig is my gaming machine but sometimes I still get on the server (Intel reboots less often for me on 24/7) and play Quake4/F.E.A.R. and I have no problem with those games. I built my sig machine so that I could lie on my back and play on my 40" LCD rather than sit close to a 19" one and to play these games in 1600 X 1200 or 1280 X 1024 the box needed more GPU oomph than the X800.

Benchmarks on 3D give AMD the lead and it is a fair lead over the P4 but in real life it is quite hard to tell the difference. I say that if I hooked the X800 to the 40" screen and tried to run Quake4 in high res with full eye-candy (or F.E.A.R.) there is a difference but how many people use 40" screens? The final result, if the box plays the games you play with acceptable eye candy (to you) and liquid frame rates then it is fine and numbers don't matter at all.

That being said, if one ran in 1024 X 768 with a X1900XT or 7800GTX I don't think there would be a huge discrepancy between the new AMD or Intel.

R
Depends on the game, RTS and simulation games will see a more spread out performance level among processors. Shooters and action games are more video card limited that cpu limited. Any game with 2k units out of the map eats up a lot of cpu power.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by sccr64472
Depends on the game, RTS and simulation games will see a more spread out performance level among processors. Shooters and action games are more video card limited that cpu limited. Any game with 2k units out of the map eats up a lot of cpu power.
This makes sense and I did not think of that as I do not play strategy games. I think enough at work and rely on the "If it moves, shoot it" method of game relaxation.

R
Roped In
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2600k P8P67 Pro Rev (3.1) @ B3 XFX Radeon HD 6950 XXX 16GB G.SKILL Ripjaws 9-11-9-28 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 X Callisto Deluxe 25nm 60GB Plextor PX-B910SA 4x Blu-ray DVD-RW Win7 64 2 x Samsung 275T+ 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Corsair HX10000 Antec 1200 Logitech G7 
Mouse Pad
Splatter Game Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
Roped In
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2600k P8P67 Pro Rev (3.1) @ B3 XFX Radeon HD 6950 XXX 16GB G.SKILL Ripjaws 9-11-9-28 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 X Callisto Deluxe 25nm 60GB Plextor PX-B910SA 4x Blu-ray DVD-RW Win7 64 2 x Samsung 275T+ 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Corsair HX10000 Antec 1200 Logitech G7 
Mouse Pad
Splatter Game Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
post #23 of 27
AMD better for gaming? LOL

You people make me laugh: Reason 1 and Reason 2.

You kids think that a "time demo" is what you get when you buy the game and therefore you're going to see 134fps in Doom 3 and 170+ in UT2K4? Think again: Benchmarks sucks & Editors......read that up and see who makes all this hype of one thing being better than the other. Time Demos? Sorry, not the same as the retail game. 60fsp you see, 60fps you'll always see, the crap frame rate is there and will always be for every game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-bit Labs
It is true: you don’t need a high-end processor for real gaming with realistic settings and high image quality. The gaming performance will still be limited by the graphics card. The recommended system requirements mentioned by all the game developers are absolutely correct. Do not be surprised that the game developers mention Pentium 4 3GHz+ and Athlon 64 2GHz+ processors as the minimum suitable CPUs for comfortable gameplay, even though today we can get 3.8GHz Intel CPUs and 2.8GHz AMD CPUs easily. It is true that faster CPUs than those mentioned in the minimum system requirements do not really stimulate and significant fps rate increase. So, the slower processors models from the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 processor families can cope easily with the latest generation 3D shooters. LINK HERE
Quote:
Originally Posted by aweir
The major advantage of AMD is having its integrated L2 cache and its on-die memory controler. This enables AMD to be better at accessing ram without the need for rediculously large amounts of L2 cache. There is less latency with the cpu/ram communication...which makes it better for gaming.
Geessshhh........is that why they're faster?.....So I guess Dothan and Yonah with their "IMC" is the reason why they are faster right? LINK HERE. Who would've thought that Intel secretely put an IMC in them?
Think Stage-pipelines, the IMC is useless. Dothan and Yonah just prove that.
post #24 of 27
That's being nice? lol



Good point though.......

Ahhh, the old

AMD---------------Intel



Never gets old..........I guess.......


:shrugs:



Is AMD faster? Maybe, depends on who you talk to and what tests they ran and what you care about. Either way, if you step back and take a deep breath, wipe the spittle off your face from the screaming fanboys on both sides.......you'll see that no matter who the winner is.....it's a pretty close race. It's not like you can't run games on an Intel system.....it's not like you can't run video editing/encoding on an AMD........


Someone posted a link in another thread to a story on how the fastest of the fastest CPUs don't make that big of a difference in many games, that was a good read.


benchmarks are benchmarks.......they aren't real world....they also are not completely useless, but if you spend your life chasing benchmark scores, you'll get lost in the shuffle.


For instance, benchmark scores for Doom 3 fps against comparable Intel / AMD chips is between 7 and 15 fps..........will you, with the naked eye be able to tell the difference? I'm sure some people will claim they can.........but it's likely in their head.

Now benchmark scores for Unreal 2004 show about a 35-50 fps difference.......which you might actually be able to notice.........but....do you play Unreal 2004?

Most benchmarks I have seen for F.E.A.R show the cpu is irrelevent.....


So the first question is....what games do you play.........the second question is, what about the games that aren't out yet? Wouldn't it suck if you bought an Intel to play Doom 3 and then Doom 4 comes out in a year and it swings farther away from intel? Or you buy an AMD to play Unreal 2004......and then some other game you love comes out next year and the Intel runs it about the same....or faster.......


Ultimatly, it's a choice you're gonna have to make..........
post #25 of 27
It seems AMD is for gaming and Intel is for Media. But who cares, just use what makes you happy
Black Beast
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
SB 2500k @ 4.2ghz MSI P67A-GD65 EVGA GTX580 1.5GB 8 GB G.Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Vertex 2 SSD DVD-RW Windows 7 X64 Dell U2410 & Apple Cinema 23" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Lycosa Corsair TX750 Antec 902 Razer Deathadder 
Mouse Pad
Xtrac XL 
  hide details  
Reply
Black Beast
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
SB 2500k @ 4.2ghz MSI P67A-GD65 EVGA GTX580 1.5GB 8 GB G.Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Vertex 2 SSD DVD-RW Windows 7 X64 Dell U2410 & Apple Cinema 23" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Lycosa Corsair TX750 Antec 902 Razer Deathadder 
Mouse Pad
Xtrac XL 
  hide details  
Reply
post #26 of 27
This is not an AMD vs. Intel flame war. If you don't have something to contribute to the original post, please don't post here.

Just a reminder, this is the topic at hand -

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmass
I was wondering if Intel P4s are good for gaming, like a 3.2GhZ P4. Im an AMD guy, but Intel "leads" when it comes to CPUs.

Help please!!!
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  
Reply
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  
Reply
post #27 of 27
As far as deciding to build a computer between the 2 is a choice you have to make. AMD's 3DNow! Technology is part of what gives AMD a slight edge in gaming. As far as gaming goes, it it more than just your cpu or gfx card. Your physical memory is another big thing. Here are a few examples or different parts.

Intel 3.8ghz cpu/512MB ram/6800gt = decent gameplay/good graphics
AMD 2.4ghz/1GB ram/fx5500 = overall good gameplay but lack of high quality gfx
AMD FX-60/256MB ram/6600gt = decent grapfics, but poor gameplay due to lack of memory

Now these are just example I came up with to give you an ideal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Intel for gaming?