AMD vs Intel Comparison Inside (Stricly Gaming!) - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

AMD vs Intel Comparison Inside (Stricly Gaming!)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-13-2014, 02:03 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
StrongForce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Geneva Swiss
Posts: 1,549
Rep: 26 (Unique: 23)
So we started talking about AMD vs Intel In this thread : https://www.overclock.net/t/1023100/official-gigabyte-ga-990fxa-series-owners-thread-club/8470#post_21575426

And I posted a little comparison with sources from all over the web.

I thought it might interest some peoples so I decided to post in the General CPU section wink.gif.



Ok so In this comparison I'm gonna tell you how much average FPS amount difference and I'll compare the FX-6300 and the FX-8350 to the 2500k result

FX 6300 should be higher than the FX 6200 benchmarked here (Bulldozer vs Piledriver right ?) and the FX-8320 stock theorically a few frames lower. cause it's apparently the same CPU with less clock speed, don't know about the cache and all that.

but from what I seen in other benchmarks the FX-6300 and the 8 core the single threaded performance is essentially the same but I'll still put the FX-6200 as an indication.

So here it is :

Skyrim:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5 I'll put the link i got the numbers from.

In this order of comparison FX-6200 vs FX-8350 vs i5-2500k

66 vs 77 vs 99 = ok that's huge.

Arkham City:

59 vs 70 vs 80 = not that much here. betweeh the 8 core and the i5

BF3: (multithreaded)

84 vs 84 vs 86 = minimal gain


Crysis 2:(up to 4 core multithread according to my research)

FX-6200 : 72 FX-8350 :86 i5-2500k :85


Far cry 2 :
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_8320_6300_processor_4300_performance_review,10.html

Fx-6300 and FX-8320 both in the 105's 3770k 30 frames higher.

Just Cause 2 : http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/586/bench/Gaming_02.png

FX 6300 : 83 FX 8350 : 86.7 3770k : 86.9

The witcher 2:
http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/586/bench/Gaming_02.png
FX 6300: 63.1 FX 8350 : 64.9 i5 2500k: 68.2



This review is nice also :

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-8.html


Starcraft II Cpu dependent game here it does make sense to go intel as the minimum frame rate is way above, if you're PRO SCII player or play alot of it.

Metro 2033 :

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-4.html

2-5 frames difference.

Altought the frames seems more "stable" on this benchmark :

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_6.html#sect0

Borderlands 2:

FX 6300: 58.1 FX 8320: 58.6 3770k: 69.5

Here even more benchmarks :

https://www.overclock.net/t/1458927/home-review-amd-fx-8320-4-5-vs-intel-3570k-4-5

BF4: http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/ http://pclab.pl/art55318-3.html


http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

4770k vs 3770k vs 2600k vs FX-8350

http://techreport.com/review/24879/intel-core-i7-4770k-and-4950hq-haswell-processors-reviewed/9

FX-8320/FX-8350 vs i5 4760k good video benchmark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26UKz42uQ1Y

My conclusion is AMD isn't that far from intel peformance wise and in most games it will achieve 60's stable frame rates, so I don't really see why I should go intel.(PS: I was on the edge and I just ordered a AMD board now)

Perhaps if you want higher resolutions or fancy cards(you don't wanna get CPU bottleneck with a fancy card) Crossfire/SLI or even 120hz screen it make sense to go intel.

Let me know in the comments if it helped you and what you think, I'm also gonna post this on a blog for people to find.

I would also like to know the experience people had with those AMD CPU's regarding Minumum FPS amount drops especially in single threaded games anyone got feedback on that, any spikes in some game?

Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

Buddha
StrongForce is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-13-2014, 02:14 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
EaquitasAbsum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Everywhere and nowhere
Posts: 384
Rep: 16 (Unique: 15)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongForce View Post

So we started talking about AMD vs Intel In this thread : https://www.overclock.net/t/1023100/official-gigabyte-ga-990fxa-series-owners-thread-club/8470#post_21575426

And I posted a little comparison with sources from all over the web.

I thought it might interest some peoples so I decided to post in the Generen CPU section wink.gif.



Ok so In this comparison I'm gonna tell you how much average FPS amount difference and I'll compare the FX-6300 and the FX-8350 to the 2500k result

FX 6300 should be higher than the FX 6200 benchmarked here (Bulldozer vs Piledriver right ?) and the FX-8320 stock theorically a few frames lower. cause it's apparently the same CPU with less clock speed, don't know about the cache and all that.

but from what I seen in other benchmarks the FX-6300 and the 8 core the single threaded performance is essentially the same but I'll still put the FX-6200 as an indication.

So here it is :

Skyrim:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5 I'll put the link i got the numbers from.

In this order of comparison FX-6200 vs FX-8350 vs i5-2500k

66 vs 77 vs 99 = ok that's huge.

Arkham City:

59 vs 70 vs 80 = not that much here. betweeh the 8 core and the i5

BF3: (multithreaded)

84 vs 84 vs 86 = minimal gain


Crysis 2:(up to 4 core multithread according to my research

FX-6200 : 72 FX-8350 :86 i5-2500k :85


Far cry 2 : http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_8320_6300_processor_4300_performance_review,10.html

Fx-6300 and FX-8320 both in the 105's 3770k 30 frames higher.

Just Cause 2 : http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/586/bench/Gaming_02.png

FX 6300 : 83 FX 8350 : 86.7 3770k : 86.9

The witcher 2:

FX 6300: 63.1 FX 8350 : 64.9 i5 2500k: 68.2



This review is nice also :

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-8.html


Starcraft II Cpu dependent game here it does make sense to go intel as the minimum frame rate is way above

Metro 2033 :

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-4.html

2-5 frames difference.

Altought the frames seems more "stable" on this benchmark :

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_6.html#sect0

Borderlands 2:

FX 6300: 58.1 FX 8320: 58.6 3770k: 69.5

Here even more benchmarks :

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5


My conclusion is AMD isn't that far from intel peformance wise and in most games it will achieve 60's stable frame rates, so I don't really see why I should go intel.(PS: I was on the edge and I just ordered a AMD board now)

Perhaps if you want higher resolutions or fancy cards(you don't wanna get CPU bottleneck with a fancy card) or even 120hz screen it make sense to go intel.

Let me know in the comments if it helped you and what you think, I'm also gonna post this on a blog for people to find.

I did a little research of my own into this, it was more about overclocking gains compared to architectures and conclusively, Intel is leaps and bounds ahead of AMD in most popular culture games; BF4, GTA IV, Metro LL etc...
Anyway here is the link,

https://www.overclock.net/t/1456363/benchmarks-review-bulldozer-pildriver-at-5ghz-matching-sandy-bridge-e-perfomance#post_21512603

And try to keep in mind that Sandy-Bridge was released in 2011 and Ivy-Bridge was about a 5-8% gain over Sandy and Haswell the same over Ivy, meaning that the current processors offered by Intel are 10-16% faster than the older models and consume a lot less power while doing it.
EaquitasAbsum is offline  
post #3 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-13-2014, 03:33 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
StrongForce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Geneva Swiss
Posts: 1,549
Rep: 26 (Unique: 23)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EaquitasAbsum View Post

I did a little research of my own into this, it was more about overclocking gains compared to architectures and conclusively, Intel is leaps and bounds ahead of AMD in most popular culture games; BF4, GTA IV, Metro LL etc...
Anyway here is the link,

https://www.overclock.net/t/1456363/benchmarks-review-bulldozer-pildriver-at-5ghz-matching-sandy-bridge-e-perfomance#post_21512603

And try to keep in mind that Sandy-Bridge was released in 2011 and Ivy-Bridge was about a 5-8% gain over Sandy and Haswell the same over Ivy, meaning that the current processors offered by Intel are 10-16% faster than the older models and consume a lot less power while doing it.

That's true however how the peformance gain translate in highly demanding games isn't so astounishing even the multithreaded games like BF4, look more benchs here :

http://pclab.pl/art55318-3.html polish but the number speaks.

Altought yea 16 fps for the stock FX-8320 sounds huge, but if you overclock the gains quickly catch up smile.gif.

So since the amd is cheaper the expression "you get what you pay for" still stands true !

I just wanted to make this thread to help people that are still on the edge to make a decision by regrouping tons of benchmarks thumb.gif

And also this famous benchmark here : http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/

Almost controversial due to AMD FX 8350 beating the 4670k wink.gif.

Now regarding whether we can trust or not these numbers, it's another story but I personally do!

Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

Buddha
StrongForce is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-14-2014, 07:59 AM
Aint da way it used to be
 
Jolly Roger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: eight-zero-one
Posts: 2,831
Rep: 172 (Unique: 147)
I think this thread has been mostly untouched for two reasons.

1. This issue has been beaten to death on this site.

2. If a discussion did start the thread would just get locked anyways.
Jolly Roger is offline  
post #5 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-14-2014, 12:25 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
StrongForce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Geneva Swiss
Posts: 1,549
Rep: 26 (Unique: 23)
Well I did a quick search and didn't found a similar thread, and I don't care if noone posts, the info is there at least for those who will want to see it.

And why would it lock ? because a couple teenagers can't argue AMD vs Intel without insulting each others? wink.gif

It's not a debate I'm bringing it's information, make your own judgment !

Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

Buddha
StrongForce is offline  
post #6 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-14-2014, 02:20 PM
Aint da way it used to be
 
Jolly Roger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: eight-zero-one
Posts: 2,831
Rep: 172 (Unique: 147)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongForce View Post

Well I did a quick search and didn't found a similar thread

Should have done more than a quick search. LINK
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongForce View Post

And why would it lock ? because a couple teenagers can't argue AMD vs Intel without insulting each others? wink.gif

Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongForce View Post

It's not a debate I'm bringing it's information, make your own judgment !

That's fine. I'm not trying to say what you've done is stupid or a waste of time, just letting you know why there isn't a big conversation going on here. The info is great info I am sure. Only thought I would point it out incase you were wondering since you are new to OCN. And...

Welcome to OCN. thumb.gif
Jolly Roger is offline  
post #7 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-14-2014, 07:45 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
EaquitasAbsum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Everywhere and nowhere
Posts: 384
Rep: 16 (Unique: 15)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongForce View Post

That's true however how the peformance gain translate in highly demanding games isn't so astounishing even the multithreaded games like BF4, look more benchs here :

http://pclab.pl/art55318-3.html polish but the number speaks.

Altought yea 16 fps for the stock FX-8320 sounds huge, but if you overclock the gains quickly catch up smile.gif.

So since the amd is cheaper the expression "you get what you pay for" still stands true !

I just wanted to make this thread to help people that are still on the edge to make a decision by regrouping tons of benchmarks thumb.gif

And also this famous benchmark here : http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/

Almost controversial due to AMD FX 8350 beating the 4670k wink.gif.

Now regarding whether we can trust or not these numbers, it's another story but I personally do!

You are of course free to believe what you like, AMD offers a fine product for the price you pay, if you did look at my charts you'll see the Intel usually costing %30-%50 more per frame than the AMD chip and the AMD chip usually lands within a playable frame rate anyhow.

Personally never saw the point in getting an 8 core processor for gaming, especially when the Intel's i5 isn't that much more. A lot of people seem to forget whether it's an 8 core or a dual core, it's still the same core arch, one will never offer more over the other in single threaded applications.

I've always believed, even before doing the test myself, that for a single high end card and a 1080p monitor a 4-core AMD will serve you well enough to max out the card and get a playable frame rate. But it's when you are using your computer to compile/compress videos, photos, files, code etc, or playing on 3+ monitors with multiple cards, that you begin to notice the difference in quality between the 2 processors. Just my 2cents.gif though
EaquitasAbsum is offline  
post #8 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-14-2014, 11:54 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
StrongForce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Geneva Swiss
Posts: 1,549
Rep: 26 (Unique: 23)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EaquitasAbsum View Post

You are of course free to believe what you like, AMD offers a fine product for the price you pay, if you did look at my charts you'll see the Intel usually costing %30-%50 more per frame than the AMD chip and the AMD chip usually lands within a playable frame rate anyhow.

Personally never saw the point in getting an 8 core processor for gaming, especially when the Intel's i5 isn't that much more. A lot of people seem to forget whether it's an 8 core or a dual core, it's still the same core arch, one will never offer more over the other in single threaded applications.

I've always believed, even before doing the test myself, that for a single high end card and a 1080p monitor a 4-core AMD will serve you well enough to max out the card and get a playable frame rate. But it's when you are using your computer to compile/compress videos, photos, files, code etc, or playing on 3+ monitors with multiple cards, that you begin to notice the difference in quality between the 2 processors. Just my 2cents.gif though
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Roger View Post

Should have done more than a quick search. LINK


Yes.
That's fine. I'm not trying to say what you've done is stupid or a waste of time, just letting you know why there isn't a big conversation going on here. The info is great info I am sure. Only thought I would point it out incase you were wondering since you are new to OCN. And...

Welcome to OCN. thumb.gif

Yea I don't doubt that it's been debated 1 million time, though, I meant to sum up for the newbies too =).

And thanks you !

And yea Eaquitas thats true there is always that aspect coming in to play and I can only hope we will see more multithreaded stuff coming our way, I heard Win8 is always better for multithreaded overall, this stuff need to go mainstream lol, developers should think ahead of time ! code for 24 threads ! lol joking obviously but that would give us room ahha

Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

Buddha
StrongForce is offline  
post #9 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-15-2014, 12:17 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
givmedew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago/St.Petersburg
Posts: 2,344
Rep: 193 (Unique: 149)
wow... i thought people would have learned when the 8350 first came out that "honest" comparisons vs anything Intel has made is never going to happen. Anyone that doesn't make a ton of cash per year is going to wish that AMD was the winner ME INCLUDED... but sorry nothing I have seen comes close to winning me back to who I would love to see be the winner... AMD... in fact when I got back into intel the first thing that came to mind was... WHY DIDN'T I buy a 9xx series intel proc instead of wasting my money on several generations of AMD before ever catching up.

The stats have been out for a long time... if you are insane and are still an AMD fanboy then you can surely find stats that favor AMD if you are on the fence then chances are you are going to see a lot more intel wins. If you are an intel fanboy then nothing at all right now is going to chance your mind.

Reverse Chronological Order (Bold is currently in use)Overclocked Intel CPU History (Click to show)
i7-5820k 4.6GHz i5-4670k 4.8GHz, Xeon W5580 4GHz, Xeon X5690 6 core 4.2GHz, i5-3570k 4.7GHz, i5-2500k 4.8GHz, i5-2500k 4.4GHz, i5-2500k 4.6GHz, i7-960T 4.2GHz (first overclocked Intel CPU traded for my 960T)
Overclocked AMD CPU History (Click to show)
PHII x4 960T @x6 3.9Ghz 4.1GHz Turbo, PHII x2 555 @x4 4.0GHz
GPU History (Click to show)
GTX 970, Crossfire R9 290x, SLI GTX 580, GTX 690, GTX 670, GTX 680, HD7950, HD6950, HD5850, SLI 7800GTX, All-in-wonder, 3DFX Fusion 16mb AGP, SLI 3DFX Voodoo2 12mb PCI
givmedew is offline  
post #10 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-15-2014, 08:41 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
EaquitasAbsum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Everywhere and nowhere
Posts: 384
Rep: 16 (Unique: 15)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongForce View Post


Yea I don't doubt that it's been debated 1 million time, though, I meant to sum up for the newbies too =).

And thanks you !

And yea Eaquitas thats true there is always that aspect coming in to play and I can only hope we will see more multithreaded stuff coming our way, I heard Win8 is always better for multithreaded overall, this stuff need to go mainstream lol, developers should think ahead of time ! code for 24 threads ! lol joking obviously but that would give us room ahha

Ugh... Honestly I hate Windows, Core 0 FTW!...fail thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif Honestly that is one of the biggest reasons most games still only use single and dual threads, second being laziness and we all know coders can get pretty lazy lol
I can't wait until they really start releasing games with better optimization for Linux distro's, I think we will see better use of threaded optimization come out once that happens.
EaquitasAbsum is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off