|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
8
   |
Posted - 2014.10.12 20:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
As someone who has (almost*) always gamed on AMD hardware, I can say that it's incredibly good stuff. Further, AMD parts- at least AFAIK- tend to offer very comparable performance to Intel, while also generally being more wallet-friendly.
*The one time I used something not AMD was an NVIDIA-fueled HP laptop. But that might just be an HP thing /shrugs.
Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:Wait... So my 8 core AMD CPU is not good enough? It HAS to be Intel!?
As someone who not only keeps up on this as a gamer looking for performance, but also as someone who is educated in the field, I can say that an 8-core AMD CPU is a fantastic piece of hardware- and not just because I have one in my current system.
As I mentioned above, AMD hardware tends to offer very comparable performance at a lower pricepoint. However, Intel generally has a more efficient CPU architecture, meaning it can process more data (IE, do more stuff) within a given timeframe compared to an AMD chip. To catch up, AMD generally stuffs more actual processor cores onto the chip. A side effect of these differences is that Intel's architecture causes a slight price hike, while AMD's "CORES FOR THE CORE THRONE" approach will usually give you a more power-hungry CPU.
Of course, the main performance bottleneck you'll likely run into as far as CPUs brands is that even though AMD stuffs more cores onto the chip, there's just not a lot of software- like games- that can actually take advantage of all those cores simultaneously, which is why Intel is usually benchmarked at higher performance than AMD for equal GHz.
Furthermore, most games don't actually care much about raw CPU performance. When it comes down to it, graphics tends to be the bigger bottleneck- as long as your CPU isn't so piddly as to slow down the video card, you'll be fine. As an example, Crysis 2 running on an Intel Core i5-2500k saw, at best, a 1-2 frames/second improvement between that CPU's stock speed and overlocking it to 4.8 GHz. Obviously the CPU is not the bottleneck there!
Like many things (especially in DUST!), it's a tradeoff. Do you want power conservation and efficiency, or a more budget-friendly component? If the first, the Intel is the better choice, while for the second, AMD will be preferred.
The other side is whether or not you use a multi-video card configuration, as AMD's CrossFire I'd assume to be much more friendly with AMD CPUs; the funny thing is that NVIDIA video cards using SLI (which is NVIDIA's multi-card architecture) probably works with both AMD and Intel CPUs.
For a more thorough explanation of Intel vs AMD CPUs, refer to this link: Intel vs AMD CPUs. And yes, most of what I said is just ripped from the link. Part of being smart is knowing when to quote someone else, after all.
QUICK EDIT: I recommend reading thing link anyway if you want to go pure AMD, there's a bit of good advice at the end of it. |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 03:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Victor Moody Stahl wrote:As someone who has (almost*) always gamed on AMD hardware, I can say that it's incredibly good stuff. Further, AMD parts- at least AFAIK- tend to offer very comparable performance to Intel, while also generally being more wallet-friendly. AMDs offer extremely high capability to self-combust, and that's about it. #IntelMasterRace
Not trying to be antagonistic, but did you just have really bad experiences with AMD hardware? I am genuinely curious, since my experience has actually been pretty much the opposite as far as AMD CPUs/graphics cards.
For myself, the one (and at present, only) computer I ever owned that didn't used AMD was an HP laptop that fried itself. OTOH, that could just be because *HP*, so who knows. |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 22:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'll admit that I've never actually used much in the way of Intel, but every AMD system I've ever used ran beautifully. As far as heat load of AMD vs Intel, it makes sense it would run slightly hotter (though I'm not sure about a lot hotter) since AMD usually packs more physical cores in than Intel does.
I do wonder what could be causing an AMD rig to run at significantly higher temperature than an Intel rig. Seems very strange to me- like I mentioned, AMD tends to suck more power due to using more physical cores, which would lead to a higher heat load. But the million-ISK question would be, "how much hotter?".
On HP and laptops, it's kind of nice to know that it was just HP being bad at laptops. Out of curiosity, since this was my experience, how many died of overheated internals- particularly video-related overheating?
Also, cool to meet a fellow tech here on the DUST/Legion forums; I just recently got my A+ cert. |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 23:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
Oh, I'm well aware of the non-replaceable graphics devices of most laptops. I was just curious about your experience with HP laptop failures.
That said, I find it somewhat interesting that the tendency seems more likely (at least IMO), to be the case that HP is just bad at laptops, and AMD happens to be the processor of choice for HP as a company. |
|
|
| |
|