Does the processor you choose for gaming still matter?

[Spazosaurus]

Guys, ever used fraps while gaming and observed that while you have very good FPS rate the game still feels 'sluggish'? If this sounds familiar, read on.

Came across a very very interesting article that redefines the way we think about the quality of our gaming experience. Instead of focussing solely on highest average FPS a graphics card can pump out, factoring in "frame latency" or the time it takes your cpu to make available the data that your gpu(s) process is equally important.

Very interesting read to those wondering how much emphasis they have to place on CPU selection in their next system build.

*Spoiler alert* AMD cpu's SUCKKK!

[VirtueTT]

how much is intel paying you every time you drop that line awesome? =p

[Spazosaurus]

lmao...they dont pay me. I tell the truth for free!!

[TriniXaeno]

lol, don't study awesome.

If you play one game alone and that game happens to be Battlefield 3, guess what?? AMD gives you more bang for your buck than an Intel processor.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/23246/6

Read that page and weep.

In fact, they say the CPU used is practically irrelevant when they tested Battlefield 3.

If its good enough for BF3, I'm sure Dota 2 and other less demanding games will be just fine on an AMD platform as well.

[Spazosaurus]

The general trend is that the FX line of CPU's are significantly worse than their Intel priced counterparts wrt frame latencies.

Battlefield 3 is the exception, not the rule. The game is decently satisfied by even a Phenom II from a couple generations back which clearly indicates that the engine is more GPU oriented.

Does that mean that Phenom II would be any good for games that demand more cpu power? I think not!

I maintain, amd SUCKSSSS for gaming. For a non-gaming office computer, yeah go nuts.

[captainchris]

lol, don't study awesome.

If you play one game alone and that game happens to be Battlefield 3

that is a sad reality that applies to me. and the only really other game my rig is going to meet is MOH...plus the new BF3 releases and later bf4..providing i still have the intel setup.

[W1nTry]

As with all things your mileage will vary, end of line.

[Berzerk]

hmm my 1100 t running everything very decent without issue. so whatever oui.

[captainchris]

^^ and yes...that makes sense as it should run what is out there.

[TriniXaeno]

Ent boy zerk. I don't know who awesome trying to fool. lol

Like Intel buy him out.

My video card is what made all the difference with these modern games (6970). Not my CPU.

Was playing everything just fine with the old dual core.

Only reason I upgraded to that overpowered i7 2600k was to beat up saxman in the benchmarking thread. lol

[Spazosaurus]

PC gaming is not about being 'just fine'. If I want just fine, i'd buy a console.

I want an ultra smooth gaming performance which does not necessarily mean how many frames per second is pumped to your screen.

Now we have a more effective method of measurement for smooth gameplay which now shows that even a midrange Intel cpu from generation last that is $20 more in price than the 'best' AMD offering can offer a significant advantage.

Just saying, for the benefit of all those reading that are looking to build a new rig, is it really worth being penny wise and pound foolish?

[Berzerk]

Im able to max everything (EVERYTHING) with 16 gigs of ram an 1100 t and my 6950 (flashed to a 6970)

this is way beyond fine. I'm content. Only reason id upgrade is if i needed to run a much higher resolution, when current parts are defective, or if a game that i really want to play requires an upgrade,  don't see the point in spending an exorbitant amount of cash on a rig for epenis purposes.

If your an enthusiast fine...but don't be dissing people choice of cpu cause they prefer a different brand, which does exactly what they require at half the price of the competitor.

[Spazosaurus]

Wow, is it really so hard to read and understand what i'm saying? I'm not dissing the choice of those who have already made a choice...or anyone for that matter. I'm just trying to illuminate people's thought process in selecting NEW parts.

If you check prices, an Intel cpu is almost always clearly more effective than an AMD cpu in the same pric bracket. You just get a better performing cpu for your money with Intel (at the moment).

Ok, so let me break it down with a little example...

Here we have an AMD and an Intel cpu.

Game is Archam City...




Look at AMD's performance in this title vs an Intel CPU of the SAME price. Armed with this knowledge, would you choose AMD over Intel?

again...



Look again at the circled parts. The evidence speaks for itself! And they said as much. Its not about how many frames but how consistently and 'on time' those frames are delivered to give that smooth feeling.

[Berzerk]

Fair enough.


Im definitely aware that Intel is way better. But the AMD sucks banter, well, a lot of people using it and it works for them (Greatly I might add).

But that insult about comparing an amd rig to a console...'shudder' that could set off anyone.

But fair enough, it makes sense for new parts.

[TriniXaeno]

Don't cave so easy boy zerk.

Lets test that theory

AMD Phenom II X4 965 AM3 3.4Ghz 512KB 45NM 125W  US$104

What is Intel's competitor at that price point?

Remember....the high end is totally unnecessary at the moment for safely 95% of today's games at any reasonable resolution.

The real money is on the graphics card.

In other words, you do not need to spend an outrageous amount of $$ on a top end intel or amd cpu to get your game on at high fidelity.

It is at the lower end of the scale that AMD really shines in price performance.

You won't win any benchmark champion medals but you'll play your games absolutely fine.

Put the money you saved into a better GPU and SSD and your experience will be much smoother.

Awesome is at the high end (look at where his benchmarks are in the thread, lol)

At the high end, AMD cannot compete. That's been old news for ages.

[Spazosaurus]

lol @ dont cave. That's practically the first line in the "Red personality" handbook.

Remember the chief argument is not if high end cpu's are necessary or not. The answer you get WILL vary depending on who you ask. Its about which CPU is better at your deired price point.

Ok, so Intel has the i3-540, a quad thread cpu for just a handful of dollars more.

I am certain if you build two systems with one of these cpu's each and match the gpu, the intel is GOING to deliver higher performance.

NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that a gamer is very rarely going to scrape the bottom of the CPU barrel like this and even if they do, they can always find a better cpu with blue packaging...almost guaranteed lol.

[Arcmanov]

...an Intel cpu is almost always clearly more effective than an AMD cpu in the same pric bracket.

What's a 'pric bracket'? 

[TriniXaeno]

lol @ arc

Attacking the man on a typo

but seriously, that I3 is a dual core. Vs AMDs Quad Core at a faster ghz.

Would be interesting to see how they compete in gaming performance. My money is on the AMD

I'm willing to bet the advantage of one over the other is negligible, leaving the choice as a matter of taste rather than performance.

Time to scout for some benchmarks

[Spazosaurus]

Lol arc u ass. If you find anything post it nah Wyatt. My money is on that Intel. Hyper threading and newer and superior architecture could be more than enough.

Sent from my Galaxy Note using Tapatalk 2

[TriniXaeno]

found some on cpubenchmarks.com

Looks like I was wrong....the AMD is considerably faster than the I3

I thought they would have been neck and neck.

Mind you this is just one benchmark, more to come. Should be closer with games I figure.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3+540+%40+3.07GHz

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+965