View Single Post
  #73 (permalink)  
Old November 12, 2012, 10:28 AM
sswilson's Avatar
sswilson sswilson is offline
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 14,238

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix369 View Post
I do not get one thing, lets say you are a gamer, and you want to play game x at the best possible quality, you can go either Intel or AMD if you know what you buy. You get THE SAME EXACT EXPERIENCE!!!
If your game gets 60+ frames at max quality than that is the best your brain can physically process, and those frames can be achieved by either Intel or Amd. And thats a fact nobody can deny.
I sometimes feel that people who must have an Intel talk like their whole day is all about doing video encoding/decoding, where the couple of seconds extra are something that is the difference between life and death. I can understand people who work with certain apps in which Intels gets an extra 10-20% in speed, so less time. But those a a huge minority.
I also agree that Intel outpeforms AMD in almost every department, but who really, I mean really needs that extra? You dont need it in gaming, and thats the best argument Intel fans have. You want to tell me you bother about the difference from 110 fps to 117 fps? Or from 80 fps to 84 fps? You bother, your brain doesnt cause it dose not perceived the difference.

So why all of this? Simply because some people want to have what it best out there, but who dont want to acknowledge that they can get WHAT THEY NEED with both chips. Call it macho-way-of-life :)) I have a Intel that does 10% extra, or 15%, or 20%, but it does not really matter, I cant feel the difference, but I have the longest...processor :))))

I have both Amd and Intel over the years, now I have a Phenom II X4 955 BE coupled with a 7870 for gaming, both overclocked, (not because I need it, the overclock I mean, but for the actual fun of overclocking), and there is NO GAME out there I cant play maxxed out at the best possible framerate. None! Before this I have A C2D 6550, and I went for the AMD because it had the extra performance and offered me everything I need at a quite cheaper price than a possible Intel part.

So I really dont understand people who do not go for what they need, but for what is longer...thicker and better in benchmarks :)))
Because not everybody has gaming as their first PC focus. I fold (well Boinc at the moment) 24/7 and current AMD processors cannot hold a candle to intel procs when it comes to working flat out 100% across all cores.

I'd also question your assertion WRT gaming. There's more to gaming than just what FPS the card is able to put out, CPU ability has a lot to do with playability as well.

Simply put, outside of a few applications which may or may not improve if/when programs can take advantage of PD's strong points intel's current pricing makes it difficult for AMD to compete on the desktop market unless they step up their game. For standard desktops, there is an intel product close to the same price point that outperforms AMD products by a wide margin. The question isn't "what's good enough?", it's "Why wouldn't you spend an extra $10 to get greatly improved performance?"
__________________
EVGA X58 3X SLI / i7 980X / 3X 4G Mushkin Blackline Frostbite / XFX Pro 1000W / EVGA GTX 680 SC+ 2GB / Intel DC S3700 200G / WD 6401AALS / TT Lvl 10 GT
Swiftech MCP655 WC Pump / EK XT 240 Rad / 2X Scythe Ultra Kaze / EK Supreme HF / Primochill Myriad Dual Bay Res / Dell UltraSharp U2412M

Gigabyte C1007UN-D / 2X4G Gskill PC3-10700 / Pico PSU / 2.5" 750G Toshiba HDD / Mini-Box M350 / 1X 19" BenQ / 1X 17" HP
Reply With Quote