Quote:
Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch
Can't we just agree that Intel is better for some games, and AMD is better for some games?  |
Mm it's not really about Intel vs AMD. The point I've been trying to make is that while not all games benefit from a really fast CPU, the notion that the Phenom II is more powerful than i5/i7 is false, which was the original argument. It just twisted in all kinds of funky ways after that.
V13 has shown that in a lot of games the i5/i7 offers no real advantage, which I agreed with from the start. But that's not the point of argument.
-
V13, I looked at your sources, multiple times now. Problem is they are not really relevant. A thread from Dec 2009 isn't particularly accurate for the situation nowadays, which is the situation Spike would be dealing with if he build a system today. While I agree that AMD generally offers better bang for the buck, the notion that Phenom II is more powerful than i5/i7 is simply nonsense. It will eke out a win in the most heavily threaded applications since it has more cores, but other than that it lags behind.
Your other sources are not particularly comprehensive: 3DMark, while great for benchmarking fanatics, is a synthetic benchmark that does not represent actual game performance. Actual performance varies greatly from game to game, some favoring Intel architecture and others AMD, and yet others showing no preference at all since they don't rely much on CPU performance. The charts you showed for AvP and Metro are not relevant (to the point of Phenom II being more powerful than i5/i7) since neither are CPU bound. Games that are truly CPU bound will favor core speed over count, which puts the advantage at Intel.
Some even contradict your point. For example this one:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/372...5_i5-2400.html
It clearly notes that the i5 has higher single-threaded performance, which is exactly what matters in gaming. The advantage they show in that case is 31%, which I would consider non-trivial. Again I should note that this means little for a lot of games, but the point stands. It is you missing points like that, while I explained that it's single-thread performance that matters for gaming, that makes me think you're not
really objectively looking at my sources or posts (or even the ones you use yourself).
The last graphs you showed in response to Hunter are from the Piledriver chips, the latest in AMD's line-up, 2 generations beyond Phenom II. While Bulldozer actually regressed single-thread performance, Piledriver managed to close the gap with Intel, but remains a fair bit slower in that regard.
I feel you're misinterpreting data, which I think stems from not being familiar with the actual technology, basing arguments on yours and others experiences; experiences are always arguable.
Yes, I prefer Intel. The reason for that is because this is strictly a gaming system: I only really care about single-threaded performance for this system. I don't mind paying the premium because I believe it saves me money down the line. With higher single-threaded performance this i5 will stay relevant a bit longer than the Phenom II and FX (Bulldozer at the time) for gaming. This doesn't come from hearsay and opinion but from reading
in-depth articles. I have no loyalty towards them; when the rumors surfaced about them doing away with sockets my first thought was to switch to AMD. If they drop the ball I drop them, simple as that.
And yes, I do have a beef with you. If you play the fanboi card right off the bat my patience goes right out the window.
Lastly, consider this:
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=gaming+cpu
Pick any result. They all come to the same conclusion.