Intel or AMD, does it matter? - Page 2

bodypopper · 2012-10-13, 03:45 PM

i had a go with an fx8150 i borrowed past 2 days.clocked at 4.4ghz it ran ps2 alright.

35 lowest and high was about 90 ish,for 60 quid i nabbed it.either that or spend about £200+ on an i5 2500k and a new motherboard.

thank god for intel fanboys slagging the fx off and driving prices down

Fenrys · 2012-10-13, 03:46 PM

It's not the brand that matters, it's the performance. Look at benchmarks before you buy - there are LOTS of them available online. A CPU from either Intel or AMD that scores the same in benchmarks will give the same performance in PS2. Equivalent processors give equivalent performance.

That said, Intel's high-end CPUs are faster than AMD's high-end CPUs.

The top tier Bulldozer, when overclocked to 4.5 GHz, is about the same speed as their older Phenom II when the Phenom II is overclocked to just 4.0 GHz. If you're not going to overclock the **** out of your Bulldozer, you'll get better performance from the older Phenom II (if you can find one - they're no longer in production).

If I were building a new gaming rig, and had the money for it, I'd get an i5-3570K. AMD's fastest CPU is $40 less expensive but more than 33% slower running games.

bodypopper · 2012-10-13, 03:53 PM

totally agree.

have you seen the price of any of the x6 phenoms have got to? you'd think they were encrusted with diamonds and dug up from king tuts tomb.. bloody stupid,but i think ebayers flogging them are having a blast.

but 60 quid ver £178 and a new motherboard.. nope,i can think of more fun things to spend the cash on,not the missus.. the car!!!

Zulthus · 2012-10-13, 04:56 PM

I still use an old ass AMD Athlon ii x4 630 + a GTX 460 and I run the game on high with a steady 30-35 in a normal battle, and around 15-20 in very heavy fights.

Jaybonaut · 2012-10-14, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by Tatwi

AMD APUs are excellent for home theater PCs. The 8 core CPUs are dirt cheap and very competitive video encoding. They also play most normal GPU intensive games really well. So for the low cost segment, they are still competitive in specific uses.

However, for general computing even the Sandy Bridge based dual core Celerons give more bang for the buck than anything AMD brings. And for gaming, the Core i3 3220 beats the whole AMD line up, let alone any of the Core i5 line up which beats the i3 by 30% or more in most games.

Google benchmarks or have a look at Anandtech, X-bit Labs, or Toms Hardware, etc. for statistics on this stuff.

You don't have to convince me, because this is what I am using:

i7-3770K Ivy Bridge 3.5GHz (3.9GHz Turbo)

G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR3

SAMSUNG 830 Series 256GB SSD

WD VelociRaptor 1 TB

EVGA Superclocked, Signature 2 GTX 680

bradwong · 2012-10-14, 03:54 AM

Man... all these people saying AMD sucks. Should I switch to intel?

Zulthus · 2012-10-14, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by bradwong

Man... all these people saying AMD sucks. Should I switch to intel?

Don't waste your money unless your AMD processor is OLD... if my Athlon can run this game on high/30FPS, the Bulldozer can do it better. Intel is overkill for PS2.

Fanglord · 2012-10-14, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Kevlar

Yeah, physx alone has made me regret going ATI... borderlands 2 specifically

I thought the physX fluids/particals looked really bad in borderlands 2, l dunno they jus' seemed out of place.

AThreatToYou · 2012-10-14, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by bradwong

Man... all these people saying AMD sucks. Should I switch to intel?

If you're going to upgrade anyway, yes.
Immediately, sporadically? Eh.

Goku · 2012-10-14, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Don't waste your money unless your AMD processor is OLD... if my Athlon can run this game on high/30FPS, the Bulldozer can do it better. Intel is overkill for PS2.

30 FPS on high is just awful. My 2500K runs circles around that. Fact is AMD processors running at stock clocks have massive performance issues with this game, that even includes the C2D and C2Q line from Intel. Only way I have seen AMD processors able to get halfway decent performance is from overclocking them to the max.

KaiShek · 2012-10-14, 10:55 AM

I choose Nvidia, cuz it used makes me getting more fps in game.

Fanglord · 2012-10-14, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by KaiShek

I choose Nvidia, cuz it used makes me getting more fps in game.

I realise that English might not be his first language, but whats with the current influx of these kinda posts?

Rago · 2012-10-14, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Fanglord

I realise that English might not be his first language, but whats with the current influx of these kinda posts?

Something like Fatal disk Error ? :P Who knows

I just shopped a Intel Processor Yesterday, because im sad wir 25 fps @ minimum

Goku · 2012-10-14, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Fanglord

I realise that English might not be his first language, but whats with the current influx of these kinda posts?

Hamma got a bunch of beta keys, so we go some new members. Though there is a post requirement anymore to get one, so the spamming should be over now.

Zulthus · 2012-10-14, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Goku

30 FPS on high is just awful. My 2500K runs circles around that. Fact is AMD processors running at stock clocks have massive performance issues with this game, that even includes the C2D and C2Q line from Intel. Only way I have seen AMD processors able to get halfway decent performance is from overclocking them to the max.

Well, you just have extremely high standards and that's why we don't see eye to eye on this particular subject. I game very well at 30 FPS, many others do too. It comes down to what you're used to.