But they dont...currently they get outpaced in 99.3% of games by intels offerings, doesn't even need to be an i5 or even their latest. Depends on how well threaded the games are, the simple fact is...most games are not.
No dude they don't. At no times would the AMD ever hinder your gaming experience. On older games? yes, the Intels will perform better, seeing as basically 3/4 of the AMD is sitting dormant but at no point does the AMD's IPC stop it providing you with acceptable framerates.
As I said I think you need to spend some time doing some research into just what an overclocked Piledriver is capable of.
Your whole point of AMD is better when they're used to the fullest is true, but doesn't happen outside of 7 or 8 games or the odd synth bench.
Again, you need to take the time to see just how they perform in current games. Crysis 3 is obviously the most significant one given it was a massive title but Far Cry 3 actually performs even better on AMD than Crysis 3. Tomb Raider was GPU bound (I get mins of 59 FPS maxed) and so was Metro Last Light. But even taking a look back a little further? the AMD has been good enough when it needed to be on the big titles. I already posted a video of how BF3 runs on my 8320 and we all LOLed and agreed it was more than good enough (120 FPS min, mostly jammed to the 200 FPS limit, can't really ask for more than that !). BF4 will use another 8 core engine, as will Watchdogs and COD Ghosts. How much more do you need?
I buy my hardware based on what is out there and the immediate future. That means i'm sticking with Intel until AMD pulls something out of their **** that can compete with an i7.
But the world doesn't work like that. 99% of us try and future proof as much as we can. And with two consoles coming out that use 8 cored AMD CPUs and games
already responding to those cores it makes much more sense to go AMD. Anything now that doesn't use 8 cores would be pish to run on an AMD any way.
As for the argument of cost, you can buy an i5 4670k and a cheap mobo, no problems as the chances are your overclocking potential is in the chip and not the motherboard/cooling. With AMD you kinda have no choice but buy a top tier board and damn good cooling to get a decent clock to even stand a chance at competing, so the cost is moot.
Intel = Spend more on the chip, spend less on cooling and motherboard.
AMD = Sped less on the chip, spend more on cooling and motherboard.
Whilst I agree that you can use a pretty cack board on Intel and get away with it (because it's more CPU bound that down to having a good board, due to them having poor overclocking headroom due to the tiny die) I don't agree on the cooling. You need a good cooler to overclock Intel.
What you also seem to have missed is that you can get a top tier AMD board for £100. One that supports full X16 X16 SLI, tri fire and god knows what else. 990FX boards are very high spec for the coin. If you were on a tight budget then I have already proven that for £200 you can get a 8320, OC to 4.2ghz on a Asrock 990FX Extreme 3 and have more than enough power for your £200.
For £160 you can pretty much get the same board as the Z87 Rampage (I'm talking about the CHVFZ of course) but that's a choice, not a necessity.
And again, the 8320 and 50 do not perform even with the I5 when supported properly (as you've seen from Cinebench) they perform between the I5 and I7. I7s are what? £240? double the price.
This is all gaming based BTW. That's where they are placed best.
It's been known for a few months now that 1x Intel core does not equal or better 2x AMD cores. We're moving into a world where FINALLY we will see more cores being used which I think we can all agree is a bloody good thing and not something to smite. I want 16/32 core CPUs in my desktop.
