• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD smoothness tested.

stulid

stulid

stulid

Caporegime
Joined
17 Jan 2010
Posts
66,731
Location
weston-super-mare
AMD gaming experience tested.

http://www.techpowerup.com/159270/M...ter-of-Consumers-with-PC-Processors-Test.html

At the AMD & HardOCP Game Experience event held in Texas, gamers were asked to participate in a blind test. The test involved gaming on two sets of gaming PCs with two PCs each, in each set is an AMD-powered PC, and an Intel-powered one. Participants weren't disclosed which PC was driven by what, as they were assembled in identical-looking cases (no window), with identical monitors and other peripherals. The first set is of budget single-monitor HD gaming, while the second set is high-end three-monitor gaming.
Click to expand...


What I do find a little poor is the budget systems tested, comparing the gaming experience of the IGP inside Llano vs Sandybridge system, there really is no contest as I have used Llano and compared it to HD3000 as found in the i5 2500K, the difference was night and day.

System A (Intel Core i3-2105) better: 5 votes
System B (AMD A8-3850) better: 136 votes
No difference: 2 votes
Click to expand...



Having used exclusively AMD systems prior to my current Sandybridge setup at home, I cant possibly confirm if this is true or not of proper comparable products such as PhenomII X4 955BE vs Q6600, or just PR at its best. I do remember a few reports about AMD seemingly offering a smoother experience on these forums ages ago.

So does AMD offer a better "gaming" experience than Intel?

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
The Llano is always going to best that Intel system.

The three monitor gaming one, I don't believe, it's got to have been biased in some way, it's an AMD test, so why would they leave any chance of Intel being "better"?
 
The setup was done by HardOCP AFAIK. Anyway,even HardOCP reviews show the Intel systems were generally faster in CPU limited games so they are not biased in that regard.
 
Debatable. I remember people used to put it down to AMDs handling of the memory interface, not sure I believe that tbh. I DID notice a huge difference when moving between a Q6600 + 4890 to an X6 + 4890. The Intel system had 4GB of DDR2 800 while the X6 used 1600MHz DDR3. Some games (Crysis, DIRT2, and GRID particularly) felt completely different, not frame rate as such.
 
horrorwood said:
The voting slip says "Welcome to the AMD challenge"...
Click to expand...

It does, but the question it asks is which of the two unlabeled systems each person gave a better gaming experience. The multiple choice answers are simply A, B or No difference.

If the question was which company's CPU's gave that better gaming experience and the answers to choose from was AMD and Intel then you would have a point.

196c.jpg


:)
 
[timko];21114838 said:
It does, but the question it asks is which of the two unlabeled systems each person gave a better gaming experience. The multiple choice answers are simply A, B or No difference.

If the question was which company's CPU's gave that better gaming experience and the answers to choose from was AMD and Intel then you would have a point.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6977/196c.jpg
:)
Click to expand...

I was more suggesting it may have been biased in another way ;)
 
horrorwood said:
I was more suggesting it may have been biased in another way ;)
Click to expand...

The systems were setup by HardOCP and were identical apart from the CPU and motherboard.

On top of this HardOCP tests of AMD CPUs have been in line with other websites for years now. They tested the FX8150 in multiple cards setups against the Core i5 2500K recently too:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/2

They have no reason to bias the results in any way as their own reviews did not do so.

If anything it probably indicates for at normal HD resolutions,with either an FX8150 or Core i5 2500K most people can't tell the difference with the same graphics card in an FPS game. In fact only a few FPS games which are extremely CPU limited there might be a noticeable difference,but then one has to ask the question what do most people consider as "smooth" framerates?? Some may thing it is over 60FPS -others may find over 30FPS fine. A competitive on-line player may think 100FPS with very high minimums.
 
Last edited:
It's not that people "didn't notice a difference" it's that a vast amount picked the AMD set up.
There was, looking at the pictures a "Didn't notice a difference" choice.

Not sure on the AMD Smoothness thing tbh, they're IMC gets trumped by Intels when it comes to figures with RAM.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The systems were setup by HardOCP and were identical apart from the CPU and motherboard.

On top of this HardOCP tests of AMD CPUs have been in line with other websites for years now. They tested the FX8150 in multiple cards setups against the Core i5 2500K recently too:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/2

They have no reason to bias the results in any way as their own reviews did not do so.

If anything it probably indicates for at normal HD resolutions,with either an FX8150 or Core i5 2500K most people can't tell the difference with the same graphics card in an FPS game. In fact only a few FPS games which are extremely CPU limited there might be a noticeable difference,but then one has to ask the question what do most people consider as "smooth" framerates?? Some may thing it is over 60FPS -others may find over 30FPS fine. A competitive on-line player may think 100FPS with very high minimums.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree in most setups at the moment a bulldozer cpu will be fine compared to an i5 2500k. When I say most I mean a single GPU and 1080p resolution.

The link you just posted shows the i5 2500k basically destroying the bulldozer, as much as 50% higher average frame rates. Although the i5 is clocked 200mhz higher and they using sli and tri sli setups.

But the point is for a bulldozer setup to cost around the same price makes it not worth it.

It seems recently that CPU's can last a few GPU generations, but I am pretty damn sure the i5 2500k will last a lot longer than an FX8150. The FX8150 will become a bottleneck on the GPU a lot quicker than the i5 2500k will, you only have to look at those SLi benches.
 
horrorwood said:
Yes I agree in most setups at the moment a bulldozer cpu will be fine compared to an i5 2500k. When I say most I mean a single GPU and 1080p resolution.

The link you just posted shows the i5 2500k basically destroying the bulldozer, as much as 50% higher average frame rates. Although the i5 is clocked 200mhz higher and they using sli and tri sli setups.

But the point is for a bulldozer setup to cost around the same price makes it not worth it.

It seems recently that CPU's can last a few GPU generations, but I am pretty damn sure the i5 2500k will last a lot longer than an FX8150. The FX8150 will become a bottleneck on the GPU a lot quicker than the i5 2500k will, you only have to look at those SLi benches.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing the HardOCP reviews show that the Core i5 2500K is generally the better CPU for gaming(this is why I put the link in). So this is why I doubt,they are trying to twist results in any way intentionally.

Having said that the game tested seems to be BF3.
 
Have to question the people invited to do the "testing" if 5 votes went to the IGP of the Sandybridge, seriously, you have to be blind to think its better than Llano.
 
horrorwood said:
I was more suggesting it may have been biased in another way ;)
Click to expand...

reminds me of a comment I read on another forum which was highlighted 'Intel fans will always say there is something bias if it doesn't show Intel products doing the best...'

have been convinced of that for years, in my experience AMD systems do feel smoother, don't know why, they just do! ;)
 
'Feel' smoother......what kind of a metric is that, chances are anyone who believes that swapped from either AMD or Intel to the other platform as part of an UPGRADE. Of course it will feel smoother.
 
stulid said:
Have to question the people invited to do the "testing" if 5 votes went to the IGP of the Sandybridge, seriously, you have to be blind to think its better than Llano.
Click to expand...

Indeed, all votes should have been in favour of the Llano, because the HD3000 pales in comparison.

The high end ones should have seem a scattered amount on both Intel and AMD (Not really fussed which one "wins") with the vast majority being "Not seeing a difference"
 
People will generally always find some kind of positive justification for their choice of components, whether buying it was a mistake or not.

If you have a Bulldozer based system then fine, I'm sure it's pretty decent and as above will play near enough anything if not anything fine at 1920 x 1080 resolution with a good graphics card, but there is no real benefit to buy AMD currently with better CPUs available from Intel at the low/mid (i3 2***) to high end of the market (i7-3***).

I doubt many people could tell a huge difference between two gaming systems though with a high end card and current quad core in most new games, at least not without sitting there staring at their Fraps/Afterburner FPS reading in the corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom