• 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.

Is AMD smoother in games?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Considering some games just about use 2 core's or 4 cores!

I take that with a pinch of salt.
 
An X6 shares the same amount of L3 cache as X4s do. They'll do just fine in games but tbh, you'll get higher framerates with i5 or i7.
 
I get the impression someone bought a X6 for games, and notices no improvement (that they were expecting), so goes along the 'it seems smoother' line...
 
I'd go Intel for gaming just for the features. SLI GTX460s seems a much better graphics setup than the similar priced ATI offering right now.
 
I suspect they were referring to how often AMD feels smoother than Intel, it cant really be quantified and often Intel beats AMD on numbers but a lot of people do report AMD "feeling smoother"
 
well heres something to add abit to this debate, my athlon X2 3800+ overclocked, did indeed feel smoother than the C2D im currently using, don't know why since it gave much less frame-rate in games, but in desktop, browsing, etc. it just felt better. :confused: though as said above i don't think in the real-world where you don't run benchmarks all the time, you'll be hard pressed to notice the difference :)
 
Gashman said:
my athlon X2 3800+ overclocked, did indeed feel smoother than the C2D im currently using, don't know why since it gave much less frame-rate in games, but in desktop, browsing, etc. it just felt better. :confused:
Click to expand...
That's because the AMD chip has an IMC whereas the older Core 2 uses a Northbridge memory controller . . . What you are describing is a Low Latency "Snappy" feel . . . Becoming a low latency junkie is a one way ticket! :D
 
A bit out of date now but still.
Originally Posted by anand
During testing, the Intel systems would generate minimum frame rates at this resolutions about 23~24fps on a couple of runs and then jump to their current results on the others. We noticed this in game play also; the Intel systems would hitch and pause at times. We would shutdown the game, clear the prefetch folder, and reboot. The game would operate fine in the next series of testing although we still had stuttering in intensive ground scenes at times. We tried new images, different CPUs, memory changes, and the Sapphire HD 4870 cards with the same results. The Phenom II 940 had extremely stable frame rates in each test and action was very fluid during game play.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by anand
After playing through the several levels on each platform, we thought the Phenom II 940 offered a better overall gaming experience in this title than the Intel Q9550 based on smoother game play. It is difficult to quantify without a video capture, but player movement and weapon control just seemed to be more precise. Of course, if you have the funds, we would recommend the i7 platform for best possible performance.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by anand
The Phenom II is slightly ahead of the Q9550 when overclocked although it is at a 7% clock speed disadvantage. We have noticed the CryEngine 2 will respond to improved memory bandwidth and latencies as we clock up the processors. The i7 holds a 14% advantage in average frame rates while the Phenom II once again impresses us with the best minimum frame rates when overclocked. However, not having a 20fps minimum frame rate is a disappointment with our multi-GPU setups. The NVIDIA 260/285 solutions scale better in SLI than the ATI HD 4870 products. We hope that ATI can improve their drivers for this game.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by anand
Now that we have discussed the numbers, what about game play experience? As we alluded to earlier, the Intel platforms had problems with minimum frame rates throughout testing, not just in the benchmarks, but also during game play in various levels and on-line. We have not nailed it down yet, but we have noticed this problem consistently. In the meantime, the Phenom II X4 940 had rock solid frame rates and offered the smoothest game play experience.
Click to expand...

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3506&p=1
 
While most of the experience is down to number crunching i wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility that due to them using completely different architecture your end experience could be effected.
 
Hmm.... this phenomenom again.

This seems to be a trend in PC hardware. Whenever a company isn't doing as well as it's competitors, people start making up unquantifiable reasons on why low-scoring hardware is actually better than the much higher scoring competitors.

I knew people that were convinced that the geforce5 was much "smoother" than the radeon 9700 pro; despite failing badly in benchmarks. A few years later nvidia was at the top of the charts with their geforce 6 and 7..... and the forums were full of ATI users who were absolutely convinced that their cards had nicer looking colours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom