• 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.

Why are Intel so Expensive

But you showed that benchmark to show the i3 getting a pounding, under the guise of it being "Here's modern engine performance".
Which probably does make it cherry picking, but I really can't be fussed getting in an argument about a CPU I consider poor value right now.

But look at Tomb Raider/Bioshock Inf/Far Cry 3 (3 recent AMD gaming evolved titles) and the i3 isn't crippled as Crysis 3, they're all current.

Tons of titles in 2013 would show the i3 3220 not getting crippled.

I'm not denying there's games that cripple it, but they're certainly in the minority.
 
Well, it was an example of how the i3 can be crippled rather than suggesting that that's the end of the story.

Most games (like the ones you mention) are fine with recent CPUs. My main point is it rarely actually matters.

I think this is typical of most recent games, the higher Intel CPUs a little bit ahead but nothing for people to care about:

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_and_fx_6300,6.html
 
I don't know, I game at 120HZ, so I want the extra.

I also find the "The Intel CPU's are ahead, but you can't tell the difference" argument flawed. Why would you buy the graphics card you have unless you wanted to max it out? You'd get a cheaper/lesser GPU and the lesser CPU.

I can certainly tell the difference between 60FPS and 120FPS in feel (Although this will be limited to 120HZ screens).
 
If we're talking a 3fps difference then that's just being silly.

If we're talking about 200fps vs 230fps then I personally wouldn't care when it's impossible to see, some people might want the highest benchmark results regardless.
 
teppic said:
If we're talking a 3fps difference then that's just being silly.

If we're talking about 200fps vs 230fps then I personally wouldn't care when it's impossible to see, some people might want the highest benchmark results regardless.
Click to expand...
But it's not "3fps" difference as you put it, nor is it 200fps vs 230fps. In CPU intensive games which both CPU overclocked to 4.50GHz dipping to sub 60fps level, the i5 would still be around 10-15fps ahead on average (partly due to the nature of almost all the games that are really CPU demanding being typically don't use more than 4 cores). Situation get worse for people using 120Hz monitor, particular when playing games that don't use high number of cores. For example, I am playing Witcher 1 now, and because it is a relatively old game, it mostly only use 1 cores (and about 1/3 on another core for something else), and even with my i5 2500K at 4.70GHz I have frame rate dip down to 90fps at times, rather than able to hold constant 120fps. Can you imagine how the frame rate's gonna be on a FX-8 CPU on the same clock, with the game only using mostly 1 core out of 8? Pretty sure it it would be in the 40-80fps range, instead of 90-150+ range.
 
Last edited:
Well I game at 120HZ, so what type of frame rates do I want? 120.

Also, your benchmark could be GPU bound, which means the CPU limitation hasn't been reached yet with the Intel CPU's, yet the AMD has already reached the limit, increase GPU grunt and the difference would increase.
Not that it matters at that frame rate, when I ran DA on my Phenom II X6 rig the FPS was certainly high.
 
Last edited:
I was seriously considering upgrading from my Phenom 965 but its just come back into Toms Hardware mid range Best Gaming Processors for the money

Seeing as though I'm a mid range type of guy and I've just bought a GTX 760 which runs absolutely fine with my current CPU I think I'm going to hold off for a bit longer due to the price of the i5, over three years old and still going strong!
 
And if you're playing certain games which max out at around 120fps with an Intel CPU and decent graphics card, you'd be better off with that, if the FX is going to be more like 100 in those games.
 
Martini1991 said:
Also, your benchmark could be GPU bound, which means the CPU limitation hasn't been reached yet with the Intel CPU's, yet the AMD has already reached the limit, increase GPU grunt and the difference would increase.
Not that it matters at that frame rate, when I ran DA on my Phenom II X6 rig the FPS was certainly high.
Click to expand...

I can't really answer things that aren't even in the benchmarks. Most GPU bound games are more than satisfied and don't show any gains worth worrying about whether it's Intel or AMD:

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/655/bench/CPU_03.png
 
teppic said:
I can't really answer things that aren't even in the benchmarks. Most GPU bound games are more than satisfied and don't show any gains worth worrying about whether it's Intel or AMD:

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/655/bench/CPU_03.png
Click to expand...
You do realise some people with 120Hz monitor would actually considering turning down some graphic settings, when their graphic card is the bottleneck?

When they do that, the short bottleneck can no longer hide behing the ultra graphic settings.
 
Last edited:
If your running 7950's in xFire or more and want to game at 120 + FPS then at this moment with current CPU's Intel is for you, if you can afford or are willing to spend that on multiple high end GPU's then £200 or £270 on a CPU is perhaps not an issue to you.

But if your just running one GPU even if its high end then the £150 option from AMD is just as good.

Whats more the £270 Intel option is not always the winner, there are times when the FX-8350 comes out on top, this is the point tek syndicate tried to make when they got the pitch forks and torches thrust at them.

There are few situations when you need a £200 Intel CPU to run a £200 GPU. Even fewer situations where a locked i3 is better than an Unlocked FX-6300. <- IE, None!

An independent and well balanced review will show the good the bad and the ugly on all sides so people can make properly informed decisions.
 
Last edited:
well at least it helps with resale values of used componenets.

I got a is i5-2500K cpu, I upgraded from a q9400. I sold the Q9400 for £110 about a year and a half ago!

It's still going on an auction site for just under £100.

I bought the q9400 initially as used from someone else for around £120 about 4 years ago. So resale values are fantastic for them.

Prices aren't going to come down because there's not a lot of improvements in the last few years, because the demand hasn't been huge for faster CPUs. Energy efficiency has been more of a focus (which the average user doesnt really care about - but businesses ARE concered about that). Inefficient cpus run hot, a roomfull of 30 inefficent computers can seriously heat up a room and send AC costs sky high.

Also they're so much hyperbole in computer enthusiast sites like this. I rememeber guys on here were hailing ivybridge like the second coming. But if you do the benchmarks there's very little improvements in ivybridge over sandybridge.

Most improvements were in temps, ivy run cooler (more energy efficient).
 
Last edited:
Golf1.6 +1 For 2 generations now i cant 'risk' an upgrade. Since i got goodish 2500k that does 5ghz stable with good IMC running at almost 2200mhz on tight timings.
I did buy 3570k and i could not get it above 4.5ghz no matter what :/ have not even tried 4670k. Cause i do want to have warranty on 270 chip. On my sandy i got extended intel warranty so i clock it till it dies.


And if it goes for amd i am still waiting for cpu that can match 2500k IPC and i will buy it. But by looks of it. That wont happen EVER :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom