Why does everyone say that 'AMD' is better for gaming?

Virdi · 13 Jan 2006 at 10:41

Hello all,

I'm an Intel person - But have recently really got into gaming.

So I'm considering to build a Gaming rig based on an AMD CPU etc...

What I'd like to know is: what makes an AMD setup better for gaming?

Thanks.

ajgoodfellow · 13 Jan 2006 at 10:54

It's all down to the architecture of the CPUs. Basically as the A64 has a shorter pipeline this is beneficial to games than the long pipeline of the P4

Here's a review of the P4 570 (3.8Ghz) against the equivalent AMD CPUs

Here's a direct link to the gaming benchmarks

Roguey · 13 Jan 2006 at 11:24

cos its faster for gaming

errata · 13 Jan 2006 at 13:47

At similar cost points AMD CPU architecture has worked better for games for some time, recent developemts in the athlon 64 range (dual channel memory, onboard memory controller) have widened the gap further.

somewhere there will be a very detailed explanation (try http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI0 )why but mostly its about shorter queques of CPU instructions that take less time to fill up again when the games software branches, better games branch prediction, better games related data and instruction cache mangement and size, its also about getting more work done per clock cycle rather than increasing the number of clock cycles.

Intel is more efficent for some software but AMD does it better for games software. AMD platform may be cheper for the same games performance which is nice.

Raikiri · 13 Jan 2006 at 13:54

Plus AMD tend to run cooler, output less heat and perform better in things other than just games.

mysticsniper · 13 Jan 2006 at 14:57

The main differences between P4's and AMD's is that:

Amd's run at a lower clock speed, but can process more information which each pass perfect for gamin.
P4's run at higher clock speeds, but do less per pas, perfect for office situations, encoding, internet, and multimedia.

AMD's have a integrated memory controller.
Intel P4's have the memory controller(s) on the mother board, not directly on the die.

AWPC · 13 Jan 2006 at 15:24

No doubt AMD is tops for gaming with standard volts/clockspeeds but @ the high end the difference in real world use is minimal.

My 3.8 Ghz CPU (670J) will easily do 5Ghz with almost any DDR533 Ram on air cooling and be rock solid stable (FSB266 x 19Multiplier).

I realise this is cheating as AMD's can be pushed a little further but IMO Intel can be overclocked to much higher speeds. Someone has had 7.2 Ghz out of this same 3.8 CPU on phase cooling and many gamers run Intel CPU's in the 5-6Ghz range with SLI.

Intel have designed their recent CPU's to have a lot of capacity for much higher clock rates/performance but because of the heat/voltage leaks/reliability issues they have had to release products with very conservative speeds @ stock just in case they got hit in a few years if/when there was a sudden burst of high failures due to the increased speeds.

No hardware manufacturer ever does more than a few months reliability testing as they just do say 100 CPU's @ once in a laboratory test rig for a few months @ different volts/temps to then get an average lifespan for the product.

Raikiri · 13 Jan 2006 at 15:49

AWPC said:
No doubt AMD is tops for gaming with standard volts/clockspeeds but @ the high end the difference in real world use is minimal.

My 3.8 Ghz CPU (670J) will easily do 5Ghz with almost any DDR533 Ram on air cooling and be rock solid stable (FSB266 x 19Multiplier).

I realise this is cheating as AMD's can be pushed a little further but IMO Intel can be overclocked to much higher speeds. Someone has had 7.2 Ghz out of this same 3.8 CPU on phase cooling and many gamers run Intel CPU's in the 5-6Ghz range with SLI.

Intel have designed their recent CPU's to have a lot of capacity for much higher clock rates/performance but because of the heat/voltage leaks/reliability issues they have had to release products with very conservative speeds @ stock just in case they got hit in a few years if/when there was a sudden burst of high failures due to the increased speeds.

No hardware manufacturer ever does more than a few months reliability testing as they just do say 100 CPU's @ once in a laboratory test rig for a few months @ different volts/temps to then get an average lifespan for the product.

£100 opteron @ 2.7-3.0ghz vs a £430 p4 670 @ 5ghz... Both can be done on air easily, performance would be similar in general with the AMD just leading in games.
I think £330 is a huge diference for the same sort of performance in a gaming machine.

FreeStream · 13 Jan 2006 at 18:17

Raikiri said:
£100 opteron @ 2.7-3.0ghz vs a £430 p4 670 @ 5ghz... Both can be done on air easily, performance would be similar in general with the AMD just leading in games.
I think £330 is a huge diference for the same sort of performance in a gaming machine.

I agree, AMD has so much more performace for the price. I think ill save the £330 and have AMD thanks.

Don't even start on DC chips LOL, AMD are so far ahead in power consumption, heat, power etc

Conc

Joebob · 13 Jan 2006 at 18:34

AWPC said:
No doubt AMD is tops for gaming with standard volts/clockspeeds but @ the high end the difference in real world use is minimal.

you have a strange definition of minimal... did you even look at these benchmarks ? It seems that my AMD 4000+ running at 2.64ghz will far outperform your Intel, even though it's running at 1.16ghz faster speed.

This just goes to prove that you cannot take Mhz/Ghz speed as an accurate benchmark these days. Ever since AMD came out with their XP CPU's they started labelling them to their equivalent speed (what they would benchamrk against compaired to 'other' cpu architecture)... so I guess my 4000+ CPU is equivalent to a 4Ghz pentium (if it wasn't cancelled)!

pegasus1 · 13 Jan 2006 at 19:06

If you encode video then go for a long pipeline Pentium, if you game or process large amounts of photos then go for AMD.
Pentium Ms are shorter on pipeline so make decent gaming chips but are hard to get hold of and are expensive, if Intel could refine the M then it could be the new Opteron but AMD are keeping their new stuff under wraps for the mo.

[Death] · 13 Jan 2006 at 19:08

Games = AMD, Video etc = Intel

GAMEfreak · 13 Jan 2006 at 19:37

intel's mobile chips are almost as good as the amd chips for gaming, and they have a lower heat output and wattage requirement, so if you wannt stay Intel ( althouh i have no idea why you'd want to do that

) a mobile chip would be suitable. intel didnt release the exact amount of pipelines the mobiel chips use, but its thought to be around 12, which is good news for games.

InQ · 13 Jan 2006 at 19:37

[Death] said:
Games = AMD, Video etc = Intel

ITYM Games etc = AMD, Video = Intel.

Its seems by the benchmarks i've seen AMD vs Intel on the same price point AMD is 9/10 faster except in video encoding/editing which the P4 is slightly ahead.

Duke · 13 Jan 2006 at 19:48

As people have pointed out, the shorter pipeline and integrated memory controller work very well for gaming on the AMD Athlon 64 range - assuming of course you have a decent graphics card to match it.

The Pentium 4 is fine for gaming.. not quite as high fps but still perfectly playable, however with hyperthreading tech, Windows does respond quicker and handle more tasks at once.

On the Dual Core side, initially AMD has had the performance advantage but the newly released Pentium 65nm chips have again closed the gap more or less.

Price wise the AMD A64/Opteron 939 range are very good value. For example: A64 3800+ is £170 inc VAT however their dual core range is much more pricey, e.g. 4600+ DC is £458 inc VAT. On the Intel side the P4 3.4GHz is £199 inc VAT and the dual core 3.4 is £469 inc. So you can see the dual core chips are reasonbly closer than single core.

Overclocking: Both AMD and Intel's overclock well. The Opteron range is favourable as it boasts the extra 512k cache and most run happy at 2.8 to 3.0GHz. The updated Intel dual cores have also had good results, with the 3.4 XE running at 4.2GHz on stock air cooling alone.

[Death] said:
Games = AMD, Video etc = Intel

Roguey said:
cos its faster for gaming

Why the pointless posts?

pegasus1 · 13 Jan 2006 at 20:11

Duke said:
On the Dual Core side, initially AMD has had the performance advantage but the newly released Pentium 65nm chips have again closed the gap more or less.

QUOTE]
But are they not slower in single core operation due to being clocked lower (the heat issue again)

Roguey · 13 Jan 2006 at 21:00

Duke said:
Why the pointless posts?

short and to the point, "why do people say 'amd' is better for gaming?" - as its faster. if it was majorly slower then we all have intels. price does effect it, but if it really that much differents many would pay the extra

Duke · 13 Jan 2006 at 21:15

pegasus1 said:
But are they not slower in single core operation due to being clocked lower (the heat issue again)

Indeed. The 65mn models produce 10% less heat, but they are still move than the AMD X2.

Roguey said:
short and to the point, "why do people say 'amd' is better for gaming?" - as its faster.

What do you actually mean though? Faster clock speed? Faster bus/memory? Faster at making coffee? Faster at doing a task? - which obviously the OP knew but was asking why.

Roguey · 13 Jan 2006 at 21:51

Duke said:
What do you actually mean though? Faster clock speed? Faster bus/memory? Faster at making coffee? Faster at doing a task? - which obviously the OP knew but was asking why.

please use common sense, now would i be talking about boiling water whist in a subject about gaming and cpu's? geez....

generaly reguarded amd is faster for gaming due its features.

oh by 'faster' (for anyone being differcult) meaning total output performance (fsb/busses, floating point etc.)

SexyGreyFox · 14 Jan 2006 at 12:18

Virdi said:
What I'd like to know is: what makes an AMD setup better for gaming?

The AMD fanboys and Intel fanboys will wave their benchmarks at each other 24/7 but I'll warrant if you have two similar spec'd machines next to each other you won't tell them apart. Of course this is where the AMD fanboys come in and say you can. When it comes down to encoding where Intel is supposed to be better theres only seconds in it.

Go and buy what you can afford but spend extra on a decent graphics card.

What I do know is that Johnathan "Fatality" Wendell who is supposed to be one of the top gamers in the world uses Intel. This is where the AMD boys now come and knock him.