Intel or AMD CPU for gaming PC?

aperture_nuig

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

OP, go with this. It should max out anything at reasonable resolutions!

That dabs build is great! My only question is is it that much of a disadvantage only having the one graphics slot?

Serephucus

Not unless you want two graphics cards.

As previously discussed - at length - though, the CPU isn't powerful enough to give you a worthwhile performance boost if you add a second card; you need a CPU that can keep up with them. You might also need a better PSU as well, so it's expensive. The 550W there can probably, just about, handle a GTX 580, so you still have plenty of upgrade options with "just" one PCI-E slot.

Dublin_Gunner

aperture_nuig wrote: »

That dabs build is great! My only question is is it that much of a disadvantage only having the one graphics slot?

Simple answer: No.

And always go for the highest single card your budget will allow, rather than 2 lower end cards in dual config.

Plus you won't have to worry about dual GPU driver issues.

nesf

aperture_nuig wrote: »

That dabs build is great! My only question is is it that much of a disadvantage only having the one graphics slot?

What the others said plus 1080p is the sweet spot for a single GPU set up at the moment. Dual GPUs are an option at this resolution but you can get very good performance out of a single card here. Bump up to a 27" or 30" monitor in the future and you'll have to start worrying about SLI set ups as standard.

Eamonn Brophy

Serephucus wrote: »

Not unless you want two graphics cards.

As previously discussed - at length - though, the CPU isn't powerful enough to give you a worthwhile performance boost if you add a second card; you need a CPU that can keep up with them. You might also need a better PSU as well, so it's expensive. The 550W there can probably, just about, handle a GTX 580, so you still have plenty of upgrade options with "just" one PCI-E slot.

And at resolutions of like 1080p, the 580 wouldnt even be worth it compared to say a 560ti or 570. Just too much horsepower and potential you'll never use!

Dublin_Gunner

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

And at resolutions of like 1080p, the 580 wouldnt even be worth it compared to say a 560ti or 570. Just too much horsepower and potential you'll never use!

Bull, a 580 will be faster by a fair bit, especially when adding on AA and maxing out in game details (particularly in more up to date shader heavy titles).

To state a 560ti would be as fast as a 580 is nonsense.

Serephucus

I'd have to agree there. I'm running a 580 on a 1080p monitor, and I definitely notice a difference when overclocking, meaning a 570 would be noticeably slower than a 80.

Eamonn Brophy

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Bull, a 580 will be faster by a fair bit, especially when adding on AA and maxing out in game details (particularly in more up to date shader heavy titles).

To state a 560ti would be as fast as a 580 is nonsense.

I didn't say that. I said at lower resolutions (such as 1920x1080) the 560ti has more than enough power to max games at reasonable frame rates. If you put a 580 in and use the same settings on the same game, the frame rates will be higher indeed, but not a point where you'll notice or it'll matter, thus the extra money is not worth it at all unlress you're running at high resolutions, as that's what high end cards are designed to do.

Dublin_Gunner

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

I didn't say that. I said at lower resolutions (such as 1920x1080) the 560ti has more than enough power to max games at reasonable frame rates. If you put a 580 in and use the same settings on the same game, the frame rates will be higher indeed, but not a point where you'll notice or it'll matter, thus the extra money is not worth it at all unlress you're running at high resolutions, as that's what high end cards are designed to do.

Eh no, what you said was:

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

And at resolutions of like 1080p, the 580 wouldnt even be worth it compared to say a 560ti or 570. Just too much horsepower and potential you'll never use!

I'm telling you, get BF3, or Crysis 2 at 1920x1080, max both out, and tell me you wouldn't notice the difference between a 560ti and 580 lol

1920x1080 IS a high end resolution (especially for modern shader heavy games). Sure, some mid-range cards can play at that no problem (but not maxing out the likes of BF3 or Crysis 2, or even Civ 5), but if you get into the realms of 2560x1600 - NO single card would be playable.

Eamonn Brophy

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Eh no, what you said was:



I'm telling you, get BF3, or Crysis 2 at 1920x1080, max both out, and tell me you wouldn't notice the difference between a 560ti and 580 lol

1920x1080 IS a high end resolution (especially for modern shader heavy games). Sure, some mid-range cards can play at that no problem (but not maxing out the likes of BF3 or Crysis 2, or even Civ 5), but if you get into the realms of 2560x1600 - NO single card would be playable.

I don't know if you're deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying or an idiot. You don't need a 580 to max games and have reasonable frame-rates in a gaming machine. I never said the 560ti was a better card. I said the extra horsepower of a 580 is unnecessary for those resolutions to max games at playable and acceptable frame-rates. I didn't' say it wouldn't perform better.

http://www.techspot.com/review/379-crysis-2-performance/page4.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page3.html

I don't know what else to say, number speak for themselves.

Dublin_Gunner

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

I don't know if you're deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying or an idiot. You don't need a 580 to max games and have reasonable frame-rates in a gaming machine. I never said the 560ti was a better card. I said the extra horsepower of a 580 is unnecessary for those resolutions to max games at playable and acceptable frame-rates. I didn't' say it wouldn't perform better.

http://www.techspot.com/review/379-crysis-2-performance/page4.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page3.html

I don't know what else to say, number speak for themselves.

I'm not misinterpreting anything, you said you wouldn't notice a difference, and it would be a waste of money.

40fps average v 52 fps average is huge. That's a 25%+ increase in frame rate, and noticeably smoother gameplay.

That BF3 review doesn't even include the 560ti for Ultra settings.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-560-ti-448-core-review/17

43fps V 28 says it all really.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/crysis-2-dx11-vga-and-cpu-performance-benchmarks/9

50 v 34fps

I know that many had hoped that GeForce GTX 560 Ti would be sufficient, but it's a borderline experience at best.

Eamonn Brophy

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I'm not misinterpreting anything, you said you wouldn't notice a difference, and it would be a waste of money.

40fps average v 52 fps average is huge. That's a 25%+ increase in frame rate, and noticeably smoother gameplay.

That BF3 review doesn't even include the 560ti for Ultra settings.

Cheapest 580 on HWVS : 404,33
Cheapest 560ti on HWVS: 189,52

12 fps for more than double the price. SEEMS WORTH IT TO ME!

You're also quoting resolutions ABOVE what we're ****ing talking about. 1900x1200 is a bit of a leap up from 1920x1080 so your points are irrelevant.

For maxing games at 1080p, the 560ti has enough horsepower to max games at comfortable frame-rates. at it's price-point, in a build, the other cards aren't worth it unless you're rich and can justify such excess for minimal gains.

Dublin_Gunner

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

Cheapest 580 on HWVS : 404,33
Cheapest 560ti on HWVS: 189,52

12 fps for more than double the price. SEEMS WORTH IT TO ME!

Oh yeah, change the angle of your argument! lol

Nobody was talking price here, we were talking performance. And tbh, if you have the cash, and you want to max out your games and get playable frame rates 100% of the time, well then its worth it.

I really don't think you're in a position to state what's 'worth it' from one person to the next.

If that really were true, noone would buy the 580, but the reality is people like performance, and they'll pay to get the best performance.

Even the way you look at it is skewed. 'only 12 fps'. If it was 140 v 152 I'd be inclined to agree, but its a 25% increase in frame rates, bringing it from borderline playable, to totally playable, maxed out, and an overall better gaming experience.

Serephucus

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

Cheapest 580 on HWVS : 404,33
Cheapest 560ti on HWVS: 189,52

12 fps for more than double the price. SEEMS WORTH IT TO ME!

You're also quoting resolutions ABOVE what we're ****ing talking about. 1900x1200 is a bit of a leap up from 1920x1080 so your points are irrelevant.

For maxing games at 1080p, the 560ti has enough horsepower to max games at comfortable frame-rates. at it's price-point, in a build, the other cards aren't worth it unless you're rich and can justify such excess for minimal gains.

That's what's you're on about?! Pfft. They're basically the same.

I do agree though that for the price you pay / performance you get, a bigger monitor would be better, but it is a worthwhile upgrade (speaking from experience here; I've used a 560Ti before).

Eamonn Brophy

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Oh yeah, change the angle of your argument! lol

Nobody was talking price here, we were talking performance. And tbh, if you have the cash, and you want to max out your games and get playable frame rates 100% of the time, well then its worth it.

I really don't think you're in a position to state what's 'worth it' from one person to the next.

If that really were true, noone would buy the 580, but the reality is people like performance, and they'll pay to get the best performance.

Even the way you look at it is skewed. 'only 12 fps'. If it was 140 v 152 I'd be inclined to agree, but its a 25% increase in frame rates, bringing it from borderline playable, to totally playable, maxed out, and an overall better gaming experience.

I haven't changed any angles. I've been talking about price from the start. I said

"And at resolutions of like 1080p, the 580 wouldn't even be worth it compared to say a 560ti or 570. Just too much horsepower and potential you'll never use!"

You've quoted this several times. I'm clearly referring to price/performance. I've re-stated this in every reply. Perhaps you are uninformed as to the definition of the word "worth".

Dublin_Gunner

Serephucus wrote: »

That's what's you're on about?! Pfft. They're basically the same.

I do agree though that for the price you pay / performance you get, a bigger monitor would be better, but it is a worthwhile upgrade (speaking from experience here; I've used a 560Ti before).

Exactly.

2,280,000 pixels V 2,073,600.

About a 9% difference in pixels - i.e no appreciable difference in graphics power required.

Eamonn Brophy

Serephucus wrote: »

That's what's you're on about?! Pfft. They're basically the same.

I do agree though that for the price you pay / performance you get, a bigger monitor would be better, but it is a worthwhile upgrade (speaking from experience here; I've used a 560Ti before).

Nah, you'll like 5-10 fps differences at those resolutions comparatively man (on the 560ti anyways)

The extra 200k pixels will make a difference.

Dublin_Gunner

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

I haven't changed any angles. I've been talking about price from the start. I said

"And at resolutions of like 1080p, the 580 wouldn't even be worth it compared to say a 560ti or 570. Just too much horsepower and potential you'll never use!"

You've quoted this several times. I'm clearly referring to price/performance. I've re-stated this in every reply. Perhaps you are uninformed as to the definition of the word "worth".

Whats worth it to you, is completely different to whats 'worth it' to me, or anyone else.

But its the bit in bold where you're talking complete BS. As I've pointed out form the start. You've just started to turn it into a price / performance argument now that you've been completely proven wrong.

Jaafa

So does anyone see AMD coming back into the fray either at budget or high end any time soon?

Dublin_Gunner

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

Nah, you'll like 5-10 fps differences at those resolutions comparatively man (on the 560ti anyways)

Multiply the numbers and you'll see the card is rendering almost and extra million pixels, which is like 1.5 times the res of 1080p (rounding numbers)

I just did that maths above

You've really just proved you haven't a clue. Cheers. Good thing I got the quote before your ninja edit when you saw my post.

---

Jaafa - AMD will always be competitive at the budget end of the scale, and as games are really moving towards GPU horsepower (CPU matters little in the most 'demanding' titles) you'll see AMD based rigs easily power GPU heavy systems and get just about the same performance as a high end Intel CPU.

However, where you will see large differences are in non-gaming application - such as if you do video editing, trans-coding, image editing etc etc Intel CPU's cannot be touched really.

Serephucus

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Exactly.

2,280,000 pixels V 2,073,600.

About a 9% difference in pixels - i.e no appreciable difference in graphics power required.

The only thing that's going to do is use more VRAM, and perhaps, slightly more shader power. Not enough to really make a difference, 5% at most. The only way you're going to see the sort of benefits Eamonn is talking about - and even then, it's unlikely - is if you happen to be playing a game that uses an absolute f*ck-tonne of VRAM, and happens to hit the 1GB/1.5GB point between the 560 and 580.

Eamonn Brophy

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I just did that maths above

You've really just proved you haven't a clue. Cheers. Good thing I got the quote before your ninja edit when you saw my post.

---

Jaafa - AMD will always be competitive at the budget end of the scale, and as games are really moving towards GPU horsepower (CPU matters little in the most 'demanding' titles) you'll see AMD based rigs easily power GPU heavy systems and get just about the same performance as a high end Intel CPU.

However, where you will see large differences are in non-gaming application - such as if you do video editing, trans-coding, image editing etc etc Intel CPU's cannot be touched really.

Your autism and sad will for continuing this argument is pathetic. I multiplied 1920x1600, due to a bad paste, I edited once I saw the mistake. and corrected what I had written. I don't see how fixing an error makes you somehow right.


My original post stated that from a price/performance point of view the 560ti was the best card. I then followed up with a statement that doesn't hold true for some specific exceptions (Such as 2 demanding games with their settings maxed) which you've gone out of your way over and over without considering the fact that they are not the only games in the world and aren't all that matters.

What is the point of your argument? Why are you continuing to reply? Is it because you think he should buy a 580 instead? Or are you simply here to point out small mistakes that are irrelevant to the thread as a whole? I don't understand your motivation for being in the forum if you're not here to give advice or help.

This thread has been one tiresome retarded argument after another.

Serephucus

Personally, I'm enjoying the more... aggressive, style of debating in this thread. The outright jabs are a bit much, but I feel quite at home with all the snide and arrogant comments.

Maybe I am as arrogant as I think I am...

Eamonn Brophy

Serephucus wrote: »

Personally, I'm enjoying the more... aggressive, style of debating in this thread. The outright jabs are a bit much, but I feel quite at home with all the snide and arrogant comments.

Maybe I am as arrogant as I think I am...

I dunno man, if I want that ****, I go to 4chan.

Serephucus

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

I dunno man, if I want that ****, I go to 4chan.

"The 1st rule of 4chan... "

I hate 4chan.

Dublin_Gunner

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

Your autism and sad will for continuing this argument is pathetic. I multiplied 1920x1600, due to a bad paste, I edited once I saw the mistake. and corrected what I had written. I don't see how fixing an error makes you somehow right.


My original post stated that from a price/performance point of view the 560ti was the best card. I then followed up with a statement that doesn't hold true for some specific exceptions (Such as 2 demanding games with their settings maxed) which you've gone out of your way over and over without considering the fact that they are not the only games in the world and aren't all that matters.

What is the point of your argument? Why are you continuing to reply? Is it because you think he should buy a 580 instead? Or are you simply here to point out small mistakes that are irrelevant to the thread as a whole? I don't understand your motivation for being in the forum if you're not here to give advice or help.

This thread has been one tiresome retarded argument after another.

Resulting to insults for the second time. How very intelligent of you.

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

I dunno man, if I want that ****, I go to 4chan.

You seem to be doing quite a job of it right here.

Reported by the way.

And the whole point of my argument was to prove you wrong by what you were stating about perceivable graphics performance of two graphics cards. Which I did, but you continue to try and counter.

And I'll continue to post as I'm fully entitled to do, and do my utmost to ensure those that don't have as much knowledge on the subject matter aren't filled with pure bull or incorrect facts about the hardware in discussion. If you don't like it, you can leave. Up to you.

But don't go backtracking now, after arguing with me for 2 pages, then decide its not for this thread.

nesf

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Jaafa - AMD will always be competitive at the budget end of the scale, and as games are really moving towards GPU horsepower (CPU matters little in the most 'demanding' titles) you'll see AMD based rigs easily power GPU heavy systems and get just about the same performance as a high end Intel CPU.

However, where you will see large differences are in non-gaming application - such as if you do video editing, trans-coding, image editing etc etc Intel CPU's cannot be touched really.

For BF3, sure CPU doesn't really matter. For a CPU intensive game like Skyrim that benefits more off more grunt per clock cycle than more cores you'll get good scaling off better CPUs and higher overclocks. Depends on what you're playing and how good your GPU is etc of course.

Linkies: http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page7.html

Dublin_Gunner

nesf wrote: »

For BF3, sure CPU doesn't really matter. For a CPU intensive game like Skyrim that benefits more off more grunt per clock cycle than more cores you'll get good scaling off better CPUs and higher overclocks. Depends on what you're playing and how good your GPU is etc of course.

Linkies: http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page7.html

Very true. But then I'd imagine (and hope) Skyrim with its horrible engine, to be the objection, rather than the rule going forward.

Civ 5 does benefit a bit too, and obviously a lot of older games.

In general though, I'd always recommend a 3Ghz+ quad core, and good graphics card. (be it a Phenom x4/6 or 2500k or so)

These days, I suppose a 2500k + good GPU is par for the course on a new build.

nesf

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Very true. But then I'd imagine (and hope) Skyrim with its horrible engine, to be the objection, rather than the rule going forward.

Civ 5 does benefit a bit too, and obviously a lot of older games.

In general though, I'd always recommend a 3Ghz+ quad core, and good graphics card. (be it a Phenom x4/6 or 2500k or so)

These days, I suppose a 2500k + good GPU is par for the course on a new build.

Yeah, I'm more getting at you can't ignore the exceptions when recommending builds to an individual. If someone really wants good Skyrim performance, you can't really recommend AMD to them unfortunately because of how the engine works.

I'd push a quad core with good core efficiency to cope with games that aren't optimised well for threading assuming the person has the money. You can't predict future engines and how they'll behave so you want to cover your bases on both sides. I'd prefer core efficiency over number of cores in general for gaming, just from real world performance benchmarking. The ideal of course is a 2500K where you get the best of both worlds.

Solitaire

Fail thread is fail.

Epic, epic fail.

I warned you all and you didn't listen. Special mention goes to Dublin Gunner for continuing the "good work" Hacket started. The forum really doesn't need a troll invasion, thank you.

Eamonn - Banned for 2 days. Just because you were under massive attack does not make those comments acceptable. Explain yourself better and if your attack just starts taking the proverbial mick as they did here report their posts and stay out of the firing line.

Paul Hacket and Dublin Gunner - absolute last warning. You derailed this thread on massive crusades and have escaped banning by only a hair's breadth. Both of you may have honestly misinterpreted others on one or two occasions but once you got a head of steam up you were quite wilfully misinterpreting what your intended victim(s) were saying in order to pummel them, often with the points they were trying to get across to you in the first place. Your behaviour was completely unacceptable throughout the course of this thread and if you bring this attitude problem to ANY other threads here you will be banned straight off the bat under the sitewide Don't Be A Dick rule.

Thread closed. OP, feel free to start a new one - if anything happens there I'll be banning people with extreme prejudice.