Printable View
Not that this is big news in gaming. Intel has usually had the gaming advantage.
World Of Warcraft: Cataclysm--Tom's Performance Guide
Bottom line is that even a cheap Intel proc does better than most AMD procs for WoW.
Refer to Sections 9 and 10 in the article for Intel vs AMD.
UPDATE - Sandy Bridge kicks even MORE ass
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35049.png
I'm glad a review site did this, now we can just link this on every single thread that comes through here about upgrades
and new builds. :)
Excellent read to be sure.
Ya Intel is the choice.
WoW...I was expecting ~20% difference but Intel absolutely crushes AMD on their setup. And even the cheapest/slowest stock-clocked Intel CPU outperforms the top-end overclocked 6-core AMD.
Yeah, I can't decide whether to be excited about the fact that someone has at least studied this & so I now know what to expect, or depressed that my home right is so limited.......
Tom's hardware is notoriously intel-biased.
I would look up benchmarks from other sites. For instance: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/a...1055t-reviewed
Remember, certain games developers are in cahoots with intel. Certain tasks an x6 does better than an iX.
I would not say the x6 is getting "slaughtered".
My post was meant to be specific to WoW / Cataclysm.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0z3rr
Bias or not, Intel typically does better in gaming than AMD, but AMD typically has the edge in other tasks. I've yet to see any game where AMD does better overall than Intel. Maybe they exist, but I haven't seen one. (I don't visit every review site though) Now if we are talking about graphics cards, that's a different story and depends entirely on the game tested.
What I found surprising was that Intel leads by a larger margin with WoW / Cataclysm. Typically, Intel's margin is only slight.
FWIW, I've visited Tom's and Anandtech for many years and have never felt either site was biased towards any brand. Maybe I'm just naive. I personally don't favor any brand over another. I evaluate each item on it's own merits.
I doubt most people think AMD makes crappy products. It's just a question of each products' strengths vs weaknesses. AMD procs are excellent values and perform quite well for their price. Intel just happens to perform a bit better overall for games, although you pay extra for that performance.
So if Toms shows comparable performance for the X6 in other areas and it gets roflstomped by Intel in WoW, and your primary concern is WoW, what's your conclusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by d0z3rr
I was merely pointing out that Tomshardware is Biased and has connections with Intel. Sorry bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ughmahedhurtz
So why does your title say "kicks the crap out of"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bollwerk
because they kicked the crap out of amd in WoW which is what we're pretty much all boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by d0z3rr
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromtor
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bollwerk
Contradiction junction, what's your function?:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bollwerk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bollwerk
Got any proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by d0z3rr
Your link only backs up the fact that AMD is lower on the charts than Intel in gaming, even at the low resolution of 1680x1050...Quote:
Originally Posted by d0z3rr
and those benchmarks don't even include World of Warcraft, which is what the original link in this thread was aimed at.
Building a computer right now. The ram is pissing me off. I want 3 4gig dimms and either it's insanely priced or out of stock.
Since you did not mention your budget or your income, we can't estimate what "insanely priced" might amount to. However,Quote:
Originally Posted by bhec7715
Newegg is showing 12GB [3x4GB] kits for anywhere between $140 and $500+, which is a price range I believe covers a nice
wide range of customers.
Yeah I was just venting hehe. I'm not overclocking so I'm looking for 4gig dimms around $45. I buy all my stuff from mwave.com because I live near them and they do will call. Sadly for me they were out of stock on their only GTX570 and the RAM I did get (which was $45 more than the RAM they were telling me up front they were out of stock on).
Yeah, there were 2 items that it wouldn't allow me to order at all cause they were out of stock and when I completed my order I got a warning saying sorry, these 2 items are at another warehouse so you can't will-call them today -_- . In writing this I just talked myself into cancelling with those idiots.
I was kind of shocked at those results.... I was expecting at most a 10% difference.... Intel did kick the crap out of AMD .... even with one core it did better by quite a bit.
Updated with some Sandy Bridge benchmark info.
Gotta say that I absolutely LOVE the new i7-2600K - I can't wait to buy one. $317 for a completely unlocked CPU and you can easily OC to 4.4GHz on the stock air cooler. About damn time.
I thought the i7-2500K was a better price vs. performance winner and believe it is $30-$50 cheaper then the 2600K. But we will see when more people have their hands on them.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bollwerk
When I was younger, I worked at future shop.Anything amd always came back lol. That damn processor costed me so much money when going to college. Damn them!
Anything amd did have great prices tho. So hard I still think u need to account price and performance in a graph. There are tons of graphs comparing speed per dollar lol.
I do love my i7. Been by far my longest lasting performer /knock on wood lol
Oh yeah? I used to run similar rated comps,Intel on one and AMD on other-been 3 years or so. Performance wise my AMD would smoke the Intel running same programs at the same time. Now,I don't care about ratings. Anyone else running both types at same time that cares to advise of best upgrade option-Intel or AMD? Mind you-I'm not interested in false ratings from software-but real performance differences. When I used to run same programs a few years ago my AMD's smoked Intel-regardless of the"ratings" of software based stuff.
Are you running an Intel and AMD system at same time?
Are you running WOW on both?Preferable a 10 boxer or more that can give me true performance experience -not software based BS.One vs the other.
Have 4 systems running AMD atm and looking to "upgrade".
not sure what you are ranting on about unded. Tests are as close to the same system as Tom's can make them, They are running the same program. memory is different but the rest are the same parts. (HD,GPU,accessories) And over 100 compared to high 70 in FPS is kick ass.
Unded - did you not notice that the links I posted were specific to WoW?
I have no idea why are are ranting.
AMD can be faster than Intel in some applications, but my post is specific to WoW - Cataclysm.
Look ALL my computers are AMD, the 3.2GHz dual atholons (with the best nvidia chipset),
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131343
I have never used an Intel Chip (maybe there was one in the first IBM PC I bought before I started building my own) but there is just no doubt the X58 chipset blows away the AMD solution.
You don't have to keep arguing; Intel X58 rulz thats all there is to it.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3922/i...ecture-exposed
http://www.overclock.net/general-pro...tel-2500k.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/29...er-sandybridge
Hehe-wow!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bollwerk
I can't believe how bad I ranted from coming home tired after a bad day at work!
Yes Bollwerk I did check the links and as a matter of fact put some Intel stuff on my wish list(newegg) for updating comp3.
I do a "round robin" on updates for 3 comps and am going to try Intel next time.
I'm hoping to be surprised based on the links you provided-thanks for providing them! I may not have found then without your post.
That being said-I'll put my money where I get the best performance here at home. New Intel system will be right next to my AMD main for direct comparison-running WOW on both-5 boxing on each-yep going to 10 box.
Stay tuned-hehe.
Will be some months before i get it all together.
Just to cap this off, here's an article that pretty much puts the final nail the coffin.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20188/1
(Caveat emptor: these guys may be getting free hookers and beer from Intel for wildly inflating their scores with magic pixie dust for all I know. If they are, Intel should give them more hookers and beer because they're doing a hell of a job.)
born amd will die amd..... noungh said
rofl-I'm close to the same-but will try Intel again(based on links here)-overpriced as they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by roflstomp
But-I will be able to run both at same time running WOW-same programs.
That will be all I need for direct comparison in real life performance.
After all-aren't we all on this forum for that?
Stay tuned .....
Putting my money where my mouth is.
Bulldozer will be AMD's answer to Sandy Bridge. Of course thats not untill 3Q 2011.
Its unfair to compare SB to current AMD offerings (although Bulldozer is not out yet).
Actually that tests are showing that AMD is not all that far behind, if you compare equal cost processors and not a $300 AMD to a $900 Intel, and might do well when compared against Bulldozer.
We will see.
Also thats stupid putting the GPU on the CPU instead of more cache or cores. No one is going to use their on chip GPU (cept mobile or low end applications), with nvidia making this kinds of stuffs:
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20206
Civ V .... wow what improvement over CiV one which I enjoyed a lot.
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20207
Notice what this guy says:
shank15217
Jan 710:34 PM
+-+1
Sandy bridge shoots it self in the foot with the integrated PCI-e controller (just like annandale). Its a high end cpu with very limited I/O options. Making a high end board with Sandy Bridge is an oxymoron. High end platforms need flexible and large bandwidth not unlike a server platform. Socket 1366 was good platform and X58 chipset deserves a replacement. AMD has a really strong opening if they can release their desktop bulldozer with 880FX/990FX (most advanced, highest bandwidth desktop chipset in the market right now). At the super high end, pci-e bandwidth matters and connectivity options matter even more so than raw cpu speed.Edited 1 time(s). Last edit by shank15217 on Jan 7 at 10:34 PM.
I don't know; looking and SB and looking at BD I kinda liking BD better:
http://www.techpowerup.com/129392/AM...ture.html?cp=9
Clearly two obvious errors for SB; the onchip gpu and the onchip pci-e.
Look at the pics of the BD architecture; just as stright forward as can be.
Also the first BD's will be out in April; lets see what the situation is by March.
Well-thanks for the post Sam!
Now I'm a bit on the fringe.Was going to try Intel,but for bang for the buck and not a huge change I may stick with AMD.
I guess both a Chevy and a Cadillac do the same thing-but at a price/performance difference.
Same here with hardware-both will get us what we need/want-but is the extra money needed?
I'm going to wait a bit for next upgrade-doing ok so far as long as Blizz makes no major change.
This new Gigabyte motherboard has nothing to do with what you're quoting or this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam DeathWalker
What the hell is annandale? Did he mean Arrandale, the mobile Intel chips? I'm not sure I understand what the problemQuote:
Originally Posted by Sam DeathWalker
is here... I mean, the 1156 platform had the same on-die PCIe controller as well, which had the same hardware limitation
of 16 PCIe lanes total. I didn't see anyone bitching about it back then, but all of a sudden it becomes a big deal with SNB?
As we can all see HERE, the difference between 8x and 16x means dick, so don't worry about the 16 lane hardware limitation.
The guy you quoted makes it sound as if SNB's 1155 is handicapped because of the fact that you can't have a "high end"
motherboard or because of the on-die PCIe controller [or combination of the two]. Socket 1156 was priced mid-range
[mainstream] and it is no secret that 1366 had the higher end hardware setups. Socket 1155 is following suit, and I
consider it mid-range as well seeing as it is just 1156 "suped up." Hell, you can even plug your 1156 processors into
ASRock's new 1155 board and they'll work.
I don't go out of my way to call people out, but it seems like you're attempting to portray SNB as sub-par by quoting a
random person from the comments section of a hardware review, when every benchmark shows Intel on top. It's almost
like saying that your Uncle's friend's mother's brother, who knows someone on the 'inside,' said that all of SNB, present
and future, is crap because the socket 1155 on-die PCIe controller, which isn't new, has a hardware limitation of 16
lanes. If you want a high-end system, build it with a high-end socket that supports it [*cough*LGA 2011*cough*]. If you
want a mid-range system, build it with a mid-range socket that supports it. It's just that simple...
I'm not knocking on AMD in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I'm hoping they do well because it will give Intel a reason to
drop their prices. If Bulldozer is barely on par with the current SNB 1155 processors, you can expect that Intel's new 22nm
Ivy Bridge will be priced nice and high. Oh, and don't hate on Intel for high prices, AMD did the same shit back in the day.
also from what i read on various forums, using a video card at 8x is no different then using the video card at 16x. This of coarse gets thrown out the window when you use eyeifinity/surround 3d with multi monitors and high resolutions.
I do believe if you are just gaming with a 1920x1200 resolution and below on ONE monitor, you will not see a difference in speed. Not too sure about multi-monitor non-eyeifinity/surround 3d setups though.
What Fenril said.
The 1155 socket is not intended as a replacement for 1366. 1155 is mid-range. The upcoming LGA 2011 in 2H 2011 will be the replacement for 1366.
Bottom line .. Sandy Bridge kicks ass (for the time being). Bulldozer may end up trouncing it. If so, great. But it isn't out yet.
Ya the motherboard is X58 and we not talking about that here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenril
Well ummm I guess you are basically right, the 1155 isnt the X58 upgrade at all.
And yes, X58 beats anything AMD has at the comparable price.
Maybe no one was complaining about the PCI controler on the chip but imho AMD bulldozer implementation is superior in that they are not wasting die space with the pci controller and the usless onchip GPU.
Its obvious enough that offchip GPU and offchip PCI controllers will be superior to anything on chip so should not that space be used for more cores or more ram?
Sure it going to be cheaper to provide the GPU and PCI on chip if you want a minimal chip solution, but for us who want the high end performance this kind of archtechture is inferior to bulldozer.
But ya as stated X58 is the best right now BD might take it out, might not (or might be something better from intel by then); time will tell.
Here is the current SB infos:
http://www.overclockers.com/intel-i7...-bridge-review
You can drop a SB into a X58 board but then you have wasted the onchip GPU and PCI stuffs .....
Link or shens, Mr. Walker. Also, on-die GPU isn't really a waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam DeathWalker
"But I don't use it! IT IS WASTE!"
What if...*gasp* (depending on setup) I wanted to power down my super-mega-awesome-fapfapfap-gahoooooooona-expensive-powerhungry GPU for...Gasp....NORMAL THINGS like....EMAIL...and....SHIT, I could switch to the on-cpu GPU and save power!
And while the above might not be feasible, just think of the MOBILE MARKET. YES. SOME PEOPLE ARE MOBILE.
Also, same/better performance as previous generation, equal/more cores (including hyperthreading) PLUS A GODDAMN ON-DIE GPU, ALL FOR LESS POWER!?
Sometimes I wonder about you, Sam. You gyrate between a complete retard to somebody thinking outside the box juuust a little bit.
So its better for mid and low range systems, but worse for high end systems.
We use high end systems for multiboxing wow ....
Of course the GPU has a purpose and will help sell SB to the low and mid range users. And of course its an improvement over prior generation product.
But Bulldozer, using the same amount of transistors, in what I assume will be an equal cost cpu will have either more cores or more ram instead of the gpu/pci stuffs. For high end users thats a win for Bulldozer.
Frankly looks to me AMD is doing things right and Intel making a bit of a misstep.
Of course Intel might have some chips planed without GPU/PCI. I find it hard to belive that every CPU they sell from SB on out will have a GPU in it.
To create a SB CPU without a GPU/with more cores they'd need to design/tweak the die, then test it, put it into production, market etc.
I don't think the cost is worth it just to benefit us "Super high performance" folks.
And if I remember correctly they've only released the mainstream variant of the CPU. Enthusiast variants are yet to come.
Hmm, Its true intel beats amd in a single instance of wow, but how would it handle 5? 4 core 8 thread intel vs 6 core amd. I'm guessing the difference may not be as pronounced.
Kudos to intel, those are pretty good benchmarks.