Gaming is AMD or intel the best . Look inside to see

Turtle 1 · Post by **Turtle 1** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:22 am

Would any of you guys buy a X1800xt or 7800GTX and play games at low resolutions? No of course you wouldn't.
So I am here to disspell a untruth. At high res. and eyecandy on does AMD outperform Intel CPU'S . The ans might surprise you.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... ames2.html

Interesting isn't it ? As you can plainly see you don't need a $1000 P4EE or a fx57 . As a $200 dollar P4 3.2 runs just as fast as the Bid buck CPU'S.
Yes at lower res. AMD is faster than Intel . But if your gaming at Low res. You don't need a X1800xt or 7800GTX as the last gen . is just as fast @ low resolutions.
So why don't reviewers tell or better yet show these results in their reviews?

I would sure be proud to see a site tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
This site here is as honest as anysite out there. Xbit labs has taken the lead and I believe its time for all sites to show in CPU reviews . Gaming results @ higher resolutions . The hardware has changed its time for reviewers to change how they do modern reviews.

If you go into a forum and ask whats the best gaming CPU all will say AMD. IF your running a x1800xt or a 7800gtx at low res that would be true but than it would be a real waste of money buying either of those GPU'S wouldn't it? Because of modern GPU reviewers need to review how they review. As it stands right now their decieving their readers. Also causing them to spend way more money than they need for a top of the line gaming PC.

kenc51 · Post by **kenc51** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:04 pm

Try ask ATI for a sample of their new card for review, then show the truth.....I doubt ATI will give anothe sameple to review again.(the same goes for Intel or AMD)

Sites benchmark @ low-res for CPU reviews, so they can relieve the load on the GFX card.....Why?.....because iit's the CPU and not the GFX card they are reviewing!
It's easier to see the difference between when there is a larger gap...
There is no point in using 3dMark for CPU reviews as all we would see is @ most a ~1000pt difference..
The CPU isn't just for gaming.....Have you noticed that sites that review a CPU don't just benchmark games? they do media encoding and other tasks which stress the CPU.
The X-bitlabs article only shows new games too...so of course the GFX card will be the bottleneck..

I'm glad that X-Bitlabs have done this as it does show that the CPU is not the be all and end all of gaming...we have forgotten it'sthe GFX card that does most of the work....

But you can't blame sites for showing low-res benchmarks when reviewing a CPU....They are only showing the difference between the cpu's in gaming when the CPU is doing all the work....

Turtle 1 · Post by **Turtle 1** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:25 pm

I don't quite know what you mean buy try getting another ATI card for review their out in great numbers now. The Truth what is the Truth.

The reason sites review at low res is that in the last 2 generations of cards X800 0r 1800 was it really possiable to game at high res with eyecandy . The older cards just didn't have it . Times have changed and so should how reviews are done.. Its alright to test at low res to show the cpu at work but its not ethical for reviewers to say AMD is faster than intel cpus in gaming if you use the latest high end GPU @ resolutions of 1280x 1024.
Is this not a true statement.

Xbit also has latest reviews using ATI 5:12 drivers and you should read it for the truth of playable FPS in modern games . It plainly shows that the 7800GTX 512 is a fast card but $800 its clearly shows these cards are not worth that kind of money.@ $549 the X1800xt is clearly the bang for your buck card .

Turtle 1 · Post by **Turtle 1** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:35 pm

kenc51 wrote:Try ask ATI for a sample of their new card for review, then show the truth.....I doubt ATI will give anothe sameple to review again.(the same goes for Intel or AMD)

Sites benchmark @ low-res for CPU reviews, so they can relieve the load on the GFX card.....Why?.....because iit's the CPU and not the GFX card they are reviewing!
It's easier to see the difference between when there is a larger gap...
There is no point in using 3dMark for CPU reviews as all we would see is @ most a ~1000pt difference..
The CPU isn't just for gaming.....Have you noticed that sites that review a CPU don't just benchmark games? they do media encoding and other tasks which stress the CPU.
The X-bitlabs article only shows new games too...so of course the GFX card will be the bottleneck..

I'm glad that X-Bitlabs have done this as it does show that the CPU is not the be all and end all of gaming...we have forgotten it'sthe GFX card that does most of the work....

But you can't blame sites for showing low-res benchmarks when reviewing a CPU....They are only showing the difference between the cpu's in gaming when the CPU is doing all the work....

Yes sites have gotten away from doing gaming bench marks . (I was talking about a gaming PC only)
Another interesting point is that when AMD could stay with Intel in games only . Much yip yip her ha! was placed on the AMD gaming performance and they were cheaper.
Now that AMD dual core is kicking a$$ with the dual cores they have changed how they do reviews. I agree with this 100% but than should they not also change how they do a gaming review . You can't have it both ways as it questions the ethics of todays review sites.

kenc51 · Post by **kenc51** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:36 pm

Sure if your reviewing a game or GFX card, but if your are reviewing a CPU you shouldn't bench @ hi-res........

I've read the article earlier, just your first statemet comes accross like you suggest cpu reviews should be @ hi-res......

what I ment by trying to get another card was, that sites get cards early from the makers to review. The makers hope the site will give a good review so when it's released they will sell loads. If a site just says "don't buy this" then when a new card comes out agian....the maker will just ignore them...also the site may not be invited to a pre launch etc.

You scratch by back, I'll scratch yours....kinda thing....The IT industry is a very small and petty place!

I do see your point, but you also have to see it from all sides.....Xbit labs done this review on new games....sure the mid-range cpu's are just as good....but those games rely on the GPU not CPU...prob the only thing the CPU does in them is smoke effects etc.

Haven't you noticed how fast GFX cards have come since the GForce 4?
ATI came in with the 9700pro...nothing has being the same since...

What is going to happen soon is games wil be patched and made with dual core support....then you will see the the GFX card bing more of a bottleneck

:edit;
We both know the score. Now thanks to your post other will see too....

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:58 pm

So... what res should i run it at, should i run it at the native res of my screen? I dont think so because most people dont have 24" screens with 1920x1200 res. In fact 55% of all computers on the web are using 1024x768. Want to know what the most used screen res is in gameing? 1024x768... now this number is changing. So if an AMD cpu and 7800GTX is faster at 1024x768 than a Intel withe a X1800XT my results are wrong???? not at all because the guy who buys the AMD+7800GTX has a better gameing experience than the guy who buys the X1800XT and Intel cpu.

Kerii · Post by **Kerii** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:26 pm

They should just run it at a reasonable resolution.

Sure running at 800x600 with frame rates in the hundreds show differences better, but who actually runs at that res, and who actually can tell the difference between 200fps and 400fps even though it's a 100% increase?

Of course CPU benchmarks are more than just games, but what's the point of showing game performance if the settings are set to something nobody except people with integrated graphics run at?

The whole point of game benchmarks were to test real world performance, and running them at such low resolutions and detail settings essentially puts them in the same league as 3dmark scores. In other words, meaningless numbers that don't reflect real world situations.

My P4/6200 could probably run Battlefield 2 at 200fps if I put everything on low and ran at 800x600, and my friend would probably cream it in fps numbers with her A64 3000+ at those settings as well, but why would I do that when I can run it at 1280x1024 on low/high settings with no noticeable difference in fps? And if she ran at 1280x1024 as well with my 6200, the FPS difference would be so insignificantly small that it would make no difference.

And as such, when it makes no difference, getting a cheap CPU and putting the money saved towards a better GPU is the way to go.

The only area where I can see a high end CPU coming into play is in RTS games, ones where there is a lot of physics like Age of Empires III.

Dragon_Cooler · Post by **Dragon_Cooler** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:42 pm

i have an x2 3800 with an ati x1800xl with 2 gigs of ram. i play BF2SF at medium with 4xAA and AF 1024x168, why cant i get those frame rates??? all i get is anywhere from 30-80fps, and most times its 55fps.

kenc51 · Post by **kenc51** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:48 pm

OK...I miss-read the first post....

Forgetting the Xbitlabs article....CPU benchmarks using games should be @ low-res...UNLESS your compairing the CPU's for gaming.....THEN it should be benched across a range for resolutions...ie. in a real-world situation

When benching GFX cards, it should also be across a range of resolutions.....ie. real world situations

I like the way some sites test @ the best playable settings aswell as plain highest speed at a given resolution.. Bittech.net does this...aswell as [H]

Virusx86 · Post by **Virusx86** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:01 pm

i don't see how this changes at all which proc is better for gaming... so a $200 P4 is "fast enough" in some cases... a $150 A64 beats the pants off of it.

Unless INTEL became an international charity recently I don't see any compelling reason to give them your money in this case.

TK421 · Post by **TK421** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:32 pm

What this article offers as far as news is not anything new to me. That's why I'm still sitting pretty at an AMD 2200+ processor. If it weren't for the switch from AGP to PCI Express, I'd just toss in a new 7800 GTX in my system and be good to go. Because my Geforce 4 TI 4200 128mb card is AGP, I'm having to upgrade my motherboard and the works. SATA, PCI Express... it all changes so fast.

I only plan on upgrading to an AMD 64 3000+ which sits at a nice $160 from newegg.com, a motherboard that supports PCI Express and SATA. (Sorry, no SLI or SATA II for me just yet) I'll then add a Raptor HDD and a 6800GS and I plan on seeing very significant performance increase.

A gaming machine need not have the latest and greatest. Buy the parts that have been around for about a year, save yourself some big money and a lot of headache in being their ginnea pigs and beta testers. Sure, someone's got to do it, but for those prices I'd rather have 3-4 systems with 1 year old parts than 1 system with all the latest and greatest parts for an entire month before it's replaced with the next 'latest and greatest' piece of hardware.

Just my $0.02. PM me for more information. I've been building 'budget' gaming systems for over 5 years now because I made the mistake once of building a machine for a guy where money was not an issue and I've had more problems with his computer alone than all my other clients combined. Drivers, RMA, Compatability, shorts, DOA's... you name it.