Ni> MR> i've had both as well. for me, Intel processors just seem to have a
Ni> MR> slight speed advantage. I'm real good at noticing patterns and maybe
Ni> MR> people are not and just don't notice. I've also had games that ran b
Ni> MR> on intel than an amd computer with more muscle. I always chalked it u
Ni> MR> the developers catering to intel specs.
Ni>
Ni> I used just AMD for so long that I couldn't really compare. I But I alway
Ni> ght the games I played ran fairly well with the AMD processors I used. Ev
Ni> they may have been slightly faster on Intel, I thought they were plenty fa
Ni> the AMDs.

Intel typically would beat AMD on the gaming side, less about catering and
more about the nature game engines being very very poorly multi-threaded(if
you could even call them that). Unreal and Unity(pre-ECS) all bottleneck on
a single thread called the game thread, while they have a few other threads
doing things asynchronously. The end result is that clock-speed is king and
while AMD will typically destroy similarly priced Intel CPU's in all
multi-threaded workloads, when it comes to mostly single-threaded loads, IE
Gaming, Intel will win. You'll pay a premium for it but Intel will win.

Usually the #600x series(7600x, 5600x) offers fantastic bang for buck
single-threaded performance for gaming though, really can't go wrong with
those chips if all you want to do is game

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A45 2020/02/18 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The Bottomless Abyss BBS * bbs.bottomlessabyss.net

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: unc0nnected to Nightfox on Tue Oct 31 2023 09:27 pm

un> Intel typically would beat AMD on the gaming side, less about catering and
un> more about the nature game engines being very very poorly
un> multi-threaded(if you could even call them that). Unreal and

That's what I've heard, though I think the AMDs I used were always plenty fast.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com