Why Intel CPUs are better for gaming???

[Rengar_hunter]

Hi. Why intel CPUs are better for gaming then amd or others??

 

[captaincharisma]

its all bout performance. a top AMD FX CPU can easily get outperformed by intel's lowest

 

[Poozle]

Intel has a higher frequency (or speed) on their CPUs. Games currently only take advantage of 4-maybe 6 cores. If developers took advantage of more than 4 cores, AMD would be better at gaming and probably will be in the future. AMD's new cpus are having a few launch bugs but so does every new platform. AMD ryzen performs very similarly especially at 1440p or 4k. I would reccomend you go with AMD ryzen CPUs over intels as they are much more for their pricing.

 

[geofelt]

Intel processors do more work per clock.
Most games depend on the performance of a single master thread.
And few games can use more than 2-3 threads.

Ryzen improved their performance per clock, but still not quite up to Intel levels.

 

[Dova-Pug]

Intel processors do more work per clock.
Most games depend on the performance of a single master thread.
And few games can use more than 2-3 threads.

Ryzen improved their performance per clock, but still not quite up to Intel levels.

Not far off though and for a lower price

 

[valeman2012]

Intel went their way of making the CPU
AMD remained the same old way to make the CPU. (Intel used to go that same way, but Intel moved away from that way)

Maybe thats why.

 

[Ajvanho]

You're probably reffering to Ryzen. And I wouldn't call it performing worse, at all.

As some users have mentioned, there's an optimization issue. Everything in the last 3 years has been focused on Intel. Because Intel had everything AMD didn't have (new features and newer models).
Naturally you CAN'T optimize for AMD since AMD doesn't have a product. Now that it does, Microsoft and others will have to start doing some optimizations for AMD as well as Intel.

Now to talk about the performance it has scored so far.
Gaming benchmarks: They're wrong.
It's not just that they're wrong, it's that they're misleading. No one buys an i7 6900K to do gaming casually, so I don't see a reason to think of it's competitor as a different race. The Ryzen 7.
The part where it's mostly wrong is in the testing it self. They're all done basically and primitively just for the AdRevenue.

The spotlight is on the R7 1700 and i7 7700K. Similar price, 1.2GHz gap. I understand there needs to be a base clock benchmark. But why not Overclock both CPU's to like 4.5-4.8GHz and see the results there. A 1.2GHz gap is something reviewers should be aware off more than the CPM Google AdRevenue has in their country.
There should also be a more broad benchmarking. Placing basic testing like CSGO, Minecraft and Super Mario 2D. I think there should be benchmarks where it's pushed to the max use. ARMA 3 LAN hosting a server with 1200 AI's, 4 additional players and streaming it to Twitch in the mean time.

I've seen that in most cases where the 7700K has 5more FPS, it actually looked worse than Ryzen, smoothness wise. The BF1 gameplay on Ryzen was for some reason (minimum FPS) lot smoother even tho it has less Average FPS.

And each version of benchmark should be done both on OC and Base. Both lite games and pushing it to the max so people know what they should buy for their need. The best solution would be to do a reform concerning AdRevenue.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

You're probably reffering to Ryzen. And I wouldn't call it performing worse, at all.

As some users have mentioned, there's an optimization issue. Everything in the last 3 years has been focused on Intel. Because Intel had everything AMD didn't have (new features and newer models).
Naturally you CAN'T optimize for AMD since AMD doesn't have a product. Now that it does, Microsoft and others will have to start doing some optimizations for AMD as well as Intel.

Now to talk about the performance it has scored so far.
Gaming benchmarks: They're wrong.
It's not just that they're wrong, it's that they're misleading. No one buys an i7 6900K to do gaming casually, so I don't see a reason to think of it's competitor as a different race. The Ryzen 7.
The part where it's mostly wrong is in the testing it self. They're all done basically and primitively just for the AdRevenue.

The spotlight is on the R7 1700 and i7 7700K. Similar price, 1.2GHz gap. I understand there needs to be a base clock benchmark. But why not Overclock both CPU's to like 4.5-4.8GHz and see the results there. A 1.2GHz gap is something reviewers should be aware off more than the CPM Google AdRevenue has in their country.
There should also be a more broad benchmarking. Placing basic testing like CSGO, Minecraft and Super Mario 2D. I think there should be benchmarks where it's pushed to the max use. ARMA 3 LAN hosting a server with 1200 AI's, 4 additional players and streaming it to Twitch in the mean time.

I've seen that in most cases where the 7700K has 5more FPS, it actually looked worse than Ryzen, smoothness wise. The BF1 gameplay on Ryzen was for some reason (minimum FPS) lot smoother even tho it has less Average FPS.

And each version of benchmark should be done both on OC and Base. Both lite games and pushing it to the max so people know what they should buy for their need. The best solution would be to do a reform concerning AdRevenue.

Not quite right. At least not your way of thinking about it (and some it just plain misinformed).

First, MANY reviewers have tested both at the same clocks. Intel still has the edge in gaming in that scenario (even with SMT disabled).

Second, 4.1 seems to be the absolute max for a Ryzen chip, currently (with normal cooling and somewhat sane voltage), so comparing both at their respective max overclocks will never be fair.

Anyway, you're on the right track with optimization part, at least. That much is true.

 

[Ajvanho]

You're probably reffering to Ryzen. And I wouldn't call it performing worse, at all.

As some users have mentioned, there's an optimization issue. Everything in the last 3 years has been focused on Intel. Because Intel had everything AMD didn't have (new features and newer models).
Naturally you CAN'T optimize for AMD since AMD doesn't have a product. Now that it does, Microsoft and others will have to start doing some optimizations for AMD as well as Intel.

Now to talk about the performance it has scored so far.
Gaming benchmarks: They're wrong.
It's not just that they're wrong, it's that they're misleading. No one buys an i7 6900K to do gaming casually, so I don't see a reason to think of it's competitor as a different race. The Ryzen 7.
The part where it's mostly wrong is in the testing it self. They're all done basically and primitively just for the AdRevenue.

The spotlight is on the R7 1700 and i7 7700K. Similar price, 1.2GHz gap. I understand there needs to be a base clock benchmark. But why not Overclock both CPU's to like 4.5-4.8GHz and see the results there. A 1.2GHz gap is something reviewers should be aware off more than the CPM Google AdRevenue has in their country.
There should also be a more broad benchmarking. Placing basic testing like CSGO, Minecraft and Super Mario 2D. I think there should be benchmarks where it's pushed to the max use. ARMA 3 LAN hosting a server with 1200 AI's, 4 additional players and streaming it to Twitch in the mean time.

I've seen that in most cases where the 7700K has 5more FPS, it actually looked worse than Ryzen, smoothness wise. The BF1 gameplay on Ryzen was for some reason (minimum FPS) lot smoother even tho it has less Average FPS.

And each version of benchmark should be done both on OC and Base. Both lite games and pushing it to the max so people know what they should buy for their need. The best solution would be to do a reform concerning AdRevenue.

Not quite right. At least not your way of thinking about it (and some it just plain misinformed).

First, MANY reviewers have tested both at the same clocks. Intel still has the edge in gaming in that scenario (even with SMT disabled).

Second, 4.1 seems to be the absolute max for a Ryzen chip, currently (with normal cooling and somewhat sane voltage), so comparing both at their respective max overclocks will never be fair.

Anyway, you're on the right track with optimization part, at least. That much is true.

Oh right, forgot the OC part.
Anyway, I still think that leaving the 1.2GHz difference and calling it a day is STUPID.
People who OC know what 500MHz does, not to mention 1.2GHz.

And I still doubt anyone's gonna spend $1600-$2000 on 2 CPU's to play Super Mario 2D and Pong, and maybe, just maybe, open a movie.

Anyway, for me, Ryzen is spot on. 90% of the performance for 40% of the cash (in benchmarks against the i7 6900K). I'm still more curious about the R5 6-core series. Sounds like a good option for streamers who don't have any gold mines in the nearby area.

 

[gamerk316]

For a perfectly parallel benchmark that loads all CPU cores:

Performance = Clock * IPC * Number_Of_Cores

Intel CPUs tend to have higher IPC then AMD ones, so a single Intel core at the same clock will do more work then an AMD one. Add in the fact that games are not perfectly parallel (performance gains drop of after three or four cores), and that pretty much explains why Intel CPUs are faster.

 

[Afairg]

Short and sweet, intel has higher clock speeds and more instructions per clock (IPC) than any other CPU brand currently out there. It is overall faster and has better performance.

 

[SeekNSstroy014]

Intel CPUs are better because they are higher grade = higher performance

I can 1080p 60FPS battlefield 4 on an AMD 6-core CPU but it's because I was on a budget when I built this PC

 

[zpak477]

Ryzen CPUs are good for gaming but they are aimed more toward content creation due to the higher core count, more cores can't hurt gaming but they are unnecessary and aren't used unless the game is optimized for more cores. Games benefit more from higher clock frequency and IPC or Instructions per cycle. AMD has increased the IPC of Ryzen but it isn't on the same level as Intel's Skylake or Kabylake. So in short Intel is still your best bet for gaming but if you're streaming or doing video editing and not trying to break the bank Ryzen is the sweet spot for content creation on a budget.

 

[danielthegreate]

Not all intel CPUs are better than all AMD CPUs for gaming, at least not when you consider all the games along with CPU costs.
i7 is better than anything AMD has, and that's because it has more "per core" performance and games have been optimised for it for years.
i5 CPUs might give you slightly higher average frame rate than Ryzen 5, but the R5 has better 0.1% and 1% lows due to having more threads available, which results in fewer frame rate dips and more smooth gaming. So the 1600x, for example, is better than i5 CPUs.
Then again on the lower end, at the moment, the intel G4560 is king.
So overall, in mid-range Ryzen CPUs are a better buy for gaming. On the high end, the 7700k remains the undisputed king of price and performance in gaming.