GeckoEcho421
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 589
Long time no post... Well, I'm back and I'd like to say that amd always has and probobly always will beat intel in the game section.
Who said the Intel can't beat AMD in gaming?
- Thread starter koldapu
- Start date
- Status
Silent Nemesis
Baseband Member
- Messages
- 25
Yeah because AMD processors do more work per clock cycle than Intel's processors.
YourPrinter
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 517
koldapu said:Okay okay, it can when it is overclocked to 5.2GHz!
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1787/
toms did that TWO years ago
LOL... not quite, but we're getting close to that easy ratio!
Toms did not run so many benchies tho, and it wasnt a semi-permanant setup. This was in a case.
And the reason AMD is so much better in games isn't because of the more work per cycle... well partly. But, it also has less wasted cycles. In a game, things are very random. With a long staged pipeline, like intel, if the data changes, or is wrong, it has to go back and do it again and use a clock for every stage. With AMD, however, it has much fewer stages, and therefore if its wrong, wastes less cycles. But when both at 100% correct, data from a, say 500 stage pipeline and a 5 stage pipeline will come out at the same speed.
Toms did not run so many benchies tho, and it wasnt a semi-permanant setup. This was in a case.
And the reason AMD is so much better in games isn't because of the more work per cycle... well partly. But, it also has less wasted cycles. In a game, things are very random. With a long staged pipeline, like intel, if the data changes, or is wrong, it has to go back and do it again and use a clock for every stage. With AMD, however, it has much fewer stages, and therefore if its wrong, wastes less cycles. But when both at 100% correct, data from a, say 500 stage pipeline and a 5 stage pipeline will come out at the same speed.
- Status
