What Cold_Gambler posted seems about right.

Intel is much better at CPU dependent video encoding -- not an accident -- Intel aimed its CPU design in that direction and incorporated new CPU codes for the purpose (AMD is always a generation behind Intel on copying Intel codes into its CPU architectures). Intel is also better clock for clock core for core. Since most games don't take advantage of 6 or 8 cores, one can measure the Intel advantage.

Hence, if one writes an article that compares video encoding and core for core at the same clocks, it will be fairly one sided in favor of Intel.

If one writes an article on game FPS, the results are much closer -- often nearly identical and rarely far enough apart to "see" the difference. Most games play at 30fps or higher; thus, FPS differences become invisible. Therefore, to argue that AMD is deficient because its MINIMUM speed is 70FPS in ARMA II (faster than most LED monitors can even display as they are limited to 60FPS), is misleading (no one will see the difference). Moreover, as Skatezilla points out, most games are GPU limited (or are not significantly CPU limited). My comments here are always directed towards gaming on a budget.

Nonetheless, Intel is measurably faster. People who do significant video editing should pay the price and buy Intel (a fast Intel, not just any Intel). Intel desktop Ivy Bridge is due in April. At 22nm, it should be very strong -- it may make arguing for AMD CPUs on the basis of performance/price pretty difficult -- unless the Intel prices are high

Yeah good to keep in mind what sort of gaming you want the CPU for, I spend most of my time in iRacing and FSX both which are very CPU bound and I can detect differences in the smoothness depending on whether I overclock and when I upgraded from e8500 to i7-920 to i5-2500k.

Also while whether framerates above 30FPS are detectable by humans or not is a controversial subject in these types of discussions, I can tell you that in iRacing there is a huge difference in the amount of control/accuracy I have of the car and the resulting laptimes between having framerate <60FPS or 60FPS vsync or > 60 FPS, in FSX or other flight sims the framerate is a bit less critical, but in racing simulations where I need inch perfect accuracy of my corner apex, it is definitely something I feel the difference of.

So overall I agree the Intel -vs- AMD performance discussion really depends on what you need the system to do and even when talking gaming/simming what particular titles you play the most and whether they are CPU mostly bound like FSX/iRacing/Arma2 or take good advantage of the GPU (BF3, DX:HR etc.).

Good discussion, these are interesting times in hardware options, and even if I haven't bought an AMD CPU for a few upgrades I may in the future if they beat Intel for my needs and I still keep a soft spot for them as the underdog and thankful that they keep Intel competing.

This is getting desperate on AMD's account. The author of the linked article didn't discover anything new or ground breaking.



Well said.

TBH I never had an issue with AMDs performance, and I betcha after 2 weeks w/ my FX8120 I'll have it tweaked.