i prefer amd to intel, but ive only been a pc gamer for about 8 years, and only making my own pcs for about half that
Comment has been collapsed.
AMD nearly always scores a flawless win when it comes to gaming, especially budget gaming. No game really needs the power of i5 or i7, those two are aimed more towards professional video editors etc., some people are just fanboys and point out little things that don't really matter much.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mmm, it's getting that way - an FX-8320 will set you back £118 right now and a 4670K will set you back £188. The 4670K is undeniably a better processor, but purely from a gaming perspective, I'd argue that it's nowhere near £70 better.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, they arent on par with Intels CPUs. Intels CPUs perform better in pretty much every single game. Thats mostly because AMDs architecture is inefficient and not really state-of-the-art. (And thats why they have to fool ppl with their "awesome 5Ghz CPU")
Comment has been collapsed.
Because AMD has both an APU and more importantly, proper GPU technology and they can deliver it as a complete solution. Intel does not possess the technology to deliver such a solution.
Look the the architecture of the PS4
Comment has been collapsed.
Combination of integration and performance. (I just saw an article about this yesterday, but I'm too lazy to search for it.)
Short of it: Going for an Intel CPU would have required a discrete graphics chip, going for NVIDIA would have required a discrete CPU. AMD provides an integrated APU with decent (even if not stellar) CPU and GPU performance. (Integrated is an issue of both price and performance.) The alternative integrated solution would have been an ARM CPU, but that's considerably weaker.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reason is APU. (processor and graphics on one chip).
Only AMD does have technology currently that can produce APU with strong enough GPU (graphics). Intel do APU too, but have weaker graphics so it could not have been chosen. Nvidia does not and can't produce x86 processors so it could not supply such APU.
Reason is that AMD could provide product other could not.
Comment has been collapsed.
All the above are wrong. Intel deliberately let AMD win. You know why? Because AMD is barely afloat now and Intel is very pleased with "competition" having 15-20% of the market. Better let AMD win some extra profit in niche, non-progressing market than to have them bankrupt and Intel being forcibly divided by anti-monopoly laws into several companies.
Comment has been collapsed.
Løl. You do know the 2 Companies sell more than just CPU's for gamers right? Intel did and still don't have any Integrated solution like AMD did. AMD could provide proper Graphics. Intel can hardly provide desktop Graphics, let alone anything gaming related.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dude, Intel owns server processor market. You should educate yourself, yes, they not only make 'CPU's for gamers', they dominate almost all processor segments and that's why Intel has so big share of the market. Integrated solution means nothing, Intel could have easily produced console on par with AMD, with or without Nvidia's help, but they DID hand them that contract by refusing. AMD workers admitted that in interviews, maybe read something outside of biased fantexts?
Comment has been collapsed.
This. Intel is not afraid of AMD, because that competition is almost non-existent in server and hi-end workstations market. If they forced them selves into this, regulators would intervene for sure. They need AMD to survive more than AMD needs to live, lol.
Comment has been collapsed.
When was the last time an Intel CPU was inside a console?
Comment has been collapsed.
35 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by AbdAllahMohamedRefat
21 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by orono
9 Comments - Last post 27 minutes ago by HaxterZ
53 Comments - Last post 50 minutes ago by WastedYears
189 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Chris76de
40 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by wormmayhem
106 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by fjmac65
27 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by DeliberateTaco
23 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by rex2630
3 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by WaxWorm
2,144 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by Izaro
497 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by matsalkoshek
48 Comments - Last post 24 minutes ago by gortman
33 Comments - Last post 30 minutes ago by LieEater
I came across this article
Alienware admits consoles are like Pc now
And i went into the good old wikipedia to chec the xbox one and PS4 specs and I found this:
Xbox one:
CPU AMD 8 core APU (2 Quad-Core Jaguar modules)
Graphics AMD Radeon variant (inside of APU)
and for the PS4:
CPU Semi-custom 8-core AMD x86-64 CPU (integrated into APU)
Graphics Semi-custom AMD Radeon GPU (integrated into APU)
I happened to wonder why did the two biggest console companies chose AMD over Intel?
Comment has been collapsed.