Intel vs AMD in Call of Duty: Black Ops Benchmark!

Wow, the i5 750 @ 2.66Ghz DESTROYS the Phenom II X4 @ 3.5Ghz.....by 20FPS!

yes, yes, yes....I know the Phenom II still runs it at 70fps so that's good enough, but in a year or two when they start showing their age i5 owners are going to be a lot happier than Phenom II owners (40fps is a LOT more pleasant compared to 20fps). Also I do know that you can upgrade, but surely not NEEDING to upgrade for longer is better.

Phenom II X4 970 = £186

i5 750 = £199

THIS people is why I suggest people buying new rig's to buy the i5's!

LINK

There are so many problems with this chart you posted.

-Running at a high resolution. CPU tests should be done at low resolutions with low visual detail settings.

-Using 1 game to come to a conclusion about how current CPUs will fare in the future is ridiculous. Show a battery of tests to prove a trend and come to a conclusion.

-The same test shows a 3.16ghz Core 2 Duo running the game about 40% faster than a 3.2ghz Athlon II X2. Clearly this is a game that just runs better on Intel hardware across the board. This doesn't make a statement for AMD vs. Intel CPUs for gaming in general.. just in this game.

-Said game is known to be poorly optimized and have all sorts of performance issues on the PC platform. Black Ops (and all COD games) runs on a heavily modified version of ID Tech 3. It's an overbloated, overmodified version of an 11 year-old game engine that should be shot in the head.

There are so many problems with this chart you posted.

-Running at a high resolution. CPU tests should be done at low resolutions with low visual detail settings.

-Using 1 game to come to a conclusion about how current CPUs will fare in the future is ridiculous. Show a battery of tests to prove a trend and come to a conclusion.

-Said game is known to be poorly optimized and have all sorts of performance issues on the PC platform. Black Ops (and all COD games) runs on a heavily modified version of ID Tech 3. It's an overbloated, overmodified version of an 11 year-old game engine that should be shot in the head.

hartsickdiscipl

Daytona, don't even try to defend your post. It's so biased it's not even funny. Everybody knows that in 95% of games (most running on much more current and relevant game engines), you can't tell the difference between a 3ghz AMD Quad-core and an i7.

It proves that Intel CPUs run Black Ops better, which uses a very old game engine. Not to mention the biggie that you said yourself- The AMD Quads are still running the game more than fast enough for it to be a non-issue. Don't try to project the benchmark results of a game that is KNOWN to have general performance issues as some sort of omen to be applied to all games.

Don't get me wrong, the i5 quads are a good deal.. But you can't just compare the cost of the CPUs. How much is the cheapest 1156 mobo with 4 DIMM slots and multiple full-length PCI-E slots? You can get a couple of AM3 boards with those features for $65 or less. So you can get the motherboard and an x4 955 for $215 to $225. You can't touch that with an i5 quad.

For those of us who don't have an unlimited budget, this is the trick- Pay as little as you can to get as much performance as you need. That's smart buying.

EDIT- This is from page 9 of the same performance review that you got your results from:

"The truly interesting results came when looking at the Core i5 and i7 chips, which were head and shoulders above the rest of the pack. The results were so extreme that we re-tested several times, but in the end they held true and it would appear that Call of Duty: Black Ops has been optimized for these processors."

wow.. imagine that.

Intel's processors are better, AMD gives price/performance. i5 regularly stomps on the 955 and sometimes even on the 6 core AMD cpu, it winning here is nothing but a continuation of it's dominance over the AMD platform. However AMD still provides value, which alot of people like (myself included since I am probably going team red this time around).

There are test out to back the statement about GFX cards being the major difference in the more visually demanding games, this is why the ph2 X4's are a good buy not because they are the better CPU's.

They can in many cases be a superior choice for many users here at GS HW discuss. and is also widely recommended from most people in "what should i buy" questions.

Thing is that many people is mistaken taking that A:/Q: as AMD's CPU's being better while their products not offering the same high-end performance.

The intel high-end is without question the better CPU's if the app choose to utilize that amount of power, a quick look at most CPU benchmarks can tell you that, but most games seem to do fine without as much power, even a slower quad seems to run just about any modern game with flying colors.

I am not agreeing to that people who brogh the Q6xxx four-something years ago made a really good buy, i'd rather think of it like they did buy a very expencive product long before it was needed, but they can still play most games just fine, even the ones that need four cores to work corectly.

If anything was a good buy the cheaper C2D's were extremely long lived, they lasted almost until today and still plays many games fine, the same question were about when it was x2 vs. C2D, today we can see the performance difference's in games on those two, the C2Duos are performing better with a margin but at the time the lesser Athlons were fine to play games with, I'd like to say that history will repeat itself again. The i7's will fare better in the future as they're the better performing ones but people with Ph2's will get all they need from their CPU's until it's time to upgrade.

Out from a gamer perspective the ph2's are great buys but that is not to be mixed with the actual performance vs. the i7's, the few games witch is really CPU bound intel highend usally takes the lead by margin.

Ya Black Ops may be that way but most of the time games look like thishttp://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1075t-970be-645-processor-review/17 where at the higher resolutions you see the exact same frames and in far cry 2 the 980x falls behind the phenom 2 970. I play games at that resolution and dont do anything else on my gaming computer.

farcry 2 is also good for intel (in most benchmarks). your point?

ps. aimed at OP. not comment before which i only read after post :P

That graph seems really weird because most processors above 3ghz perform roughly the same with a video card. i5 IS more powerful than an Phenom but not the way this is measured.

If you look at multi GPU scales then i5/i7 pull a head of AMD by a good chunk. But you need a lot of video horsepower to do it.

Obviously Intel funded the game engine, but when any AMD quad is outdated, Intel's i5 will be obsolete the following month.

when any AMD quad is outdated, Intel's i5 will be obsolete the following monthdesertpython

Intel cpu's have better instruction sets. Luckly, AMD lawsuit win a while back will finally allow their new chips (not updated chips such as the X6 but new architecture chips) to use many of the new instruction sets. At the moment all AMD chips are stuck at SSE3 but their are some significant gains on the SSE4.1, SSE4.2, and even SSSE3. AMD's knockoff sse4a is nothing (only 6 extra instructions but nothing that really improves performance.)... This is all where the intel vs AMD separation is.. Watch as statistics narrow with newer AMD cpu's soon.

Intel cpu's have better instruction sets. Luckly, AMD lawsuit win a while back will finally allow their new chips (not updated chips such as the X6 but new architecture chips) to use many of the new instruction sets. At the moment all AMD chips are stuck at SSE3 but their are some significant gains on the SSE4.1, SSE4.2, and even SSSE3. AMD's knockoff sse4a is nothing (only 6 extra instructions but nothing that really improves performance.)... This is all where the intel vs AMD separation is.. Watch as statistics narrow with newer AMD cpu's soon.

jedikevin2

Possibly, but isn't Intel's chip architecture and its pipeline superior?

11-18-2010

Its closer then you would think. Intel big power comes from the new architecture and the refinement awesome of hyperthreading(p4 to i7 and years or work on it). jedikevin2

That sounds right. A 965 will swallow any task you throw at it, just like the 955 and 970 regardless.

my 1090t isnt on that chart, and anyways, I have vertical sync enabled on my games, so no game runs faster than 60fps, ever, its just pointless.

Wow, the i5 750 @ 2.66Ghz DESTROYS the Phenom II X4 @ 3.5Ghz.....by 20FPS!

yes, yes, yes....I know the Phenom II still runs it at 70fps so that's good enough, but in a year or two when they start showing their age i5 owners are going to be a lot happier than Phenom II owners (40fps is a LOT more pleasant compared to 20fps). Also I do know that you can upgrade, but surely not NEEDING to upgrade for longer is better.

Phenom II X4 970 = £186

i5 750 = £199

THIS people is why I suggest people buying new rig's to buy the i5's!

LINK

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

Intel cpu's have better instruction sets. Luckly, AMD lawsuit win a while back will finally allow their new chips (not updated chips such as the X6 but new architecture chips) to use many of the new instruction sets. At the moment all AMD chips are stuck at SSE3 but their are some significant gains on the SSE4.1, SSE4.2, and even SSSE3. AMD's knockoff sse4a is nothing (only 6 extra instructions but nothing that really improves performance.)... This is all where the intel vs AMD separation is.. Watch as statistics narrow with newer AMD cpu's soon.

Possibly, but isn't Intel's chip architecture and its pipeline superior?