| famousringo said: Similar conclusions were drawn in this article: http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/1 They didn't actually test any i3s, but here are some useful takeaways: - Don't bother putting an AMD CPU into your gaming machine. - You don't really want the highest FPS, you want the most consistent FPS. - Faster CPUs will actually still improve the number and consistency of FPS (i.e., it's not just about GPUs these days). - i7s really aren't worth the extra money for gaming purposes. Even the higher-end i5s don't yield much improvement. Most important is getting the latest class of architecture. |
I don't have the time or tools to measure the consistency of the frame delivery and their latency, so I have to take their results to be true.
Going over the article I can't help but feel they are making a big deal of something that really isn't that big of a deal. I personally don't see much difference on an AMD platform versus Intel in frame delivery when both are GPU bound and doing 55 fps in Crysis 2 per say.
If we take their Batman benchmark and look at AMD low and Intel mid... yes intels have less latency spikes when rendering the frames, however the difference isn't large at all. Phenom 980 seems to deliver 10-70 ms of latency where the i5 2500k is doing 10-60ms. I don't see that being a large difference at all... It just sounds like something that only the hardcore of the hardcore would notice.
So yeah, I don't agree with their "don't bother putting AMD CPU in to gaming machine" conclusion at all.
