Pemalite said:
Teeqoz said:
Guys I think I got cancer at work today.
A co-worker of mine started saying that AMD CPUs had always been better for gaming than intel CPUs. I told him that you might be able to make that claim for Ryzen (possibly), but that there's no way in hell you could claim that AMD's CPUs beat Intel in gaming before that, unless you go over a decade back. And he just denied it. So I asked him why Intel CPUs always beat AMD CPUs in benchmarks and he told me it didn't matter because the human eye can't see over 30 fps anyway. And this was coming from a PC gamer.
o_o |
Since the Core 2 Duo burst onto the scene, Intel has held the edge. That cannot be disputed.
For gaming Intel still has the edge with the 7700K.
However, AMD did bring us the first $100 quad-core CPU with the Athlon 2 x4.
And have consistently provided some amazing price/performance gaming CPU's like the Athlon X2 7750, Phenom 2 x4, Phenom 2 x6, AMD FX 6300 and so on. (Ironically I owned most of those chips at some point. Haha.)
And the human eye does not see in framerates... And it can and will discern more than 30fps.
|
Indeed what I told him was that at around 25 fps, we start perceiving it as continous motion instead of individual frames, but you can still notice the difference in smoothness from higher fps, and it's even easier to feel it when you are actually playing. (and heck, I think 25 fps might be too low for me for perceiving motion as continous if it's rapid. Panning shots or fight scenes in movies often get awfully juddery, or alternatively motion blurry, both of which are disturbing. Bleh)
