I came to the realization that a lot of people believe Intel destroys AMD at every price point, so I added a little something to the popular /r/PCMasterRace builds page


1) The TekSyndicate review. Nobody's reproduced it, their own numbers are inconsistent.

For example, with his stock 8350+7870 benches, he pulls 36fps on Trine [email protected] Yet with the 7970-competitor GTX 670 and an 8350 clocked at 5Ghz, he pulls 30 fps.. He got a stronger GPU, overclocked a processor, and his FPS went down?

Crysis and Metro have their own built-in benches, but he does playthrough instead.

They don't even keep their own numbers straight. They randomly order their 1080, 720, and 1600x900 numbers.

Not to mention, today we have OBS, Nvidia Shadowplay, and AMD has streaming with Raptr.

His Arma II numbers are also "unique." In his tests, none of the Intel chips can run Arma II over 30fps, while the FX usually maintains double that. BeHardware got nothing like his FPS claims.

Here's a post involving many other reviews of the games and a ton of reviews that get results nothing like his claims.

2) The Austin Evans review. Battlefield 3...singleplayer? On a 7770? Battlefield SP is entirely GPU bound with a 8fps difference between an Athlon II X2 265 and an i7-2600K. Then you actually try multiplayer. Then there's GameGPU's 64-player benchmark.

He oddly pegs the i5 at <50fps, around the level of a Sandy Bridge i3 while the it's stronger FX cousin, the 4300 can't match an i3 even after OC.

Crysis 3 on a 7770? Bring a serious GPU to the table. I mean, really. Then with the 7870 bench, I find it strange that his [email protected]/1080p outperforms a [email protected]/1680x1050. His i5 bench with the 7870 is on par with a 7970.

3) StarCraft is enormously biased towards Intel. No shit. I never base an argument on StarCraft, or Skyrim (granted, Skyrim has 20 million sales across all platforms).

Let's throw the ball into AMD's court. Well-threaded titles that can distribute their load across multiple cores.

Assassin's Creed: Unity can load every core of an 8350 to 71% or higher. It's missing 8fps against an i3. Said i3 is matching an FX-9590.

Battlefield 4 multiplayer here we have the i3 generally outdoing the 8350, although the game seems to prefer the 6300 over the 8350 in FPS terms. At Ultra/1440p, we see a GPU bottleneck on the 770 and 7970. We even see the FX quad core matching the octo. At High/1440p we see the i3 maintain a 5fps lead over any of the tested FX CPUs on the 770 or 7970. On Windows 8, the i3 matches the 6300 with the 770, although W8+7970 favors the entire FX line above Intel.

Going with another review, pclab.pl has the stock 6300 in a strong 8fps lead over the i3 with a GTX 780 But when Mantle is run with a 290X, the i3 outperforms even a 6350 by the same amount. When you overclock, the 6300 has a staggering 16fps over the i3 with a 780. With a 290X, the i3 matches the 4.7Ghz 6300. We also see the $60 Pentium G3258 10fps behind the 6300 in the 780 review.

/r/Amd Thread