I must not be getting something...

[CrazedAssembler]

I'm looking to build myself a new gaming pc, (my first build) and I know that many gaming rig builders swear by AMD processors, citing better performance than intel CPUs. I am hoping someone can tell me how they actually stack up. (Talking just the processor, and all else considered pretty much equal.)
To me, it doesn't seem possible that an AMD processor at under 3GHz can smoke (not litterally hopefully ) an intel processor at nearly 4GHz. Does the amount of cache make that big of a difference? (I've noticed AMD seems to have more L1 cache than intel processors. 64kb + 64kb vs 12kb + 16 kb.) My guess is a combination of things, but I just can't see it and I do not want to spec anything else til I know what kind of processor I want. Thanks in advance.

[doctorgonzo]

First, if you are going to be doing a lot of gaming, your video card is going to be far more important than the processor. So any decent processor, Intel or AMD, is going to be good enough for gaming provided that you have a good video card, a good motherboard, and enough RAM.

As for how an AMD processor at 3 GHz can do better than a 4 GHz Intel processor, there are a lot of reasons why that can be the case. Clock speed is just one part of the puzzle. Pipeline architecture, branch prediction, cache, memory controller systems, the number of execution units, all of those things make a difference. L1 cache is a huge one: it takes a LOT more time to get data from main memory, so the more you can squeeze into L1 cache, the less time the processor will sit spinning its wheels until the data it needs from main memory appears.

The clock speed of a processor is about as relevant as the number of HP a car engine puts out. It's a piece of the puzzle, yes, but you would never buy a care solely based on the horsepower rating.

Frankly, I'm not too concerned about head-to-head matchups between AMD and Intel because it just doesn't matter that much in real life.

[CrazedAssembler]

*Watches the explanation do a fly by along with a spy satellite*

I understand that other things like vid card play a big part of overall performance, but in the raw HP of a CPU, barring the clock speed of the processor, the FSB it works with and the L1 and L2 cache, what else should I look for to try and compare processors? My list looks like this so far...

* Clock speed
* FSB
* Cache


Anything else?

[yeoamuca]

amd and intel kinda go about making them in different ways
if you compare them both to highways
intel would be a two lane road with a 70mph speed limit
and amd would be a four lane road with a 55mph speed limit
mph is clock speed lanes is fsb
then you take a huge volume of cars and push them on each road
both work and can get the cars moving well its more of a personal preference
l1 cache can be compared to the gas in the cars
more l1 cache is more gas
less means you have to pull off the road and get more gas
thus increasing travel time

[doctorgonzo]

That's about all you can look for, or, to be more precise, that's about all you can easily get information on. Everything else is pretty technical and hard to understand.

Keep in mind, though, that AMD and Intels use fundamentally different architectures when you get right down to it. AMDs have always had lower clock speeds, but they make up for it by doing more work with every tick of the clock. That's why AMD decided to go with processor equivalent numbers in their model names long ago and still do so. Intel is moving that way as well.

Tom's Hardware has an ultimate CPU chart with benchmarks starting here if that is what you are really after. Keep in mind, though, that benchmarks are artificial. Again, if you have an AMD and an Intel processor at the same price, there probably isn't going to be a huge difference between the two in terms of real-world performance.

[MakeYourslf2012]

The way I think about the 2 differences are..

Think of both, AMD and Intel, as a water-wheel; both are totally engineered different. Intel would have small buckets on the wheel while the wheel itself was spinning relatively fast. AMD would have much larger buckets on the wheel, but the wheel was moving slower.

So if you look at it - both are getting the same amount of work done in the same amount of time; It's just each architechture have a different way of getting it done. Hence AMD may have a slower clock speed, but it makes up for it somewhere else in the architecture.

[blue60007]

Generally I find that equivalently priced AMDs and Intels generally perform similary. In the end, it's a personal choice. Both do what they are supposed to do.

[Cricket]

If you had two similarily spec'd gaming rigs running side by side and the only major difference between them was one had a AMD processor and the other had a Intel processor (running at comparable speeds) you'd be hard pressed to tell which was which without opening the case up.

Cricket

[LoC]

aye, i was going to throttle about price to performance, but Cricket hit it for me first! personally, saying that an intel as just as good as an AMD per price of the unit is wrong. nearly any AMD of roughly equivalent performance is SIGNIFICANTLY lower in price with the exception of the FX's. but then again, the FX's are superior processors to the pentiums 4's top of the line.

[Strider]

Here's a good article on dual cores but it does give a good intel -vs- Amd debate without having a flame ware. : http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7...tag=cnetfd.ld3

[CrazedAssembler]

Thanks to everyone for the replies. This should get me on the right track to building a computer that will pump pixels so hard you lose your eyebrows when it isn't even turned on.