/sqt/ is dead, if I'm building for vidya, do I go with an AMD or Intel CPU and why...

/sqt/ is dead, if I'm building for vidya, do I go with an AMD or Intel CPU and why? What are the upsides of your preference? Everyone loves to tell me what's "just better" but never why.

Attached: 1520502217286.gif (500x281, 1.94M)

>/sqt/ is dead
so what in order for you to trigger jews vs r/ayymd for the x time today?

>so what in order for you to trigger jews vs r/ayymd for the x time today?
user are you okay? Do you want some coffee? Or a nap or something?

AMD has better multi-thread performance. Intel has better single thread performance, most games dont use more that 2 cores maybe some modern titles use 3-4, still each of Intel cores out perform AMD's, so for gayming Intel is better but they cost more so its up to u dud, basically Intel for performance and AMD for cost, hope this helps

Attached: 1520893022788.png (413x848, 272K)

That pretty well wraps it up, thanks user.

All the Ryzen/Coffee Lake hype made me think things were different since I last bought parts. Guess not.

nope everything is still the same but AMD cps don't run ridiculously hot anymore, feelsgoodman

*cpu, Jesus I need sleep

>most games dont use more that 2 cores

Fucking hell, is this really still a thing?

That's why I didn't buy a quad core 7 years ago.

Intel has slightly higher single thread performance, it's not some massive lead. In fact, it's in the ballpark of being-overshadowed-by-optimizations if you compare game FPS clock-for-clock.

I mean really recent triple A games would use more than 2, like triple A's games from 2017-2018 but basically nothing else would

true but if you building a computer purely based on performance then Intel would be preferred

holy fuck why do /v/tards make these same threads all the time? go to pcbg or hell how about looking at benchmarks yourself. fuck off.

I don't play many big-name games but i can't believe this is a thing.
My shitty indie games have used thread-pooling to do computationally heavy and parallelizable stuff such as pathfinding which prevents some stuttering. If i had 100 units on screen it could spawn 100 threads if that was worthwhile. If amateurs can do that, why the fuck do people think AAA games arent doing it?

>true but if you building a computer purely based on performance then Intel would be preferred
Why? you can get more performance per $ with ryzen currently, i switched from intel last year specifically to get more performance without buying stupidly expensive CPUs. If you absolutely need that extra 3%fps in your games then sure, go for Intel.

Sorry, quotes in wrong order.

>/sqt/ is dead
No it's not you absolute fucking nigger, fuck off

it depends on your budget.
Dirt cheap: a r52200g with 4gb of 3000+ ddr4 RAM
Not that cheap: i3 8100 + 4-8GB of 2666 ddr4 RAM + gtx 1050
not cheap: r5 2600 + 8-16GB 3000+ Mhz RAM + RX580 8GB / GTX 1060 6GB
supreme gentleman: kikeripper/xeon, 16+ OCd RAM, dual 1080TIs/Vega 64s

Most new games use 8 or more. But you don't see much improvement beyond 6

Can't go wrong with a R5 2600x
Single threaded performance is a bit worse than on intel, but being a 6c/12t instead of 6c/6t more than makes up for it.
And it also comes with a good cooler.

This. I'm not sure how accurate it is to the newer processors, but the Intel ones generally had lower power usage and temps as well

It's the opposite now, intel is currently taking a turn at being the house fire starter.

AMD is 5% slower per clock, clocks to 4.3ghz, cores for days, better SMT means 5% goes away in hyperthreadland, X means basically already overclocked to max, cooler they come with is better than anything under $50, motherboards will work with 2020 lineup
Intel hits 5ghz, terrifying power draw, i7 7700K draws more power than 2700X at stock, toothpaste means delid to prevent overheating, motherboard replaced next year

AMD: better multithreading for cheap, slightly more ethical, doesn't change sockets every fucking year.
Intel: a bit better single-core performance.

AMD