aussiestig 681 Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) You misunderstood. There's no fanboyism here. A while back, I saw an article showing the differences in performance between AMD processors and Intel processors in Arma 2. With the AMD processors installed, Arma 2 didn't perform nearly as well as with the intel processors installed. I can't remember the link to the article, as I saw it about a month before this thread was made.I'm not an Intel fanboy at all. I definitely prefer Intel over AMD, as the i5's and i7's have much better architecture, but I never rule AMD out of builds whenever I help someone make a new computer; in fact, most of the time I recommend AMD parts for budget builds.Edit: I found the article: http://www.hardocp.c.../2#.UVT1wBw3tRUIntel did quite a bit better in this test.Well this is awkward. Because in this video here the 8350 absolutely romps the i5 3570k by double the frame rate. This is max settings, max view distance, max everything by the way.http://youtu.be/4et7kDGSRfc?t=7m4s Edited March 29, 2013 by AussieStig Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
colekern 1364 Posted March 29, 2013 Well this is awkward. Because in this video here the 8350 absolutely romps the i5 3570k by double the frame rate. This is max settings max view distance max everything by the way.http://youtu.be/4et7kDGSRfc?t=7m4sWhat in the heck... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cap'n (DayZ) 1827 Posted March 29, 2013 My old build was similar, it should run stable at medium settings. I just hate it when people fight over Intel and AMD. Both are good, and for different reasons. If you're on a budget and plan on overclocking, then get the AMD. If you want the absolute best performance and be able to gloat about it, Intel. But at what I assume your budget is, I'd recommend an AMD. 110-130 dollar AMD's will SLAUGHTER even the highest end i3. Just sayin', brah. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
colekern 1364 Posted March 29, 2013 Well this is awkward. Because in this video here the 8350 absolutely romps the i5 3570k by double the frame rate. This is max settings, max view distance, max everything by the way.http://youtu.be/4et7kDGSRfc?t=7m4sThis going to sound like total bullcrap, but I have guess as to why:Arma perfroms differently for everyone.Take me for instance; I have a GTX 680 FTW+ overclocked and an i5-3570k and I still can't max out Arma 2 without struggling to get 30 FPS. However, I've seen people with a GTX 660m max the game out at 60 FPS. Arma's just weird like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aussiestig 681 Posted March 29, 2013 This going to sound like total bullcrap, but I have guess as to why:Arma perfroms differently for everyone.Take me for instance; I have a GTX 680 FTW+ overclocked and an i5-3570k and I still can't max out Arma 2 without struggling to get 30 FPS. However, I've seen people with a GTX 660m max the game out at 60 FPS. Arma's just weird like that.I don't disagree, which is why every benchmark is totally different in Arma 2. I have no doubt in my mind that the i5 was underperforming, but by how much? We'll probably never know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boneboys 7988 Posted March 29, 2013 Make a new Topic in the Tech Dept if you want to have a disscution about this or that ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
