Kevlar said:Amd is fine, people saying otherwise are intel fanboys or ignorant.
Intel is usually better for most games though since they have higher clock speeds per core but lately have less cores than amds offerings. Higher cores is really only good for strategy and rts games that can actually utilize the cores, most games do not and that is why intel is usually regarded as being better for gaming.
God no.
AMD is regarded as crap for games because of its poor single thread performance, it has absolutely nothing to do with core count or clocks.
Intel has been handing AMD's ass to them for 4 generations in single thread performance, and AMD has only recently caught up in multithread applications. Games aren't multithreaded applications.
What you mean to say is that AMD is "good enough", it's certainly functional for games especially if you want to get their far superior APU units (versus Intel HD). In Arma, however, he'll be losing out a lot of frames compared to equivalent Intel offerings.
I just came from an AMD to Intel processor, and the performance increase is large enough that it cannot be contributed to the generational difference between processors. Intel's architecture is simply better for games.