AMD and Intel comparison

[OGFatal]

So why are AMD so much cheaper than Intel? Like AMD FX8350 Black Edition (8 Cores @ 4.2) is £132! For me that's cheap for a high end CPU. BUT Intel i7 4770K (4 Cores @ 3.50) is £236. Why such a big jump? Is it really worth all that for a not as fast CPU? Price to performance side.

 

Would be interesting to hear you views,

Fatal

[WoodenMarker]

Think of cores as wheels and clock speed as rpm. Not all wheels are the same size/Cpus have different architectures. 

[Bad@Gaming]

Haswell single core performance is vastly superior to that of vishera. So AMD keeps adding more cores in order to keep the multicore performance roughly the same.

 

The problem is most applications don't use all 8 cores so that having fewer (but better) cores will give more performance in most applications.

[LarsReviews]

I personally find that Intel does better Video editing and Math stuff. (just my personal impression) and AMD is more Game oriented. 

[Altecice]

Because intel chips have the word intel on them = more expensive     /joke

 

But really its just due to R&D cost of the chip. AMD are better are some tasks while Intel are better at others.

[Kamina]

AMD has slower cores and their IPC is starting to reach half of what intel is. At a multicore performance standpoint, they're competitive and their prices make sense.

[The_Strict_Nein]

AMD cores have caveats to them that allow them to reduce the price.

 

One is significantly lower IPC of the FX series processors. IPC is the measure of many instructions can be done per Hz. So if you have say a 3.5GHz processor, and an IPC of 100 (It's more like in the millions / billions range now-a-days, but this is theoretical) you would be able to do 350000000000 'instructions' per second.

 

As said previously, Intel's IPC is much higher. So on a clock for clack basis, Intel will out-perform AMD. As such, AMD needs to add more cores (therefore increasing IPC through brute force), but this is highly expensive.

 

Here comes AMD's second cost cutting measure. The FX-8350 has 8 INTEGER cores. These are cores that are capable of doing Integer calculations. However, 2 cores in a set share the same L3 cache memory. Furthermore, in order to do Floating Point calculations, the two cores have the be combined, which means the FX-8350 has only 4 FLOATING-POINT cores.

 

As such, it goes like this:

 

In applications that only use 1 thread, the i7 will win hands down

In applications that use all possible threads for INTEGER calculations, the AMD will win

In applications that use all possible threads for FLOATING-POINT calculations, the i7 will win.

 

Games tend to use Integer operations. As such, as games are more optimized to use all possible threads, AMD cores will win out for gaming. Until then, Intel is better.

[OGFatal]

AMD cores have caveats to them that allow them to reduce the price.

 

One is significantly lower IPC of the FX series processors. IPC is the measure of many instructions can be done per Hz. So if you have say a 3.5GHz processor, and an IPC of 100 (It's more like in the millions / billions range now-a-days, but this is theoretical) you would be able to do 350000000000 'instructions' per second.

 

As said previously, Intel's IPC is much higher. So on a clock for clack basis, Intel will out-perform AMD. As such, AMD needs to add more cores (therefore increasing IPC through brute force), but this is highly expensive.

 

Here comes AMD's second cost cutting measure. The FX-8350 has 8 INTEGER cores. These are cores that are capable of doing Integer calculations. However, 2 cores in a set share the same L3 cache memory. Furthermore, in order to do Floating Point calculations, the two cores have the be combined, which means the FX-8350 has only 4 FLOATING-POINT cores.

 

As such, it goes like this:

 

In applications that only use 1 thread, the i7 will win hands down

In applications that use all possible threads for INTEGER calculations, the AMD will win

In applications that use all possible threads for FLOATING-POINT calculations, the i7 will win.

 

Games tend to use Integer operations. As such, as games are more optimized to use all possible threads, AMD cores will win out for gaming. Until then, Intel is better.

Very well explained, thanks very much with sharing this information. ps. I'm a total n00b when it comes to these things..

[OGFatal]

Think of cores as wheels and clock speed as rpm. Not all wheels are the same size/Cpus have different architectures. 

 

Because intel chips have the word intel on them = more expensive     /joke

 

But really its just due to R&D cost of the chip. AMD are better are some tasks while Intel are better at others.

 

 

AMD has slower cores and their IPC is starting to reach half of what intel is. At a multicore performance standpoint, they're competitive and their prices make sense.

 

 

I personally find that Intel does better Video editing and Math stuff. (just my personal impression) and AMD is more Game oriented. 

 

 

Haswell single core performance is vastly superior to that of vishera. So AMD keeps adding more cores in order to keep the multicore performance roughly the same.

 

The problem is most applications don't use all 8 cores so that having fewer (but better) cores will give more performance in most applications.

 

 

Think of cores as wheels and clock speed as rpm. Not all wheels are the same size/Cpus have different architectures. 

 

 

AMD cores have caveats to them that allow them to reduce the price.

 

One is significantly lower IPC of the FX series processors. IPC is the measure of many instructions can be done per Hz. So if you have say a 3.5GHz processor, and an IPC of 100 (It's more like in the millions / billions range now-a-days, but this is theoretical) you would be able to do 350000000000 'instructions' per second.

 

As said previously, Intel's IPC is much higher. So on a clock for clack basis, Intel will out-perform AMD. As such, AMD needs to add more cores (therefore increasing IPC through brute force), but this is highly expensive.

 

Here comes AMD's second cost cutting measure. The FX-8350 has 8 INTEGER cores. These are cores that are capable of doing Integer calculations. However, 2 cores in a set share the same L3 cache memory. Furthermore, in order to do Floating Point calculations, the two cores have the be combined, which means the FX-8350 has only 4 FLOATING-POINT cores.

 

As such, it goes like this:

 

In applications that only use 1 thread, the i7 will win hands down

In applications that use all possible threads for INTEGER calculations, the AMD will win

In applications that use all possible threads for FLOATING-POINT calculations, the i7 will win.

 

Games tend to use Integer operations. As such, as games are more optimized to use all possible threads, AMD cores will win out for gaming. Until then, Intel is better.

Okay so I have a question, I'm using a i5-3470 @ 3.20 okay and my temps are going from 34 - 39 is this okay? 

[deathjester]

AMD cores have caveats to them that allow them to reduce the price.

 

One is significantly lower IPC of the FX series processors. IPC is the measure of many instructions can be done per Hz. So if you have say a 3.5GHz processor, and an IPC of 100 (It's more like in the millions / billions range now-a-days, but this is theoretical) you would be able to do 350000000000 'instructions' per second.

 

As said previously, Intel's IPC is much higher. So on a clock for clack basis, Intel will out-perform AMD. As such, AMD needs to add more cores (therefore increasing IPC through brute force), but this is highly expensive.

 

Here comes AMD's second cost cutting measure. The FX-8350 has 8 INTEGER cores. These are cores that are capable of doing Integer calculations. However, 2 cores in a set share the same L3 cache memory. Furthermore, in order to do Floating Point calculations, the two cores have the be combined, which means the FX-8350 has only 4 FLOATING-POINT cores.

 

As such, it goes like this:

 

In applications that only use 1 thread, the i7 will win hands down

In applications that use all possible threads for INTEGER calculations, the AMD will win

In applications that use all possible threads for FLOATING-POINT calculations, the i7 will win.

 

Games tend to use Integer operations. As such, as games are more optimized to use all possible threads, AMD cores will win out for gaming. Until then, Intel is better.

 

Everything is right cept for game using integer calculations. Games are not all integer. If they were integer then the AMD would be faster in 4 core games. What you posted makes no sense. The AMD would never be slower in games (which it is) if games were integer. 

 

The AMD beats the I7 in one thing. Zipping files. Games aren't zipping files.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/836?vs=697

 

We already have games which use "all threads". The AMD still loses. Basically they are both fake 8 cores for gaming. That is why you get a I5 for just gaming. Everything else is just broken promises that one day the AMD will be faster. 

 

On low level API's, all CPU's are going to improve. AMD isn't going to be the only CPU that sees a benefit. AMD's will be all you need on DX 12. The problem? First DX 12 game hits Holiday 2015. Add to that? That doesn't make all games DX 12, just like all games aren't Mantle.

 

Mantle benchmarks in what was already a "8 core" game. Every CPU improves. 

 

http://pclab.pl/art55953-3.html

[LarsReviews]

Okay so I have a question, I'm using a i5-3470 @ 3.20 okay and my temps are going from 34 - 39 is this okay? 

I have a i5 4430@3Ghz. What do you use for Temp reading. I have posted a question about my temps yesterday. It turned out, that Asus Suite and Speed Fan are giving out wrong temps. Then someone recommended realtemp, which showed 45C, when doing more intense stuff. Normally AsusSuite and Speedfan would show a max of 30C.

[WoodenMarker]

Okay so I have a question, I'm using a i5-3470 @ 3.20 okay and my temps are going from 34 - 39 is this okay? 

You're fine until you start going beyond 80c at load.

Also, idle temps don't really matter. Load temps do.

[Faa]

Furthermore, in order to do Floating Point calculations, the two cores have the be combined, which means the FX-8350 has only 4 FLOATING-POINT cores.

Thats so wrong; basically this means that you can't do cinebench's single threaded benchmark? To utilize 2 cores you're going to need atleast 2 threads which you dont have in a singlethreaded benchmark like Cinebench or Superpi. Yes Cinebench doesnt do anything else than FP'ing. They dont have to combine, the FPU (2x128bit FP's) is shared between the 2 cores - it just adds another delay that both cores have to wait on each other to finish. There are 8 FP's not 4.

 

 

IPC is the measure of many instructions can be done per Hz. 

No per clockcycle or in other words tick. Your frequency is just your multiplier. If you get 5 instructions done per tick at 10Hz, you get 10 instructions done at 20Hz

 

Games tend to use Integer operations. 

 

Integer calculations in games aren't intensive, it's not hard to calculate that you lost a bullet in your magazine. An i5's integer singlethreaded performance is better but a 8350's multithreaded integer performance is better than an i7 4770k. FPU's take care of complex math calculations and their abilities are extremely wide, FPU's are the goal these days for performance because everything is nearly FPU bound especially games.

Your post was somewhat on the intelligence side, don't really understand why you can make such a mistake by saying games are bound to integer calcs.

 

As such, as games are more optimized to use all possible threads, AMD cores will win out for gaming. Until then, Intel is better.

 

They already use all of your cores >.<

 

AMD cores will win out for gaming. Until then, Intel is better.

 

The engine has to be on 8 threads atleast to get close to an i5 or to outperform them. Atm the only game that pushes performance out of the 2 extra cores you get from a 8350 over a 6300 is Crysis 3. That BF4 takes performance advantages of 8 cores is just one big lie as you clearly could see a 8350 only doing 10-20% better than a phenom in a cpu bound scenario in BF4: http://cdn.overclock.net/1/1f/500x1000px-LL-1fa7a24a_3350949334973.png The 10 fps gain its just thanks to its 15-20% IPC.

I've done endless of testing in BF4 in a cpu bound scenario where I noticed my gpu loads dropped off from 99% to 60%, disabling HT on my 3930K didnt even impact my frames at all.

Also because a 8350 has 5-10% better multithreading performance doesn't mean you get lineair scaling in games. I5's still outperform 8350's in Crysis 3 (http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll168/maxforces/f2-3.jpg)

I don't really understand why people compare a 132£ cpu with a 250£ cpu >.< If we just look at gaming performance only; honestly 8350's are ripoff in general, the cheapest board with proper vrm for them is around 70-80$ already with no overclocking headroom doesn't make them cheaper at all if 40$ boards can run any 1150 cpu and AMD isnt just a viable option anymore for mid-high end. AMD is doing decent against the i3 with their 6300 which is probably the only competition we have and their APU's but thats it really.

[OGFatal]

I have a i5 4430@3Ghz. What do you use for Temp reading. I have posted a question about my temps yesterday. It turned out, that Asus Suite and Speed Fan are giving out wrong temps. Then someone recommended realtemp, which showed 45C, when doing more intense stuff. Normally AsusSuite and Speedfan would show a max of 30C.

I use Piriform Speccy, it's great it tells me the temps on all components.  

[Recon-UK]

Intel is currently much more efficient at what it does, but AMD do fantastically with price/performance, it all depends on personal wants, and budget

[totjup5]

The I7 may have half the amount of cores, but not all cores are created equal. Despite how it may appear, the 4770k is a much faster chip than an 8350. That being said, the 8350 is still a very fast chip, and presents a tremendous value at it's price point. Especially when you consider it is much cheaper to buy a good 990fx board than a z87 board. The 8320 is an even better value as you can overclock it beyond stock 8350 levels quite easily, and it can be found as cheap as 135 dollars. Your choice in what chip you get is largely dependent on your specific situation and needs, but both chips have their place, and both are great choices depending on your use case. I hope this has clarified some things for you.

[Recon-UK]

FAA seems to be seeing the AMD architecture in the wrong light...

AMD's architecture works better with more cores in use, so telling people the AMD uses all it's threads is a good thing, and a benefit is seen.

 

Intel have the foreground on top end performance, but AMD more than packs enough punch for most users without killing their wallets.

[S3NL4C]

As Someone who has only just started using this forum today, despite watching linus' videos for like 2 years, I have to admit I am absolutely dumbfounded by this thread.

This thread has managed to intelligently debate the pros and cons of Intel and AMD cpus for 20 replies without turning into a fanboy flame war or an AMD or Intel circlejerk.

Thank you Linus Tech Tips forums for somewhat restoring my faith in humanity.

 

In order to contribute, Ill say that I have an FX8350 running at 5ghz that performs as well as an ivy bridge i7. The FX's are very overclockable so if you are confident in that area and have good cooling this might the route for you, especially in a gaming rig where you can then funnel that £100 into your graphics card.

[Recon-UK]

As Someone who has only just started using this forum today, despite watching linus' videos for like 2 years, I have to admit I am absolutely dumbfounded by this thread.

This thread has managed to intelligently debate the pros and cons of Intel and AMD cpus for 20 replies without turning into a fanboy flame war or an AMD or Intel circlejerk.

Thank you Linus Tech Tips forums for somewhat restoring my faith in humanity.

 

In order to contribute, Ill say that I have an FX8350 running at 5ghz that performs as well as an ivy bridge i7. The FX's are very overclockable so if you are confident in that area and have good cooling this might the route for you, especially in a gaming rig where you can then funnel that £100 into your graphics card.

Liked, and welcome to LTT matey

[Bad@Gaming]

Okay so I have a question, I'm using a i5-3470 @ 3.20 okay and my temps are going from 34 - 39 is this okay? 

 

If your temps start spiking to 90 degrees c start worrying.

[Faa]

Hello, Faa hahahahaha, I love that I was able to recognize your arrogance and hostility and think "This sounds like Faa" and lo and behold. Good times.

 

I don't know you?

 

Wow. You really are an ignorant little fanboy aren't you.

Why? Let me guess because I've said that AMD isn't a viable option anymore for gaming in 150-300$ budget ranges? CPU prices are these days determined by its multithreaded performance and in AMD's case they just sell their cpu for a couple bucks less than intel's equivalent. I proved it many times on this forum that you are nowhere literally nowhere getting close to an i5's stock performance with a 8350 at 5GHz in most games, i5 4430's are any time a much better value.

Believe it or not, people who call people fanboys are usually die hard AMD fanboys and apparently you have AMD. There aren't any intel fanboys, we will buy AMD if they perform better we will recommend them if they perform better but you guys recommend something worse for the same price and if there's a benchmark flying around you guys come up with games getting more multithreaded futureproof amd optimized blabla which has been going around since the beginning of bulldozer 3 years ago.

 

I have a i5 4430@3Ghz. What do you use for Temp reading. I have posted a question about my temps yesterday. It turned out, that Asus Suite and Speed Fan are giving out wrong temps. Then someone recommended realtemp, which showed 45C, when doing more intense stuff. Normally AsusSuite and Speedfan would show a max of 30C.

Probably the cpu temp a sensor somewhere between the die & heatspreader, realtemp or coretemp just show the core temperatures.

[Recon-UK]

 

I don't know you?

 

Why? Let me guess because I've said that AMD isn't a viable option anymore for gaming in 150-300$ budget ranges? CPU prices are these days determined by its multithreaded performance and in AMD's case they just sell their cpu for a couple bucks less than intel's equivalent. I proved it many times on this forum that you are nowhere literally nowhere getting close to an i5's stock performance with a 8350 at 5GHz in most games, i5 4430's are any time a much better value.

Believe it or not, people who call people fanboys are usually die hard AMD fanboys and apparently you have AMD. There aren't any intel fanboys, we will buy AMD if they perform better we will recommend them if they perform better but you guys recommend something worse for the same price and if there's a benchmark flying around you guys come up with games getting more multithreaded futureproof amd optimized blabla which has been going around since the beginning of bulldozer 3 years ago.

 

Probably the cpu temp a sensor somewhere between the die & heatspreader, realtemp or coretemp just show the core temperatures.

 

A lot more than simply the cost of a CPU goes into the thought process of budget option.

[harrynowl]

A lot more than simply the cost of a CPU goes into the thought process of budget option.

True;

 

however cheap Intel H81 boards are generally better than cheap AMD 760G boards from what I've seen

 

SATA6, Native USB3, PCIe 3.0 etc.

[Jack.EXE]

I like to think this forum is mature about this subject, then I see Faa...

 

Really though, your performance really depends on the type of workload.

 

AMD is pretty good at integer threads, only being slightly beat by intel (per core)

 

where as intel dominates the FPU world (again, per core), thanks to the bulldozer architect's shared FPUs.

 

 

Clock for clock, intel's cores are much faster than AMD's (about 50% faster) where as you will generally get about 50% more cores with AMD (for the price)

 

In a perfect world, this would equate to equal performance (it kinda does, but I'll talk about that later), but thanks to threading bottlenecks and the sheer difficulty that (was, it's alot easier now) multi-core programming, Intel consistently pulled forward.

 

This is only in CPU bound games, however. the vast majority of games today are GPU bound, and as long as you dont bottleneck the GPU, you will still get incredible performance out of either set up.

 

An i5-4670K is more than enough for modern games, as is the 8320, and even the 6300.

 

At the end of the day, the GPU will make more of a difference than the CPU in games.

[LarsReviews]

 

Probably the cpu temp a sensor somewhere between the die & heatspreader, realtemp or coretemp just show the core temperatures.

 

Are there like 20 sensors in a cpu?