What do AMD CPUs have over Intel?

[Scratchy1215]

As i see it i havent heard one good thing about amds cpus besides value. anyone disagree and why? growing up ive always loved amd but being a gamer im leaning towards intel nowadays

[CoolBeans]

Cores I guess, even though they aren't full cores

[AlwaysFSX]

They're cheaper. That's it. Nothing about them is better than Intel CPUs are far as I'm aware.

[Hidden Orange]

AMD CPUs double as heaters. Great for the winters. 

[The Crazed Child]

They're good at melting the polar ice caps, a task that the FX-9590 is especially good at.

 

I know, terrible joke.

 

EDIT: Got ninja'ed by @Hidden Orange

[MbV93]

Nothing about them is better now, the 8 cores still have value but that's it. The FX line is getting pretty old and we won't be seeing new AMD high performance chips until the end of 2015, intel is the way to go right now.

[RubyRoks]

As i see it i havent heard one good thing about amds cpus besides value. anyone disagree and why? growing up ive always loved amd but being a gamer im leaning towards intel nowadays

you can get a quad core CPU that, when paired with even a mid-range GPU, is on par with the i5 in games for less than an i3.... so there's that....If you have better than a HD 7950 or GTX 670, or you like cooler temps on your cores, go intel.

[Scratchy1215]

Dont even wanna bring up there GPUs "90degrees is fine for our card, even though ur case is now on fire" (I do have a R9 280 though and love it but msi twin frozer )

[Morpheus]

AMD CPUs double as heaters. Great for the winters. 

made me laugh lol

[Scratchy1215]

you can get a quad core CPU that, when paired with even a mid-range GPU, is on par with the i5 in games for less than an i3.... so there's that....If you have better than a HD 7950 or GTX 670, or you like cooler temps on your cores, go intel.

Basically got a 7970 , with a Anthlon 4k 760k :3 so... yea i need intel

[The Crazed Child]

Dont even wanna bring up there GPUs "90degrees is fine for our card, even though ur case is now on fire" (I do have a R9 280 though and love it but msi twin frozer )

Maybe on their reference coolers. I have a 280X with the XFX Double Dissipation cooler, it's surprisingly cool actually. While playing Arma 3 (hint: super demanding game) it hovers at around 61 degrees celsius.

[patrickjp93]

They're cheaper. That's it. Nothing about them is better than Intel CPUs are far as I'm aware.

Not quite. AMD FX has proven to be oddly good at video rendering. You can watch a number of real-time Youtube videos concerning it. 

[AlwaysFSX]

Not quite. AMD FX has proven to be oddly good at video rendering. You can watch a number of real-time Youtube videos concerning it. 

I wonder compared to a 4770k how they fare.

[dev893]

from what I've read they are a lot better at rendering plus on the integrated graphics side AMD completely squashes intel

[Scratchy1215]

from what I've read they are a lot better at rendering plus on the integrated graphics side AMD completely squashes intel

Hyper Threading. Nuff said there. And AMD prob does beat intel for laptop graphics

[patrickjp93]

from what I've read they are a lot better at rendering plus on the integrated graphics side AMD completely squashes intel

On the 2nd part, that is only because Intel's built-in video RAM is only 1.7GB. It's an automatic limitation. At 1080p there are a number of games you can play on high settings (not ultra) with 45+ fps on the 4790k without overclocking the GPU. If you do overclock it with Intel's tuning utility, few games have I found apart from the most recent big FPS titles can't be run at 50+ fps.

Hyper Threading. Nuff said there. And AMD prob does beat intel for laptop graphics

Nope. Actually Iris Pro seems to beat out any AMD laptop APUs. That may change soon, but it's not looking likely.

[dev893]

Hyper Threading. Nuff said there. And AMD prob does beat intel for laptop graphics

desktop as well look at the comparison between a A10 vs i7 integrated graphics. AMD puts a way better Igpu on their chips than intel does

On the 2nd part, that is only because Intel's built-in video RAM is only 1.7GB. It's an automatic limitation. At 1080p there are a number of games you can play on high settings (not ultra) with 45+ fps on the 4790k without overclocking the GPU. If you do overclock it with Intel's tuning utility, few games have I found apart from the most recent big FPS titles can't be run at 50+ fps.

ok I had my video memory at 512mb and still got 40fps on bf3 on medium settings out of an A6-5400K

[patrickjp93]

desktop as well look at the comparison between a A10 vs i7 integrated graphics. AMD puts a way better Igpu on their chips than intel does

Be careful on that claim. The big thing is AMD has unified memory implemented already. Their APUs can build a 4GB frame buffer in RAM instead of Intel's current 1.7GB in its onboard video cache. If you limit the resolution to what Intel HD 4600 can handle, it can actually perform toe to toe with the A10 7850k. Their cores are equally powerful I would say, but AMD's overall architecture/implementation is a generation ahead.

I wonder compared to a 4770k how they fare.

The FX 8350 vs the 4770k rendered a 4K video in only 65% the time with the same RAM in the same channel mode at the same speeds, and neither chip was overclocked. I know I've seen that video and it surprised me, but when I went diving into the x86 manuals of both companies, I did find Intel had an achilles heel: its rendering instructions on the Haswell architecture. Most of them are 3 cycles where most of AMD's equivalents are 2 cycles or even 1. I was admittedly floored.

[AlwaysFSX]

The FX 8350 vs the 4770k rendered a 4K video in only 65% the time with the same RAM in the same channel mode at the same speeds, and neither chip was overclocked. I know I've seen that video and it surprised me, but when I went diving into the x86 manuals of both companies, I did find Intel had an achilles heel: its rendering instructions on the Haswell architecture. Most of them are 3 cycles where most of AMD's equivalents are 2 cycles or even 1. I was admittedly floored.

Wait. If the 4770k renders the video in 65% of the time as the 8350 (as I'm interpreting this directly from how you state it), then isn't it 3 instructions per cycle and AMD being 2 instructions per cycle?

[DoubleY]

I wonder compared to a 4770k how they fare.

15%ish worse than a 3770K from what JayzTwoCents said in his personal experience 

[patrickjp93]

Wait. If the 4770k renders the video in 65% of the time as the 8350 (as I'm interpreting this directly from how you state it), then isn't it 3 instructions per cycle and AMD being 2 instructions per cycle?

Woops sorry. 8350 did the task in 65% the time of the 4770k.

[AlwaysFSX]

Woops sorry. 8350 did the task in 65% the time of the 4770k.

Interesting, what codec did they use?

[patrickjp93]

Interesting, what codec did they use?

That...I do not know...hmm...I'll go hunting.

 

EDIT: Not shown, now casts doubt on video... well this is embarrassing... But that's not the only place I've heard of AMD outperforming Intel for rendering.

[FusionBlitzx]

They are very good value and are reasonably good at multitasking but not quite comparable to Intel in certain regards. Other than that they really can't compete with intel in the high end market but they will survive as long as people still want good performing value CPU's 

[AlwaysFSX]

That...I do not know...hmm...I'll go hunting.

It's useful information. Codecs work differently between processors with their architecture.