Why people suggest Intel over AMD

[Beef Boss]

Can someone tell me why people always suggest Intel over AMD?  Does AMD just not preform nearly as well as Intel for the same price point or what? Because nobody I know uses AMD... please don't start any arguments really. I don't want bias 

Edited February 12, 2017 by Godlygamer23
Thread title change.

[deleted_member_030719]

AMD's CPUs are weaker, and don't have as good as IPC as Intel's CPU currently do. Even AMD's Ryzen CPUs likely won't have as good as IPCs as Intel's latest CPUs.

[Princess Luna]

People will advise you what is best for your money considering your needs and budget, if Intel gets more attention than AMD it is because it has the better offerings, it ain't rocket science

[Godlygamer23]

I changed the title to something a little better.

[JuztBe]

AMD vs Intel flame wars have pretty much died out because of AMDs lack of competitiveness. As Jed M said, Intel has much higher IPC(basically better performance per core) which is really important for gaming.
BUT upcoming ZEN architecture from AMD might just start flame wars again - which is a good thing.

[AlTech]

12 minutes ago, BadluckBrian said:

Can someone tell me why people always suggest Intel over AMD?  Does AMD just not preform nearly as well as Intel for the same price point or what? Because nobody I know uses AMD... please don't start any arguments really. I don't want bias 

Until now AMD CPUs and APUs have generally performed worse than Intel's processors at the same or similar price point.

 

And Intel CPUs generally offer better performance when paired with a mid range to high end GPU.

[stefanDB]

intel uses 14nm transistors if i'm not mistaken, and amd I think still uses 32nm transistors. those produce more heat, and you can't put as many of them on one chip. that is why intel is usually better. Zen might change this, but the current AMD CPUs are just not as modern as intel's

[Oshino Shinobu]

It's hard to recommend 5 year old CPUs for a new build. 

[Misanthrope]

Actually for the last 3 months I've been recommending "waiting for Zen...but if can't, this intel chip" instead. But some segments like the low end for example, can get recomendation now: Pentium G4560: AMD is unlikely to release anything that can compete with that 60 bucks chip for a while and even then it will probably feature the APU graphics part heavily.

[Mina Darsh]

I use Intel myself myself because I pretty much bumped into the same things that have been said here, single Core performance is great on Intel, but I also pay my own electricity bill so I prefer my computer to be efficient as well. Also, as I actually found out after building this system though, there are almost no AMD Mini-ITX boards. And with a 12 Liter system being the main aim, it turns out there was no choice anyway. Though aside from that I would've chosen Intel.

 

I also have seen multiple articles where it was shown that, I believe the Bulldozer architecture, had Cores that had to share the FPU, while ideally you want each Core to have their own FPU.

 

Anyway, I'm not against AMD, it's good that they exist, and I hope they do make Intel sweat and perhaps make it interesting to try them again, rivalry will prevent too small increments on new generations... Looking at you Intel!

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Until now AMD CPUs and APUs have generally performed worse than Intel's processors at the same or similar price point.

 

And Intel CPUs generally offer better performance when paired with a mid range to high end GPU.

Yet the APU's increased graphical prowess has been basically useless since 2 years or so: The games that can run on integrated graphics can run on the intel igpu just slightly shittier and the games that can't work on intel igpu look so shitty is not worth to play on an APU:

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Beef Boss]

Okay thank you all! 

[atavax]

So a little over 6 years ago, Intel came out with Sandy Bridge. Sandy Bridge was a game changer. CPUs are very complex and it takes many years to come up with a completely new architecture and AMD is just finally launching its response to the new architecture end of Fenbruary and will be available beginning of March. So for the last 6 years, Intel was the only thing to recommend. A lot of people now have brand loyalty for Intel, not only because for the last 6 years they have been the only thing to buy, but that because if you bought a high end Intel CPU, you had no need to upgrade for 6 full years, which is damn impressive for enthusiasts. The problem is the reason why you have no need to upgrade was Intel hasn't really focused on improving performance on Sandy Bridge. In the last 6 years they haven't made any significant improvements and have been focusing on segmenting the market and making as much money as possible off of Sandy Bridge. Also, a main advantage Intel has had in the past is they're used smaller processes; but Intel has been stuck on 14nm and will be stuck on 14nm for at least 1 more generation after Kaby Lake, and AMD will also be on 14nm. AMD will most likely provide something better than Intel in less than a month, if you are building a PC soon, wait for it.

[phongle123]

This is because previous AMD never used hyperthreading before and using DX10/11 on an 8 core AMD CPU only cores 1-6 can have utilization and Intel also had a better single core performance than AMD which is what is used the most. Utilization goes down with more cores.

AMD has 4 cores and hyperthreading so all 4 cores have good utilization as well as the hyperthreading. Using AMDs 8 Core, Core 1 has the most utilization, then lower for cores 2-6, cores 7-8 has 0 utilization. Until DX12 and Vulcan.