Helping me not be an Intel/Nvidia fanboy.
... I can kinda get there CPU because I can look at the number of cores and clock speed, ...
It's not that simple. The two use very different architectures when it comes to cores/modules, scheduling, cache, etc, so you can't compare number of cores and clock speed alone.
Clock speed is only relevant comparing within a certain family of CPUs with the same number of cores from the same manufacturer - for example the FX-8320 and 8350. They both have the same architecture and number of cores, but the 8350 has a higher stock clock and thus, it's the faster of the two. Or the i5-4440 and i5-4670. Again, both from the same architecture/family and number of cores thus, the 4670 is faster with higher clocks.
With number of cores, the same comparison should be made. Example: FX-4300, FX-6300, FX-8350. All from the same architecture/family yet they have 4, 6 and 8 cores, respectively and based on that, you know which will perform better. Same thing with the core i series from Intel. i3, i5 and i7. Again, all from the same architecture, yet they are dual-core with hyper-threading, quad-core and quad-core with hyper-threading, respectively. And again we know which, of that series, will perform better.
However, when it comes to directly comparing AMD CPUs with Intel CPUs you cannot compare number of cores and clock speeds. What really matters and what you should compare is IPC (instructions per clock) per core and overall real-world performance. Intel's current core-i series CPUs have approximately twice the IPC per core as the current FX-X3XX series. This is nothing against AMD, it's just a fact. AMD compensates for this by spreading the work out over more cores in combination with higher clock speeds. It doesn't make them bad, it's just a different method and architecture.
But there's even more to it than that. Hyperthreading is simply more efficient work/thread scheduling. Linus did a great tech quickie video on this and explained it very well. Think of the CPU as your mouth and your hand as the scheduler - prepping food (threads or "work") to feed your mouth (the CPU) for processing. If you have only 1 hand feeding your mouth, there are times when your mouth is finished the previous process before the next bit of food (work) is ready and that causes a delay - your mouth has to wait for the next chunk to be processed. Now, if you have two hands prepping and feeding, there is far less delay between processes. While one hand is prepping, the other is feeding. It's not a perfect analogy, but it gives you an idea of how hyperthreading works. This is why it's seen and treated as a quad-core by your OS. 2 "hands" or threads per core appears as 4 cores. Make no mistake, this doesn't make the CPU twice as fast, but the performance results are apparent. We see some games running just as well on the dual-core hyperthreaded core i3s as we do on the 8-core FX-8300's. Some of those games are fairly recent and claimed to be optimized for CPUs with more than 4 threads/cores.
Some games have been observed to take advantage of CPUs with more than 4 threads/cores, like BF4, and in such cases, we see the AMD FX 8-core CPUs performing very well. However, in the same games and many others, the core i5 series performs just as well and often a little better - yet they only boast 4 cores and no hyperthreading. Again, it comes down to IPC per core and the combined overall performance. Let's say we're running a game with an 8 thread workload. So we have all 8 cores of an FX-8350 working through these 8 threads simultaneously. Based on the IPC per core, it'll take a certain amount of time to process that amount of work. Now, because the i5 IPC is roughly double, it can finish the same workload in approximately the same amount of time, only it does it 4 threads at a time.
Please keep in mind I'm talking about gaming specifically. There are some applications and games that favour AMD architecture and some that favour Intel. You'll find a lot of the older games and even some newer ones, can only make use of 2 cores as that is the way they were made. As such, they will generally run much better on Intel CPUs because per-core performance is even more important in those cases. Likewise, poorly optimized games will typically run better on Intel for the same reason - stronger per-core performance (That partially explains why some recent games run almost as well on an i3 as the FX 8-cores). However, in most newer games, AMDs run just fine and often the differences are insignificant.
How should you compare CPUs between Intel and AMD then if you can't directly compare number of cores and clock speeds? First, forget about brand, number of cores and clock speeds. How much can you afford to spend on a CPU in your given budget? Look at all the CPUs in that price range. Consider the applications/games you'll be running most and see which perform better overall. You should also consider future upgrades as some platforms/sockets will allow for a longer life for your system without requiring other parts to be changed down the road. Also, do you want the ability to overclock?
Intel tends to edge out AMD, performance-wise, at most price points, but you tend to get what you pay for. That doesn't mean AMD isn't good. On the contrary, they offer really strong value at certain price points. The FX-6300 6-core is an excellent gaming CPU for only about $110. For only about $40 more you can step up to the FX-8320 8-core and overclock to match the stock performance of the 8350. This will get you similar performance to that of the Intel core i5's which start at closer to $200. Now factor in the cost of a decent aftermarket CPU cooler and you're almost spending the same amount as you would on an i5. So there are +'s and -'s to both sides. The Athlon X4 760K is another excellent choice for a gaming CPU - priced at $90 or less with the ability to handle substantial overclocking.
Neither brand is "better" than the other, because there are too many factors to take into account and every situation is different. Better in what way? At what price point? For who? It should be dependent on what will work best for your specific situation. For a rough baseline comparison at certain price points, the following are generally where I start looking (for gaming and general usage):
Less than $100: Intel Pentium G3420 or G3258 vs. AMD Athlon X4 760K
$100-120: Intel i3-4130 or 4150 (entry level core i3's only!) vs. AMD FX-6300
$150-200+: Intel i5-4430 or 4440 vs. FX-8320 (on the low-end) and Intel i5-4590 to 4690K vs. FX-8350 (on the high-end).
When it comes to gaming, there are severe diminishing returns beyond the $220-240 range. The i7s are far more expensive and FX-9XXX series are extremely power hungry. Neither offer any compelling gaming performance advantage, if any.
I apologize for the long-winded response, but we need to stop thinking in terms of core count and clock speeds when comparing between brands. It used to be that we could compare directly in that way but since their architectures are so different now, it's just not that simple and often miss-leading.
.png.255947720031a641abdac78e663b681c.png)
-
Featured Topics
-
Topics
-
4 -
7 -
Vectraat ·
Posted in Phones and Tablets0 -
1 -
superbrett2000 ·
Posted in Cases and Mods4 -
0 -
7 -
ItzTibby ·
Posted in Cases and Mods1 -
tanjackson ·
Posted in Storage Devices5 -
3
-
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now