Helping me not be an Intel/Nvidia fanboy.

[The Crazed Child]

I am an Intel fanboy and I'm proud of it. Stronger cores over multiple weak cores always wins in most situations. 

 

But for GPU's, well, AMD is where it's at. I'm upgrading to an R9 280X from a GTX 560, highend AMD cards are well-priced compared to Nvidia. I actually was able to grab an R9 280X for $329 AUD.

[That Norwegian Guy]

I don't like AMD when it comes to CPUs, but I actually want my next GPU to be AMD, even if I never owned one. I'm getting really sick of Nvidia's shit.

 

AMD allows motherboard partners to use worse bottom-end componentry than Intel, leading to high RMA and general problems for budget builders. People looking for bang for the buck often go AMD because the motherboards are cheaper, blissfully ignorant of the fact that the chokes and caps on that motherboard is something Intel forbids its partners to use.

 

Thus, the AMD CPU ecosystem I consider to be a gamble, disregarding the fact that all their CPUs are too weak for me.

 

And then there's the whole "8-core" and "6-core" lie of AMD's which really ticks me off. Their 8-cores have 8 integer cores but only 4 floating point cores. They have some nerve calling it an 8-core. It may not matter much for gaming (their lower IPC and more crude architecture however does, and it shows) but it matters for just about everything else.

[Madgemade]

I agree with most people by saying that AMD CPU's are now old, outdated and outperformed (FX-****) by Intel but GPU's however is where AMD shines. APU's can be good value for money but for anything above mid-range they are worse than Intel+Dedicated GPU.

It's a shame AMD has forgotten about FX series but I think it's time to stop talking about a chip-set that was released two years ago and get modern and the only modern CPU's are from Intel.

 

For GPU's Nvidia has more features and better stock coolers but you pay quite a bit more than AMD for that pleasure and the performance is pretty similar. Now that AMD has Mantle and bridge-less Crossfire they are starting to get ahead of Nvidia. AMD has so far in my opinion had a better attitude than Nvidia as Nvidia kept Gsync locked down with a high price tag they knew enthusiasts would pay. But now AMD has announced Freesync Gsync is redundant as it is more expensive and hardly supported whereas freesync will become part of VESA spec for all to use freely and with no profits going to AMD unlike what Nvidia was trying on with Gsync. Nvidia needs to clean up there act or risk losing out.

I hope this helps to enlighten you to the different ways of Nvidia and AMD and as to why AMD FX CPU's are so poor.

[FabulousOtter]

@Madgemade

 

You say that but without Nvidia developing Gsync and making it a thing, 'freesync' would never have existed.

[Norwegiantweaker]

if i may, tell you to... go fuck urself.. no just joke. i like amd just as much as nvidia. both have their pros and cons 

[Jadamog]

They had the same issue as ASUS's models.

I thought that was only with the first batch that were sent to early adopters. But I think all the ones that are sold to consumers have that problem fixed. Is that right?

[Jerakl]

I like amd just as much as nvidia. both have their pros and cons.

 

See, this is how we should all think.

[MEC-777]

... 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.

[Yoinkerman]

In a world where everything is free intel/Nvidia is where it's at.

Since we don't live in that world, amd/ATI has very good options for much less money.

You can get a 4 core amd processor that's like 90 or 95% as good as a Intel 4 core in games and 100% as good in everyday computing for $100 less.

The price per fps of amd stuff is huge. That's where amd shines.

[worldwin]

I thought that was only with the first batch that were sent to early adopters. But I think all the ones that are sold to consumers have that problem fixed. Is that right?

I would hope so.

[DildorTheDecent]

No. The GTX 780 uses GK 110 as the Titan, TB, Ti and Z do. The 660 uses either GK104 like the 660 Ti, 670, 680, 690, 760 amd 770 do or GK107 like the 650 Ti, 650 Ti Boost and GTX 645 (OEM) do.

 

FYI, I do actually know what I am talking about.

The 660 and the 650 Ti Boost use GK106 you pillow

[TheSLSAMG]

The 660 and the 650 Ti Boost use GK106 you pillow

Looks like you're right.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6838/nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-review-

[DildorTheDecent]

Nope, GK 107 (and GK 104 for later GPUs and some OEM GPUs)

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6289/nvidia-launches-geforce-gtx-650-gk107-with-gddr5

nope the 650 Ti boost uses GK106

[TheSLSAMG]

Looks like you're right.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6838/nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-review-

 

nope the 650 Ti boost uses GK106

[NinjaStyle013]

I think you should look less about what the pure performance is and instead look at the price to performance, AMD is owning the mid range right now with the 260X - 270X segment and while the 750Ti is there I still tend to pick an AMD card because you can get that better price to performance ratio.

 

Not as much a fan of AMD cpus but APUS are really cool. Becoming more feasible for budget gaming every day.

 

Nvidia and intel will always sorta command that higher end area but AMD is onto it with their pricing.

[DildorTheDecent]

Looks like you're right.

 

http://www.anandtech...i-boost-review-

 

 

Good edit 10/10. 

 

Sauce: I own a 650TiB, can provide GPU markings. (numbers on GPU top)

[TheSLSAMG]

Good edit 10/10. 

 

Sauce: I own a 650TiB, can provide GPU markings. (numbers on GPU top)

No need, thank you for correcting me

[DildorTheDecent]

No need, thank you for correcting me

You're welcome. 

[Madgemade]

AMD Drivers are low quality however many people including me are having 4k 60hz issues with amds latest cards but nvidia have no trouble so that is a downside of amd.

[SirReallySam]

[Darth_Klein]

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.

What A great response I would have never dreamed that I would get this much help with the simple question I asked but I understand a lot more now and can make a informed CPU decision.  

[Guest]

For me I prefer Intel CPUs and AMD Gpus

[Madgemade]

I withdraw my comments about AMD as i now hate them due to the 60hz 4k issue that means i have to return my 4k monitor!

Thats the main thing about Nvidia better drivers for the extreme users and custom resolution amd can't even work out how to add that function.

[MEC-777]

What A great response I would have never dreamed that I would get this much help with the simple question I asked but I understand a lot more now and can make a informed CPU decision.  

Glad you found it informative. I actually didn't intend to type out such a long response. Just started explaining a few things and that's how it ended up. lol. If anyone notices anything I've said that is inaccurate, please feel free to correct. I'm not an "expert" by any means. Just an enthusiast who does a lot of reading and research. 

 

There are a lot of stereotypes and myths that continue to surface. People are then misinformed and it just leads to further fanboyism and confusion for the innocent person just trying to get a realistic answer.  

 

As for GPUs - take your pick. I prefer AMD GPUs because of their better price to performance (at the moment anyways), higher Vram per series (R9-280's with 3GB standard, while GTX 760 only has 2GB) - which is becoming more relevant in modern gaming. I hear a lot of people complain about the drivers for both Nvidia and AMD. Personally I've never had a single issue with AMD drivers over the years, but that doesn't mean I won't in the future. The same can be said about others with their experience with Nvidia. However, they're both constantly updating and optimizing their drivers and will continue to do so. Again, both have their +'s and -'s and there is no "ultimate brand". Just like with choosing a CPU, you should consider the same sorts of things (budget/price-point, which perform best running the games and apps you will be using the most etc.) and choose which ever GPU best suits your situation.