Question about Intel vs. AMD

[lx_srs]

I'm not sure I understand why Intel processors perform so much better than AMD's CPUs.  Isn't having 8 cores with 8 threads better than having 4 cores with 8 threads? I don't understand why an i7 outperforms an FX 9590, other than the thermal difference.

[MegaDave91]

More cores =/= better; Intel cores are more powerful.

[LawrenceBarnes2013]

it's not only down to the number of cores/Threads, the architetures are different, the features are different, the way itch core handles its threads is different, so the i7 is more optimized to handle 6Cores and 12 threads than and AMD equivilent, and is just more powerful

[Vitalius]

Specifically, in the current generation (not older ones), AMD CPU cores share resources while Intel CPU cores have dedicated resources. At least in the FX line of CPUs they do.

So AMD's "8 core" CPU has 8 cores, but they are put into bundles of 2 and share some of the same cache and stuff (specifically FPUs or Floating Point Units). 

There are two types of calculations a CPU can do. Floating Point and Integer calculations. The CPU has a special thing on it (the FPU) that it uses to do FP calculations. AMD's 8 core CPU has 4 FPUs which each 2 core bundle share. 

That's one example in how they are different and why AMD CPU cores generally perform worse than Intel CPU cores. Other things like the actual architecture affects it as well.

[Askew]

Basically intel CPUs have higher single core performance.

 

AMD 'cores' are actually a pair of modules that share resources.

[MEC-777]

It boils down to differences in architecture mainly.

 

As I've stated and explained in several other threads on the topic; we have to stop looking [only] at number of cores/threads and clock speeds when comparing AMD with Intel CPUs. This whole "more cores/threads = better/faster" thing is getting old and is far from the truth.

[dragosudeki]

I would say AMD CPU/APUs are better for the smaller budgets, but Intel wins the high end CPU line.

[Sauron]

By that logic the ps4's cpu would beat out a 4960x... which is the fastest enthusiast cpu on the planet...

There's much more to cpus than core count and frequency.

[Askew]

Specifically, in the current generation (not older ones), AMD CPU cores share resources while Intel CPU cores have dedicated resources. At least in the FX line of CPUs they do.

So AMD's "8 core" CPU has 8 cores, but they are put into bundles of 2 and share some of the same cache and stuff (specifically FPUs or Floating Point Units). 

There are two types of calculations a CPU can do. Floating Point and Integer calculations. The CPU has a special thing on it (the FPU) that it uses to do FP calculations. AMD's 8 core CPU has 4 FPUs which each 2 core bundle share. 

That's one example in how they are different and why AMD CPU cores generally perform worse than Intel CPU cores. Other things like the actual architecture affects it as well.

 

*Looks at post*

 

"My you've grown!" Good learnin' raaaht there.

[Manny Calavera]

Basically intel CPUs have higher single core performance.

 

AMD 'cores' are actually a pair of modules that share resources.

yep, and the fact that i7 has hyperthreading, and in games that support it properly, it destroys 8 core amd cpu

 

 intel cpu can handle threads that are much more intensive, even if amd core is clocked 1.95Ghz higher ( source LTT cinebench single core bench r15 ), intel still wins at single core performance. and games and quite intensive on single core, depends on multithreading also and the type of game

thats why even if multithread score favor amd over intel, while overclocked i5 4670k will destroy 8350 in games, and 8350 isnt a great cpu price / performance wise. its better to shell out those 30 bucks more for i5 and 10 bucks more for unlocked intel mobo.

 

But for games that are really good on multithreading, and does not put too big load on single core, it should not matter. New games aim to be highly multithreaded.

[vm'N]

yep, and the fact that i7 has hyperthreading, and in games that support it properly, it destroys 8 core amd cpu

intel cpu can handle threads that are much more intensive, even if amd core is clocked 1.95Ghz higher ( source LTT cinebench single core bench r15 ), intel still wins at single core performance. and games and quite intensive on single core, depends on multithreading also and the type of game

thats why even if multithread score favor amd over intel, while overclocked i5 4670k will destroy 8350 in games, and 8350 isnt a great cpu price / performance wise. its better to shell out those 30 bucks more for i5 and 10 bucks more for unlocked intel mobo.

But for games that are really good on multithreading, and does not put too big load on single core, it should not matter. New games aim to be highly multithreaded.

Games have doesn' have any direct support for SMT (hyper-threading), but are supporting it by simple multithreading. CMT (Cluster-core, essentially what AMD calls a module) have better default support.

Games wont be heavily multi-threaded anytime soon.

It all boils down to: Intel have more ALUs (integer pipelines) than piledriver (4vs2). Also have superior SIMD (better word for FPU) and memory handling (side term but whatever).

[lx_srs]

yep, and the fact that i7 has hyperthreading, and in games that support it properly, it destroys 8 core amd cpu

 

 intel cpu can handle threads that are much more intensive, even if amd core is clocked 1.95Ghz higher ( source LTT cinebench single core bench r15 ), intel still wins at single core performance. and games and quite intensive on single core, depends on multithreading also and the type of game

thats why even if multithread score favor amd over intel, while overclocked i5 4670k will destroy 8350 in games, and 8350 isnt a great cpu price / performance wise. its better to shell out those 30 bucks more for i5 and 10 bucks more for unlocked intel mobo.

 

But for games that are really good on multithreading, and does not put too big load on single core, it should not matter. New games aim to be highly multithreaded.

 

I hate that people say hyperthreading is better. It's not. You will still get more performance out of 1 thread per core with more cores than you will with 2 threads per CPU with less cores.

[lx_srs]

Specifically, in the current generation (not older ones), AMD CPU cores share resources while Intel CPU cores have dedicated resources. At least in the FX line of CPUs they do.

So AMD's "8 core" CPU has 8 cores, but they are put into bundles of 2 and share some of the same cache and stuff (specifically FPUs or Floating Point Units). 

There are two types of calculations a CPU can do. Floating Point and Integer calculations. The CPU has a special thing on it (the FPU) that it uses to do FP calculations. AMD's 8 core CPU has 4 FPUs which each 2 core bundle share. 

That's one example in how they are different and why AMD CPU cores generally perform worse than Intel CPU cores. Other things like the actual architecture affects it as well.

Thank you. I'd heard it had something to do with "moduling" but no one actually explained that.  Hearing that each Intel core gets it's own resources is exactly the answer that I was looking for.

[Manny Calavera]

I hate that people say hyperthreading is better. It's not. You will still get more performance out of 1 thread per core with more cores than you will with 2 threads per CPU with less cores.

well it does help in games that properly use it. ididnt say its better. its just advantage over 8350

[Opcode]

well it does help in games that properly use it. ididnt say its better. its just advantage over 8350

Most game's don't utilize Hyper-Threading if the microprocessor has at least four cores. It is a different story when it comes the the i3.

[lx_srs]

well it does help in games that properly use it. ididnt say its better. its just advantage over 8350

Not really, most games can't use Hyper-Threading.  Battlefield included, and that thing's a thread hog.  A dedicated core is still more powerful than a thread.

[vm'N]

If the application have 2 threads, it can successfully utilize SMT (hyper-threading).

 

It is an old rumor that games cannot take use hyper-threading

[Faa]

Not really, most games can't use Hyper-Threading.  Battlefield included, and that thing's a thread hog.  A dedicated core is still more powerful than a thread.

And how do you know it doesn't "support" it? Hyperthreading UV laser scanner? Taskmanager? Seeing that all of your threads are loaded doesnt translate to performance advantages.

It doesnt require anything special to do other than making x amount of threads so you can utilize x amount of cores/threads. How much of a performance gain we would see is a total different story, depends complety how its written varies from a performance loss or a double gain.

[lx_srs]

And how do you know it doesn't "support" it? Hyperthreading UV laser scanner? Taskmanager? Seeing that all of your threads are loaded doesnt translate to performance advantages.

It doesnt require anything special to do other than making x amount of threads so you can utilize x amount of cores/threads. How much of a performance gain we would see is a total different story, depends complety how its written varies from a performance loss or a double gain.

 

Alright, I may have been wrong. But you didn't have to be a condescending dickwad about it.

[Faa]

Alright, I may have been wrong. But you didn't have to be a condescending dickwad about it.

I think you're overreacting, it was just a rhetorical question to explain my point better.

[Opcode]

If the application have 2 threads, it can successfully utilize SMT (hyper-threading).

 

It is an old rumor that games cannot take use hyper-threading

It's mostly due to games not utilizing more than four cores, even tho the developers suggest they do. Hence why there is such a little gap between a i5 and a i7 in gaming. The only place Hyper-Threading makes a difference is on the i3.

[Faa]

It's mostly due to games not utilizing more than four cores, even tho the developers suggest they do. Hence why there is such a little gap between a i5 and a i7 in gaming. The only place Hyper-Threading makes a difference is on the i3.

And crysis 3.

[lx_srs]

I think you're overreacting, it was just a rhetorical question to explain my point better.

Sorry, it just seemed like you were intentionally trying to piss me off.