What's the Difference Between AMD and Intel?

[Alistaroc]

Hi guys. I'm picking out parts to do my first computer build. I've replaced components and such before, but now I have the opportunity to build a system from scratch. So I was looking online, and something really confused me. An AMD A10-6800K is a quad core processor running at 4.1 Ghz. It retails for $129.98. An Intel Core i5-4660 is a quad core, but it runs at 3.2 Ghz, yet somehow goes for $187.98. Can someone explain to me why? Right now I'm having a hard time seeing how Intel is still in business. For example, an i7-4790K and an A10-6790K are identical in cores and Ghz, but they cost $340 and $130 respectively. Am I missing something here? I can't continue forward picking out parts if I can't figure out the difference between AMD and Intel CPUs.

[Vitalius]

Because basically clock speeds (GHz) doesn't mean anything when comparing two different manufacturers of CPUs. 3.2GHz for Intel > 3.2GHz for AMD generally, but that depends on a lot of other factors (core count, architecture, other CPU features, etc). The AMD A10-6800k is an APU meaning it has built-in graphics. The Intel i5-4660K (I assume you meant the K version) is also an APU. 

Generally, Intel's CPUs are valued more because they tend to be more efficient. Less heat. More performance per cycle (i.e. do more with less GHz). Etc. So yeah. Intel's profits are like 75% of their retail price though. They make that bank. 

You can compare CPU's actual performance here: http://cpuboss.com/

[Kyuubixchidori]

Hi guys. I'm picking out parts to do my first computer build. I've replaced components and such before, but now I have the opportunity to build a system from scratch. So I was looking online, and something really confused me. An AMD A10-6800K is a quad core processor running at 4.1 Ghz. It retails for $129.98. An Intel Core i5-4660 is a quad core, but it runs at 3.2 Ghz, yet somehow goes for $187.98. Can someone explain to me why? Right now I'm having a hard time seeing how Intel is still in business. For example, an i7-4790K and an A10-6790K are identical in cores and Ghz, but they cost $340 and $130 respectively. Am I missing something here? I can't continue forward picking out parts if I can't figure out the difference between AMD and Intel CPUs.

two different companies. number of cores and ghz are irrelevant when comparing different brands. each core is not identical, a good example is i have the I5-3570K, which runs at 3.3 ghz. even if i ran it at 1 ghz, my also quad core phone running at 2.6 ghz would still not even be able to touch the performance.

 

your best bet is to flat out ignore the cores, the ghz, and just look at benchmarks for CPUs in your budget

[ViruZ_HUN]

Hi guys. I'm picking out parts to do my first computer build. I've replaced components and such before, but now I have the opportunity to build a system from scratch. So I was looking online, and something really confused me. An AMD A10-6800K is a quad core processor running at 4.1 Ghz. It retails for $129.98. An Intel Core i5-4660 is a quad core, but it runs at 3.2 Ghz, yet somehow goes for $187.98. Can someone explain to me why? Right now I'm having a hard time seeing how Intel is still in business. For example, an i7-4790K and an A10-6790K are identical in cores and Ghz, but they cost $340 and $130 respectively. Am I missing something here? I can't continue forward picking out parts if I can't figure out the difference between AMD and Intel CPUs.

Intel is still much stronger.... that is why they cost more

Intels cores is stronger then Amds cores

[ANUPLUCIFERGAMER]

AMD doesn't have Intel in it and Intel doesn't have AMD in it. Simple enough!

[Nineshadow]

Hertz rate the number of processing cycles a CPU does each second.

Then there's the architecture efficiency,which matters most of the time.Let's say it takes 100 cycles to do something on a CPU,but on another it takes only 10.Something around those lines.

Once there was a Hertz race,but then CPU manufacutrers realized that increasing the Hz rate would also lead to higher temps.So,instead, they made better architectures and added more cores.

 

Intel is currently way better than AMD,unless you're talking about budget or APUs.

[Paralectic]

Clockspeed most certainly does not define the performance of the unit itself, it's not even comparable between those two manufacturers.

[Sauron]

The things you are comparing are irrelevant in cpus from different companies. You need to see a benchmark to realize exactly how much faster an i7 is. 

 

 

You'll notice the apu is at the bottom of the scale whereas the i7 is at the top.

[Alistaroc]

Thank you everyone, that really helps.

two different companies. number of cores and ghz are irrelevant when comparing different brands. each core is not identical, a good example is i have the I5-3570K, which runs at 3.3 ghz. even if i ran it at 1 ghz, my also quad core phone running at 2.6 ghz would still not even be able to touch the performance.

 

your best bet is to flat out ignore the cores, the ghz, and just look at benchmarks for CPUs in your budget

Would you happen to know any good places to find benchmarks?

 

Thank you Sauron, the visual really helps.

P.S. Lord of the Rings FTW!

[Sauron]

Thank you everyone, that really helps.

Would you happen to know any good places to find benchmarks?

 

Thank you Sauron, the visual really helps.

P.S. Lord of the Rings FTW!

 

^^ tip: if you mention someone in your post write it in the form @Sauron so they get a notification for it.

 

-EDIT-

 

Bare in mind cinebench is a synthetic benchmark and won't always be reflected in the real world, but it's good to get a general impression.

[Alistaroc]

@Sauron, I will remember to use the @.

 

But tests do tend to reflect actual performance, don't they?

[lx_srs]

Because basically clock speeds (GHz) doesn't mean anything when comparing two different manufacturers of CPUs. 3.2GHz for Intel > 3.2GHz for AMD generally, but that depends on a lot of other factors (core count, architecture, other CPU features, etc). The AMD A10-6800k is an APU meaning it has built-in graphics. The Intel i5-4660K (I assume you meant the K version) is also an APU. 

Generally, Intel's CPUs are valued more because they tend to be more efficient. Less heat. More performance per cycle (i.e. do more with less GHz). Etc. So yeah. Intel's profits are like 75% of their retail price though. They make that bank. 

You can compare CPU's actual performance here: http://cpuboss.com/

Correction. The i5-4660k is NOT an APU, as the CPU and GPU components do not have access to the same memory.  Not to mention the GPU for Intel CPU's is built into the mobo, whereas AMD APU graphics cores are right on the actual processor die.

[flibberdipper]

As a general rule: Anything AMD can pretty much be matched or beaten by at least a Core i5 4690K. Like the FX6300/8320. The 8320 can keep up to it fairly easily. Then take AMD's 959 and put it up against a Core i7 4790K, and you'll start to see Intel pull ahead.

[Izaya Orihara]

@Sauron, I will remember to use the @.

 

But tests do tend to reflect actual performance, don't they?

They do. It shows the power compared to each other. However in games some CPU's may perform very differently as a Pentium will beat an 8350 in an application that only uses 2 cores. 

[Vitalius]

Correction. The i5-4660k is NOT an APU, as the CPU and GPU components do not have access to the same memory.  Not to mention the GPU for Intel CPU's is built into the mobo, whereas AMD APU graphics cores are right on the actual processor die.

Fair enough. They both have video capabilities (in that the 4660k supports it). That's the relevant bit. Honestly, there's nothing positive about being an APU from what I can see. I just used it as a term to mean "A CPU with GPU capabilities" because that's what is relevant to what I was talking about. My bad since that's technically incorrect.

[Izaya Orihara]

Correction. The i5-4660k is NOT an APU, as the CPU and GPU components do not have access to the same memory.  Not to mention the GPU for Intel CPU's is built into the mobo, whereas AMD APU graphics cores are right on the actual processor die.

The official defefintion of an APU is a CPU+GPU on the same chip. It is indeed an APU. The memory part hasn't got anything to do with that. Also they are not build in into the mobo. Why would Xeons not have an iGPU then? 

[Sauron]

@Sauron, I will remember to use the @.

 

But tests do tend to reflect actual performance, don't they?

 

Yes, it depends on the application wether the extra power is used or not though. Cinebench is optimized to use all available threads to the max, but if an application is better optimized to run with only 2 threads a cpu with faster cores will beat one with more cores even if the one with more cores is faster in cinebench. On the other hand video editing focuses more on the number of cores, and so on. Almost no real world program uses cpus to their absolute best, so if you're interested in, say photoshop, you need to look for a photoshop benchmark (they exist too).

[Sauron]

Not to mention the GPU for Intel CPU's is built into the mobo, whereas AMD APU graphics cores are right on the actual processor die.

 

 

What do you think the big purple rectangle on the left of this i7 2600 is?

 

 

Oh look! The gpu is on the main chip!

 

Who told you that intel integrated graphics are on the motherboard?

[lx_srs]

 

What do you think the big purple rectangle on the left of this i7 2600 is?

 

 

Oh look! The gpu is on the main chip!

 

Who told you that intel integrated graphics are on the motherboard?

Shit my bad. Was thinking of early CPU's.  Still not an APU though, as the graphics cores don't have access to the same memory as the CPU cores.

[Alistaroc]

Doing a quick Google search, I found this, http://www.cpubenchmark.net/index.php, and was wondering two things. 1) Is this a good source of information, or is it inaccurate? and 2) If this is a good site, what roughly do you think is the lowest passmark usable for gaming? Once I know that I can find anything higher and choose out of those. 

[Sauron]

Shit my bad. Was thinking of early CPU's.  Still not an APU though, as the graphics cores don't have access to the same memory as the CPU cores.

 

It does, where do you think it stores textures?

[Sauron]

Doing a quick Google search, I found this, http://www.cpubenchmark.net/index.php, and was wondering two things. 1) Is this a good source of information, or is it inaccurate? and 2) If this is a good site, what roughly do you think is the lowest passmark usable for gaming? Once I know that I can find anything higher and choose out of those. 

 

It doesn't look very accurate, according to them an i3 is the best cpu in passmark above i7's and xeons... which doesn't make any sense.

 

-EDIT-

 

If you're looking for a cpu just ask us. Tell us what you need to do with it and we'll tell you what to buy

[lx_srs]

It does, where do you think it stores textures?

Ok, just because I'm wrong, doesn't give you the right to be a sarcastic asswipe.  Still though, AMD's APU's will give you way better graphics performance.  Sorry Intel, your integrated graphics suck.

[Sauron]

Ok, just because I'm wrong, doesn't give you the right to be a sarcastic asswipe.  Still though, AMD's APU's will give you way better graphics performance.  Sorry Intel, your integrated graphics suck.

 

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to be sarcastic or rude. I'm just used to explaining things with rethorical questions, it just comes natural to me I agree that apus have better integrated graphics.

[lx_srs]

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to be sarcastic or rude. I'm just used to explaining things with rethorical questions, it just comes natural to me I agree that apus have better integrated graphics.

<3