8 core Processors - Intel vs AMD

[LozzaNewport]

So guys i was just watching Linus' latest video and showing off the new eight core cpu's and stuff.

How come AMD can make an 8 core cpu the FX 8320 for 170 (AUD) and intel are only now making an 8 core cpu for like 6+ times the amount for 1200 (AUD)?

Why dont intel make 8 core cpu's  or even 6 core cpu's for a lot cheaper? Hmmmmmm very curious.

Thanks Guys

 

[X1XNobleX1X]

So guys i was just watching Linus' latest video and showing off the new eight core cpu's and stuff.

How come AMD can make an 8 core cpu the FX 8320 for 170 (AUD) and intel are only now making an 8 core cpu for like 6+ times the amount for 1200 (AUD)?

Why dont intel make 8 core cpu's  or even 6 core cpu's for a lot cheaper? Hmmmmmm very curious.

Thanks Guys

The performance of the 8 core AMD can't even compare to the Intel 8 core.

[LozzaNewport]

The performance of the 8 core AMD can't even compare to the Intel 8 core.

Yea but comparing amd's 8 core to a 170 ish intel, the amd would own....

[X1XNobleX1X]

Yea but comparing amd's 8 core to a 170 ish intel, the amd would own....

You sure about that?

[simtransporter]

Yes they do both have '8 cores' but not all cores are made equally and they sure don't perform the same.
Look at benchmarks, look at performance tests, and you will start to understand why those CPUs cost more.

[Akolyte]

dude.  The 8 core AMD cpus aren't even up to the 4790k, or even 4690k in terms of overall performance.  So, the Intel 8 core easily beats it.  

 

Not saying AMD cpus are bad, because they aren't.  I just don't think AMDs goal is to compete with Intel anymore. 

[Rekx]

more features on intel, better performance (even on the 6 core)  and faster updates to software

[Levent]

You sure about that?

you are correct AMD's 8 "core" cpus cant even compete with intels quad cores on most of the tasks.(hell even dual core intel beats them on time to time)

[The_Strict_Nein]

Because a 4 core Intel can beat an 8 core AMD

[Sauron]

Yea but comparing amd's 8 core to a 170 ish intel, the amd would own....

 

Not really, in games the intel would win and trade blows in everything else. AMD's cores are much less powerful than intel cores, that's by design, doesn't mean it can compare to an intel 8-core. Maybe the intel 8-core isn't worth 6 times as much, but when you want the top of the line you should be ready to pay a premium.

[simtransporter]

CPUs are complicated.... it's not just core count and clock frequencies..  you simply can't compare numbers like that.

[AlwaysFSX]

Yea but comparing amd's 8 core to a 170 ish intel, the amd would own....

No, it wouldn't. AMD's processors are so anemic when it comes to performance and design that's the reason they're cheap. It's just a brute force design that doesn't yield a lot of performance. Hands down any time of the day an Intel CPU would whoop an AMD CPU in raw power.

[TyagoDani]

So guys i was just watching Linus' latest video and showing off the new eight core cpu's and stuff.

How come AMD can make an 8 core cpu the FX 8320 for 170 (AUD) and intel are only now making an 8 core cpu for like 6+ times the amount for 1200 (AUD)?

Why dont intel make 8 core cpu's  or even 6 core cpu's for a lot cheaper? Hmmmmmm very curious.

Thanks Guys

some quad cores from intel are beating the crap of amd's octa-cores

[harrynowl]

Intel chips are cheaper to manufacture than AMD. They have smaller die sizes.

 

The difference is Intel invest a lot more into R&D than AMD, so you pay for that.

 

We won't see 8 cores from Intel at $200 for a long time.

 

Besides, if an Intel quad core is comparable to an AMD 8 core in multithreaded scenarios. Why would they need to?

[BlargKing]

Intel 4 cores beat the crap out of the AMD 8 cores, and they do it on less power and less heat produced. 

[Lazmarr]

dude.  The 8 core AMD cpus aren't even up to the 4790k, or even 4690k in terms of overall performance.  So, the Intel 8 core easily beats it.  

 

Not saying AMD cpus are bad, because they aren't.  I just don't think AMDs goal is to compete with Intel anymore. 

AMD said a few years back that they aren't going to be competing with Intel, until 2015/2016

 

Intel chips are cheaper to manufacture than AMD. They have smaller die sizes.

 

The difference is Intel invest a lot more into R&D than AMD, so you pay for that.

 

We won't see 8 cores from Intel at $200 for a long time.

 

Besides, if an Intel quad core is comparable to an AMD 8 core in multithreaded scenarios. Why would they need to?

 

Intel chips are not cheaper than AMD chips, since they employ a much higher manufacturing process and a stricter Quality Control. In addition, each chip contains higher quality silicone and more components

They probably cost the same to make >.>

[Thony]

Intels 8- coe has 16 threads. FX has only 8 threads... AMDs architecture is several nm bigger than intels. Thats reason why old i7s quads are not as good as latest quads.

All who doubt latest Fx and think it is much worse than latest i5, just wait for Logan's (tek syndicate) upcoming comparison video

Intel is about performance (high cost) and Amd is about budget (performance per dollar)

Also Amd focused on their APUs (hence why intel got far ahead and can charge $1000 for cpu due to lack of competition). Amd only adds more mhz to their cpus so 0 progress in architecture however new 8370e has lower power consumption.

[harrynowl]

Intel chips are not cheaper than AMD chips, since they employ a much higher manufacturing process and a stricter Quality Control. In addition, each chip contains higher quality silicone and more components

They probably cost the same to make >.>

The physical chip (silicone) costs less to make. Less silicone is used.

[That Norwegian Guy]

AMD FX 8-cores are not actually 8 cores*. There have 8 Integer units but only 4 floating point units. Intel cores are not separated like this, possessing 8 each.

AMD FX chips are much lower instructions per clock (IPC) - an FX chip vs. any Intel chip, even a Pentium, if they are the same frequency the Intel is stronger per-core.

 

There are other differences, which have been mentioned above, so I won't bother with that.

 

*This also goes for 6-cores which are really 6/3.

[i_build_nanosuits]

AMD FX 8-cores are not actually 8 cores*. There have 8 Integer units but only 4 floating point units. Intel cores are not separated like this, possessing 8 each.

AMD FX chips are much lower instructions per clock (IPC) - an FX chip vs. any Intel chip, even a Pentium, if they are the same frequency the Intel is stronger per-core.

 

There are other differences, which have been mentioned above, so I won't bother with that.

 

*This also goes for 6-cores which are really 6/3.

...and for the AMD ''quad core'' from the piledriver of bulldozer architecture (FX-4100, FX-4300) which are in fact dual cores (only 2 FPU...slow FPU btw..)

Was the OP trolling or really just miss-informed? at least i'm glad this hasnt turned into a shit storm of AMD fanboys defending the crap out of the slow FX chips...like i used to do LOL

[ObilvionNizer]

Intels 8- coe has 16 threads. FX has only 8 threads... AMDs architecture is several nm bigger than intels. Thats reason why old i7s quads are not as good as latest quads.

All who doubt latest Fx is worse than latest i5, just wait for Logan's (tek syndicate) upcoming comparison video

Intel is about performance and Amd is about budget

Also Amd focused on their APUs (hence why intel got far ahead and can charge $1000 for cpu due to lack of competition). Amd only adds more mhz to their cpus so 0 progress in architecture however new 8370e has lower power consumption.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8320 

[Lazmarr]

...and for the AMD ''quad core'' from the piledriver of bulldozer architecture (FX-4100, FX-4300) which are in fact dual cores (only 2 FPU...slow FPU btw..)

Was the OP trolling or really just miss-informed? at least i'm glad this hasnt turned into a shit storm of AMD fanboys defending the crap out of the slow FX chips...like i used to do LOL

Guess I'm gonna have to be that fanboy......._JKJKJK

Well since I've only used pentiums and an E5500 from intel, the FX I have, for me, is just what I needed; and when I purchased it, it was the best I could get for the price

Want to get an X5650 but also want to see what AMD brings out in 2015/2016....

[Un4tural]

i got an fx6300, it performs good enough with decent OC for my desktop, even though i got an 4700mq in laptop, which actually scores better at benches, less than half power consumption and in a laptop... 

 

it does overclock very well, but looking at amd offering, i can't help but feel they're so cheap literally because they manufacture a single die and sort them out in the quality control by stability/defective cores etc. there's little difference between the early fx and the new ones they just announced as core performance is pretty much same, only clocked higher.

 

it is joy to play overclocking my amd chip tho...

[Thony]

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8320

Thats what I mean, intel is overpriced for the performance it delivers over amd. But I think I wrote one sentence incorrectly, have to edit it.

[ObilvionNizer]

Thats what I mean, intel is overpriced for the performance it delivers over amd. But I think I wrote one sentence incorrectly, have to edit it.

Not really. The Intel 4670K is £163 where as the FX is £103. But Intel costs more because they mpd their CPUs to a higher standard.