Jump to content

Performance difference between Intel and AMD

johnnyTheMac
 Share
Posted

Well basicly a new laptop allways gives you warrenty and such, so in that matter its more safe.

The Haswell i7, will be faster in rendering. So for that matter, yes the haswell i7 laptop will be a littlebit faster.

 

But still that used laptop will also do verywell.

The SSD will give you faster boot times offcourse, and more ram can be handy.

 

However, most of the times you can tweak, those new laptops sometimes.

For example if you whish 16GB ram instead of 12GB, an SSD instead of HDD and such.

But that is something you could inform about.

 

Basicly like i said a new laptop will offcourse give you warrenty, and a faster Haswell i7.

However the used laptop, is still a very good deal.

Cause its specs are great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

OP, do you want/need discrete graphics power? If so, Intel/Nv combo is my suggestion. If you can get away with on board level graphics, AMD A8/A10 gets my vote just because they are so much more powerful graphically (Iris Pro not applicable due to cost in this situation).

 

Do those programs you often use have open CL and/or cuda acceleration? If so, take that into consideration when deciding on hardware. (AMD->OCL/Nvidia->cuda)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Just browse through my posts if you're interested in benchmarks. Getting the job done is a different story than what the difference is between AMD & Intel. In terms of price/performance, especially for cpu bound games (only games where you'd see a performance difference) Intel offers a much better value for the price. AMD's multithreaded performance/price means nothing when it comes down to gaming.

AMD is atm too expensive, you pay a hefty price for its performance though when you have an equivalent for each of their model at the same price. Put the average gaming performance over price that's how you get a performance/price ratio and not just copypasting misinformation. You must be living a different world if you think there's only one or two fps difference in CPU limited games, let alone theyre taking advantage of 8 threads

 

You're focused on gaming. I'm not and neither is the OP.  I was speaking in general terms. We're also considering a budget here.  When you're on a tight budget AMD is the way to go.  The performance difference will NOT be significant.  Plus you will be able to allot more cash for other components which, if you weren't aware, also effect the performance of a computer. In terms of gaming performance, the video card has much more to do with the performance you get.  I'm not sayiing that the cpu doesn't play a role or that the fps difference will be "one or two" but the cpu is not the most vital component in determining your gaming experience. A point to consider is that games are obviously being optimized to take advantage of more cores. So, in terms of "future proofing", if you're buying a pc today an AMD 8 core cpu may provide a better experience in future games that are highly threaded. This assumes that you don't have 1k to spend on that new intel 8 core. AMD cpus also typically overclock better than Intel cpus.     

 

Yes, Intel performs better in almost every venue.  But AMD provides a quality product at a reasonable price point and that means everything to the budget gamer.

Oh, by the way, you know that benchmarks comment I made earlier? Sarcasm.

Fx-6300 @4.4Ghz  -  Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3  -  Sapphire Dual-X R9 280 @1100/1325mhz  -  16Gb of GSkill Sniper Series Ram @1866mhz  -  EVGA SuperNova G2 750w Psu

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

You're focused on gaming. I'm not and neither is the OP. 

 

You were.

 

We're also considering a budget here.  When you're on a tight budget AMD is the way to go.  The performance difference will NOT be significant.  

 

It will be significant. Intel cpu's are up 100% faster in CPU bound games. Theyre readily available, google it.

 

 

Plus you will be able to allot more cash for other components which, if you weren't aware, also effect the performance of a computer. 

False. AMD isn't cheaper. Cheapest board for a 8320 is around 100$ and add 25$ for an evo to save your ears where as Intel boards cost 40$ and a stock cooler thats quiet. At whatever clock they are running at, it will NEVER perform better than a i5 4430.

 

 

 In terms of gaming performance, the video card has much more to do with the performance you get. 

In EVERY multiplayer game with a high player count, AMD is a bottlenecking harder and will perform worse than an Intel CPU even with a weaker GPU.

 

 

A point to consider is that games are obviously being optimized to take advantage of more cores. So, in terms of "future proofing", if you're buying a pc today an AMD 8 core cpu may provide a better experience in future games that are highly threaded. This assumes that you don't have 1k to spend on that new intel 8 core. AMD cpus also typically overclock better than Intel cpus.     

Sorry no the 4670k is far more futureproof. Games that are currently GPU limited might turn out to be CPU bound with better GPU's. There is NO reason to buy a 8320 over a 4300 in terms of gaming, a 8320 is only better in 2-3 games than the 4300, that's all. 

zL0Albd.jpg

This game doesnt use more than 2/3 cores so a i7 is equal to a i5 here.

 

 
CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($179.98 @ OutletPC) 
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($44.38 @ Newegg) 
Total: $224.36
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-20 05:28 EDT-0400

Intel 150/224 = 0.66 performance/price ratio

Since you all moan about its overclocking godness, lets just go for the 5GHz race over here;

 
CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($134.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i 77.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($94.98 @ OutletPC) 
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($108.00 @ Newegg) 
Total: $337.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-20 05:32 EDT-0400

 

AMD 75/337 = 0.22 Performance/Price ratio

 

 

AMD cpus also typically overclock better than Intel cpus.     

Overclocking more means nothing when its IPC is shit. Low IPC -> lower performance per clock. Lemme show you; http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/184204-amd-fx-8350-vs-i5-4670k/page-3#entry2490056

A 1GHz averagely adds a 5% gain in FPS on AMD when the CPU was the limiting factor as you've could see from the gap.

 

 

Oh, by the way, you know that benchmarks comment I made earlier? Sarcasm.

You're selling the OP a CPU that's nearly 10 years old, you're making him buy a 10 years old CPU based on false hope about the future. You lied about AMD being cheaper which was false. AMD fanboys aren't in touch with reality, like Logan they will fabricate benchmarks to make people buy an ancient CPU that performs terrible which even costs a hell more.

44sgUrb.png 

 

Besides the OP is buying a laptop you tool. You're not going to buy AMD on a laptop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

 

You were.

 

Are you seriously trying to tell me what I meant? 

 

 

 

It will be significant. Intel cpu's are up 100% faster in CPU bound games. Theyre readily available, google it.

 

AMD cpus provide adequate performance for gaming and multi-tasking.  Do I have to say it again? Yes, Intel is better. 

 

 

 

zL0Albd.jpg

 

According to this graph, at 1080p AMD is getting 75 fps.  That is a perfectly acceptable framerate. Most users would have a hard time distinguishing between this and higher framerates.  

 

 

 

False. AMD isn't cheaper. Cheapest board for a 8320 is around 100$ and add 25$ for an evo to save your ears where as Intel boards cost 40$ and a stock cooler thats quiet. At whatever clock they are running at, it will NEVER perform better than a i5 4430

 

In your price comparison further down in your comment you used the cheapest of the cheap mobo for Intel and a mid range mobo for AMD.  Plus, on the AMD side you include a one hundred dollar water cooler. That's not a fair comparison at all.  I realize why you added the water cooler but that's irrelevant. You don't need water cooling for overclocking. 

Once you overclock that AMD chip you will come close to the stock performance of the Intel chip that you can't overclock.  I'll say it again. Intel is better but that doesn't mean that AMD doesn't provide a good chip.  

 

 

 

 

 

In EVERY multiplayer game with a high player count, AMD is a bottlenecking harder and will perform worse than an Intel CPU even with a weaker GPU.

 

Lolololol. So cute. What you mean here is cpu limitation rather than bottleneck.  The difference being that a bottleneck limits the performance of the cpu from within the cpu itself. Whereas a limitation is caused externally sometimes by hardware but mostly by software.  A bottleneck means that the cpu is limiting the performance of other hardware because it cannot keep up for whatever reason. Which is not what's happening in these games.  These games are being limited by the games themselves and the interface (DX) not the cpu.  These performance issues can be remedied in future games and DX releases. 

 

 

 

Sorry no the 4670k is far more futureproof. Games that are currently GPU limited might turn out to be CPU bound with better GPU's. There is NO reason to buy a 8320 over a 4300 in terms of gaming, a 8320 is only better in 2-3 games than the 4300, that's all. 

 

Um we're talking about the future yet you reference current games which we know are not optimized for higher thread counts.  However, those two or three games you mentioned are optimized somewhat and you did say they performed better didn't you?

 

 

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($179.98 @ OutletPC) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($44.38 @ Newegg) 
Total: $224.36
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-20 05:28 EDT-0400

Intel 150/224 = 0.66 performance/price ratio

Since you all moan about its overclocking godness, lets just go for the 5GHz race over here;

 
CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($134.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i 77.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($94.98 @ OutletPC) 
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($108.00 @ Newegg) 
Total: $337.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-20 05:32 EDT-0400

 

AMD 75/337 = 0.22 Performance/Price ratio

 

 

Pfffft!! I think I know who the tool is in this conversation. "moan about overclocking godness"?????? AMD cpus typically do overclock better.  Never said that it was godlike or that it would perform better than an Intel.  This isn't about who's better it's about getting the most for your money when you don't have alot of money.  

 

 

 

Overclocking more means nothing when its IPC is shit. Low IPC -> lower performance per clock. Lemme show you; http://linustechtips...-3#entry2490056

A 1GHz averagely adds a 5% gain in FPS on AMD when the CPU was the limiting factor as you've could see from the gap.

 

All I see at that link is you being an Intel fanboy/troll.  Yes, Intel is better.  We all know that.  But AMD cpus can overclock and get equal or better scores than stock Intel for forty dollars less.  

 

 

 

You're selling the OP a CPU that's nearly 10 years old, you're making him buy a 10 years old CPU based on false hope about the future. You lied about AMD being cheaper which was false. AMD fanboys aren't in touch with reality, like Logan they will fabricate benchmarks to make people buy an ancient CPU that performs terrible which even costs a hell more. Besides the OP is buying a laptop you tool. You're not going to buy AMD on a laptop.

 

Ten year old cpu eh? Wow, I didn't know that 10-23-2012 was ten or even nearly ten years ago.  Is it almost 2022 already? I will say here that the AM3+ socket is pretty much dead.  In which case in may be more viable to wait until the next generation on both sides of the fence.

 

**CPU** | [intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor](http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i54670k) | $233.98 @ OutletPC 
**Motherboard** | [Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5 TH ATX LGA1150 Motherboard](http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-motherboard-gaz87xud5th) | $199.99 @ Newegg 
 | | **Total**
 | Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available | $433.97
 
 
 
 
**CPU** | [AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor](http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd8350frhkbox) | $169.99 @ Amazon 
**Motherboard** | [Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 ATX AM3+ Motherboard](http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-motherboard-ga990fxaud5) | $156.99 @ NCIX US 
 | | **Total**
 | Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available | $326.98
 
These two setups offer very similar performance and features, although Intel does perform better. Never the less very similar for 100 dollars less.  Your price comparison was very unrealistic. The motherboard you used for Intel side had virtually no features or ports.  You buy that and you're stuck with a barebones system that you can't add anything to later on. Looks to me like you're just trying to make it look like Intel really is cheaper...
 
Don't call me a liar. Not only did I not lie I also haven't linked any benchmarks or quoted any benchmarks let alone fabricate any.  I'm hardly an AMD fanboy...lol. I am, however, a realist and the reality of the situation is that Intel is better in almost all areas.  AMD is certainly a worthwhile alternative in the right situations. 

 

Finally, I'd like to say that I've always wanted to be a tool.  Can I be a screwdriver?? I like screwing. AND!!! I can help you build your Intel PC.  :D

Fx-6300 @4.4Ghz  -  Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3  -  Sapphire Dual-X R9 280 @1100/1325mhz  -  16Gb of GSkill Sniper Series Ram @1866mhz  -  EVGA SuperNova G2 750w Psu

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Once you overclock that AMD chip you will come close to the stock performance of the Intel chip that you can't overclock.  I'll say it again. Intel is better but that doesn't mean that AMD doesn't provide a good chip.  

No. You have seen AMD adding 5% fps with a 1GHz OC and still getting outperformed by 80%.

Before you spread misinformation again; CLICK HERE

 

 

According to this graph, at 1080p AMD is getting 75 fps.  That is a perfectly acceptable framerate. Most users would have a hard time distinguishing between this and higher framerates.  

And? If you havent realized its bottlenecking the Crossfire Setup completely so where is AMD's almighty performance that made a 2nd 7970 a complete waste of money? 15 fps in 10 years old games is not what I call playable. You'd be looking at around 30 fps in mmo's with a 4670k, 8350's are slideshowing at 5GHz. I've seen guilds recruiting who were requiring Intel CPU's for raiding. 

 

 

In your price comparison further down in your comment you used the cheapest of the cheap mobo for Intel and a mid range mobo for AMD.  Plus, on the AMD side you include a one hundred dollar water cooler. That's not a fair comparison at all.  I realize why you added the water cooler but that's irrelevant. You don't need water cooling for overclocking. 

Lol, spoken about fair comparisons you included a board that costed more than the i5 and a 150$ board for the AMD that literally kills AMDs value. For a locked i5 you don't need anything better than a H81 board nor you need anything else than the stock cooler. 40$ AMD boards do NOT have the VRM requirement for 130W TDP chips NOR you can overclock a 8320/8350 on a 80$ board. Any lga1150 doesn't need anything better than an evo 212 for the max 24/7 clock the CPU can hit. All you need to push a 4670k to its max overclock, which is quite low like you stated, is the cheapest z97 board and a evo 212. A lower power consumption means; lower VRM requirements & less cooling needed.

 

 

All I see at that link is you being an Intel fanboy/troll.  Yes, Intel is better.  We all know that.  But AMD cpus can overclock and get equal or better scores than stock Intel for forty dollars less.  

Lying again. Since you claimed it overclocks much higher and now you're saying it gets better scores for 30$ less. Right

You'll be needing this for a 5GHz 8350 race; 

 

 
CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($134.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i 77.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($94.98 @ OutletPC) 
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($156.99 @ NCIX US) 
Total: $386.96
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-20 15:21 EDT-0400

All you need to overclock a 4670k to its max 24/7 acceptable clock;

 
CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($224.73 @ OutletPC) 
Motherboard: MSI Z97 PC MATE ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($79.99 @ Micro Center) 
Total: $333.38
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-20 15:24 EDT-0400

Whats cheaper? Intel. Who has the best price/performance? Intel. Who offers the best features? Intel. 

 

Lolololol. So cute. What you mean here is cpu limitation rather than bottleneck.  

Did Logan tell you this? Because it sounds so ignorant. A CPU limitation is a CPU bottleneck >.>

 

 

Pfffft!! I think I know who the tool is in this conversation. "moan about overclocking godness"?????? AMD cpus typically do overclock better.  Never said that it was godlike or that it would perform better than an Intel.  This isn't about who's better it's about getting the most for your money when you don't have alot of money.  

 

 

All I see at that link is you being an Intel fanboy/troll.  Yes, Intel is better.  We all know that.  But AMD cpus can overclock and get equal or better scores than stock Intel for forty dollars less.  

Haha you even admit that you were lying. 

 

Um we're talking about the future yet you reference current games which we know are not optimized for higher thread counts.  However, those two or three games you mentioned are optimized somewhat and you did say they performed better didn't you?

We're not here to talk about the future, join the offtopic subforum if you want to talk about the future, and tell me how many games are "higher thread count" which you will be making all up like your boss Logan you're working for. Any game that uses between 1-4 cores, Intel will be up to 100% faster or are you going to deny that a FX 4300 isn't twice as slow as the i5 when a dual-core is stomping all over it? In 4-threaded games a 8350 can't outperform a FX 4300. It's multithreaded performance/price is however great for productivity but that's all about it.

Don't respond to me again, seriously arguing against the facts is hopeless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory

×