Intel vs AMD

[Zach's Tech Tips]

i don't understand I can get a 8 core amd cpu for 200-250 aud but if I want an 8 core Intel cpu it's like 1200 aud. what is the difference I don't understand?

[Krytopsy]

The performance and more. AMD are just cheap/low quality/low performance stuff.

[SeanBond]

Intel has massively more power cores in their cpu's. So you can get a 8 core cheaper than an intel 4 core but applications like games, tend to never use more than 4 cores so for gaming intel has a stong lead. Multi tasking amd is the better choice. 

[Sernyhough]

Intel destroys in single core performance in comparison.

[athesean1]

amd have more but less powerful cores while intel has less but more powerful cores

[Pansysk75]

More cores doesn't always mean better performance. Intel uses fewer but more powerful cores, while AMD uses more but less powerful. Intel's tactic is working out, since there are few applications that utilize more than 4 cores.

[Krytopsy]

Cores don't matter most of the time, if you tell me what you will do with your computer I could tell you what processor to get for your money.

[SirBobson]

i don't understand I can get a 8 core amd cpu for 200-250 aud but if I want an 8 core Intel cpu it's like 1200 aud. what is the difference I don't understand?

They are designed differently. Amd's cores are usually paired up to share resources between two cores, however intel does not do this meaning that per core intel's are usually faster.

[harrynowl]

Intel cores are easily 90% faster than AMD cores.

 

Therefore 4 intel cores match 8 AMD cores.

[bry.yyyy]

hyperthreading techology is making intel cpu WAY Lot better than 8 core AMD

[Mooshi]

Intel stock is 31.38usd per share as of this post. AMD is 2.72 - and AMD has the superior graphics division. The reason Intel's 8 core chip is so expensive compared to AMD is the sheer superior performance. A VW is nice, but it's nowhere near the realm of Porsche. Think of it that way. In many cases, an overclocked non HT quad from Intel trades blows with AMD's flagships.

[Fulgrim]

hyperthreading techology is making intel cpu WAY Lot better than 8 core AMD

Lol, no. What makes Intel better is their superior architecture - as it is more efficient than AMD's.

[ZackerTheScaR]

Lol, no. What makes Intel better is their superior architecture - as it is more efficient than AMD's.

This, my friends, is the ultimate answer to the question

[ManWithBeard1990]

i don't understand I can get a 8 core amd cpu for 200-250 aud but if I want an 8 core Intel cpu it's like 1200 aud. what is the difference I don't understand?

The difference is one core is not equal to another. Yes, both have 8 and yes, the AMD one tends to run at a higher frequency. But what matters is speed. Intel has over the years steadily improved how much work a single core can do in a single clock cycle, and is far ahead of AMD in this regard. So even if it runs at a lower frequency, it'll almost always be faster than an AMD core (today at least. It has sometimes been the other way round and might be again at some point in the future, though not soon.) You see, there's no real one to one relationship between the frequency and the speed because a single core can execute multiple instructions at the same time, provided they don't need the result of an instruction that's still being processed and they need different parts of the CPU core. Also, Intel's high-end i7 line has HyperThreading. What this means is each of those 8 cores can take instructions of 2 separate threads (storylines of programs, if you will, that have nothing to do with each other) to always keep the CPU cores fed with stuff to do, so it'll rarely sit idle waiting for another calculation to finish because it needs the result of that, or because something isn't in the cache and needs to be fetched from RAM. An important distinction that needs to be made between Intel and AMD is that Intel sells such a CPU as an 8-core processor, whereas AMD sort of does the opposite of that. The CPU cores are grouped 2 by 2 and share some resources amongst each other. One could argue that this means that this makes it more of a hyperthreaded quad core than a real 8-core, but because that doesn't sell as well and less resources are shared per pair of threads than with Intel, AMD still calls it an 8-core. Lastly, AMD's manufacturing process is lagging behind on what Intel can do, because they don't fabricate the chips in-house but rather depend on GlobalFoundries to do it for them, and because of this, their CPU's are less power-efficient than Intel's.

 

So to recap:

-An AMD CPU core, working on a single thread, can do much less work per clock cycle than an Intel one can, so Intel will be faster even though it's clocked lower

-An Intel 8-core CPU can handle twice as many threads as an AMD one can. (although Hyperthreading doesn't make a CPU twice as fast, it does still make a big difference)

-A current AMD 8-core really only has 4 modules which you could equate to hyperthreaded cores although more resources are doubled

-Intel CPU's use a lot less electricity and as a result require less cooling.

 

As a result, the Intel CPU is lonely at the top, and Intel can ask for as much money as it wants for it. The AMD CPU really only competes with Intel's mainstream parts, the i5 and the i7 (LGA1150)

If you want a 16-core from AMD, such a part does exist. It's a server-grade chip, the Opteron, and it can be used in motherboards with up to 4 CPU sockets, tallying up to a total of 64 CPU cores. But expect to pay a pretty penny for it, and not to be able to run Windows on it. It can only run on up to dual-socket boards. In the end prices are governed by supply and demand, and both brands have their merits. Intel is the fastest and most efficient, and AMD can give more bang for the buck if you're okay with slightly worse thermals and power consumption.

[vm'N]

Also, Intel's high-end i7 line has HyperThreading. What this means is each of those 8 cores can take instructions of 2 separate threads (storylines of programs, if you will, that have nothing to do with each other) to always keep the CPU cores fed with stuff to do, so it'll rarely sit idle waiting for another calculation to finish because it needs the result of that, or because something isn't in the cache and needs to be fetched from RAM.

No, SMT is not an solution for stallings.

Prediction, Out-of-Order execution and prefetching is to avoid stalling.

 

One could argue that this means that this makes it more of a hyperthreaded quad core than a real 8-core, but because that doesn't sell as well and less resources are shared per pair of threads than with Intel, AMD still calls it an 8-core.

Do not confuse CMT with SMT (hyper-threading).

One could argue it would be a 4 CMT core processor (CMT core is a module).

 

-A current AMD 8-core really only has 4 modules which you could equate to hyperthreaded cores although more resources are doubled

No. A module have a higher throughput than a SMT core.

 

As a result, the Intel CPU is lonely at the top, and Intel can ask for as much money as it wants for it. The AMD CPU really only competes with Intel's mainstream parts, the i5 and the i7 (LGA1150)

Intels processors have always been expensive.

Intels pricingscheme have been the same for quite a while.

Also why would Intel launch the cashback campaign?

 

If you want a 16-core from AMD, such a part does exist. It's a server-grade chip, the Opteron, and it can be used in motherboards with up to 4 CPU sockets, tallying up to a total of 64 CPU cores. But expect to pay a pretty penny for it, and not to be able to run Windows on it.

There are literally no good reason for microsoft to implement support for more than 2 physical CPUs.

[ManWithBeard1990]

No, SMT is not an solution for stallings.Prediction, Out-of-Order execution and prefetching is to avoid stalling. Do not confuse CMT with SMT (hyper-threading).One could argue it would be a 4 CMT core processor (CMT core is a module). No. A module have a higher throughput than a SMT core. Intels processors have always been expensive.Intels pricingscheme have been the same for quite a while.Also why would Intel launch the cashback campaign? There are literally no good reason for microsoft to implement support for more than 2 physical CPUs.

I simplified it a little because OP is a novice. Also, SMT is for stalling. I've no idea how else it would help performance if not in that way. I'm not confusing anything with anything, and I never said a module doesn't have higher throughput than a SMT core. More of its resources are doubled so it's closer to two full-blown cores but it isn't quite. In that way it's similar to SMT, even though IIRC only the FPU is shared. All technicalities aside, it illustrates the point that really the FX8350 should be compared to the likes of the 4790K, not the 5960X. And about there not being a good reason: sometimes one must do stuff, just because you can.

[vm'N]

I simplified it a little because OP is a novice. Also, SMT is for stalling. I've no idea how else it would help performance if not in that way.

SMT is not for stalling.

Because the thread would at stalled anyway with or without SMT.

SMT is having 2 threads running simultaneosly on a single core. That is it.

If a thread requires data from the main memory, the thread will be stalled.

This is why we have implemented OoO execution.

So you have a window of instructions, and therefore can execute those instructions which data is already available.

SMT is to be more power-effecient.

It is impossible to fully load a core to 100% with a single thread.

This is here SMT comes in, and it is perfect for low-level software that can take use of TLP (thread-level-parallism)

 

I'm not confusing anything with anything, and I never said a module doesn't have higher throughput than a SMT core. More of its resources are doubled so it's closer to two full-blown cores but it isn't quite. In that way it's similar to SMT, even though IIRC only the FPU is shared. All technicalities aside, it illustrates the point that really the FX8350 should be compared to the likes of the 4790K, not the 5960X.

My point was you cannot compare CMT to SMT. They are in use for different reasons.

 

And about there not being a good reason: sometimes one must do stuff, just because you can.

Just because they can?

That is not something companies do often, as that cost $$$.