CPU Differences

[Xizerz]

Can someone please explain to me why Intel is better than AMD? When you look at the specs compared to their prices, AMD has higher specs and lower prices. I know Intel has turbo boost and hyper threading, but there shouldn't impact performance that much unless you're using programs like after effects and stuff.

[Arty]

Can someone please explain to me why Intel is better than AMD? When you look at the specs compared to their prices, AMD has higher specs and lower prices. I know Intel has turbo boost and hyper threading, but there shouldn't impact performance that much unless you're using programs like after effects and stuff.

Architecture is better as well (Ithink)

[connorpiper]

Intel has more transistors per core, and more performance per core. They are on a smaller platorm (14nm, 22nm) and are more efficient. ]

A 4690K @ 3.5GHz will beat a 8350 @ 4.0GHz in gaming because the FX series CPUs have weak cores due to how they were designed. 

Also, the FX series CPUs came out a long time back. Until Zen core, AMD on the CPU side is stuck in 2010.

 

If you want a budget CPU go for a Core i3 4130 or 4150/60. 

AMD GPUs are another story though, because they are great. 

[niofalpha]

Because Architecture> Speed

[Polyvalent]

Intel has more transistors per core, and more performance per core. They are on a smaller platorm (14nm, 22nm) and are more efficient. ]

A 4690K @ 3.5GHz will beat a 8350 @ 4.0GHz in gaming because the FX series CPUs have weak cores do to how they were designed. 

Also, the FX series CPUs came out a long time back. Until Zen core, AMD on the CPU side is stuck in 2010.

 

If you want a budget CPU go for a Core i3 4130 or 4150/60. 

AMD GPUs are another story though, because they are great. 

 

do you mind if i paste this quote in every thread that people make about this

[Xizerz]

Intel has more transistors per core, and more performance per core. They are on a smaller platorm (14nm, 22nm) and are more efficient. ]

A 4690K @ 3.5GHz will beat a 8350 @ 4.0GHz in gaming because the FX series CPUs have weak cores do to how they were designed. 

Also, the FX series CPUs came out a long time back. Until Zen core, AMD on the CPU side is stuck in 2010.

 

If you want a budget CPU go for a Core i3 4130 or 4150/60. 

AMD GPUs are another story though, because they are great. 

So.. Basically 3.5 GHz is better than 4 because there are more switches?

[connorpiper]

do you mind if i paste this quote in every thread that people make about this

 

Sure. I don't mind. 

[Guest Kloaked]

Intel has more transistors per core, and more performance per core. They are on a smaller platorm (14nm, 22nm) and are more efficient. ]

A 4690K @ 3.5GHz will beat a 8350 @ 4.0GHz in gaming because the FX series CPUs have weak cores do to how they were designed. 

Also, the FX series CPUs came out a long time back. Until Zen core, AMD on the CPU side is stuck in 2010.

 

If you want a budget CPU go for a Core i3 4130 or 4150/60. 

AMD GPUs are another story though, because they are great. 

 

/thread

 

GG.

[connorpiper]

So.. Basically 3.5 GHz is better than 4 because there are more switches?

 

No, Intel has more efficient and powerful CPUs than AMD. That is the basis. 

 

To get 8 cores AMD basically took a Quad-Core and split each core. Each core is weak.

And 125W TDP is just stupid in the year 2015.

[Deletive]

Intel has cores that are stronger but has fewer of them. 
Intel has more power efficency, and a smaller node
Intel has newer motherboards for their products with more features 

AMD has cores that are weaker but have more of them (fx only)
AMD has a better iGPU (A series only) 
AMD has good options on their A series but are lacking a lot on the FX series (see more below)

Intel is the winner if you're using a dGPU right now.
AMD APU is an amazing value, now the FX series is lacking due to motherboard features and the dead end upgrade path.

Overall AMD APU/Athlon for lower end budgets Intel for mid/high end budgets.

 

[Suika]

AMD has higher specs and lower prices.

To clarify, never judge a CPU on just cores and clock rate, you should always view benchmarks for comparisons. There's a reason the i3-4150 can beat the FX-8350 in games, despite it being a dual core vs. an octa core.

[Xizerz]

No, Intel has more efficient and powerful CPUs than AMD. That is the basis. 

 

To get 8 cores AMD basically took a Quad-Core and split each core. Each core is weak.

And 125W TDP is just stupid in the year 2015.

So CPU speed isn't measured in GHz? I'm so fonfused. '~'

[The Pizza Thief]

/thread

 

GG.

I don't get what is that?

[Xizerz]

To clarify, never judge a CPU on just cores and clock rate, you should always view benchmarks for comparisons. There's a reason the i3-4150 can beat the FX-8350 in games, despite it being a dual core vs. an octa core.

I've always seen in benchmarks that Intel is better, but I've never known why.

[flibberdipper]

No, Intel has more efficient and powerful CPUs than AMD. That is the basis. 

 

To get 8 cores AMD basically took a Quad-Core and split each core. Each core is weak.

And 125W TDP is just stupid in the year 2015.

My G3258 probably has the same TDP as a 4690 now.

[SImoHayha]

Can someone please explain to me why Intel is better than AMD? When you look at the specs compared to their prices, AMD has higher specs and lower prices. I know Intel has turbo boost and hyper threading, but there shouldn't impact performance that much unless you're using programs like after effects and stuff.

The reason why intel is better then AMD is because intel has a better IPC ( Instruction per cycle ) and stronger single cores compared to AMD's weaker multiple cores. 

 

Imagine AMD as a bike with eight pedals it takes those eight pedals to go eight cycles per second, while Intel only needs two pedals to go eight cycles per second....

 

AMD does have it's strong points such as video editing and rendering, however there is a Intel solution using Xeon CPU's which are locked i7's.....

 

Both AMD and Intel however their own " Turbo Boost " In a way, all it does is ramp up the speed of the CPU to some extent when it's experiencing a heavy load.

 

GHZ is speed of the CPU's however that doesn't mean just because AMD has a higher stock Speed doesn't mean it will beat an Intel CPU at a lower speed... it would be like comparing how fast a car is by how many RPM it has on the gauge it doesn't work like that.. you need to look into the internals.

[connorpiper]

So CPU speed isn't measured in GHz? I'm so fonfused. '~'

 

It is measured in GHz. 

[connorpiper]

I've always seen in benchmarks that Intel is better, but I've never known why.

 

Because the AMD CPUs have cores that preform worse. 2 powerful ones is much better than 8 lousy ones. 

[SImoHayha]

I've always seen in benchmarks that Intel is better, but I've never known why.

Here this should explain it....

 

The architecture behind the FX CPUs cannot keep up with high end graphics cards that require strong cores to consistently feed the card.  Monitor your GPU load in your games and you will quickly see that your GPU is not running at 90%+ if you own a high end graphics card paired with an FX processor.  Use an FX with a mid range GPU all you want, that is fine and you won't limit the card's potential and makes for a much more balanced rig. If you get into the upper echelon of GPUs, that is when you are holding your card back by the FX that has worse IPC than Conroe which dates back to 2005.

 

When AMD sends out R9 290Xs for review, or release new drivers they send out Intel i7s along with them because they know their FX processors can't power their high end GPUs to their max potential.

-Source

 

Check out LTT's own Cinebench Scores:

 

 

 

-LTT's Cinebench Database

These FXs are overclocked to 4.8Ghz and 5.3Ghz! and still fall well behind Intel's offerings.

 

Even when you pair the FX with a mid range GPU, it doesn't change the fact that some games are largely CPU bound and require strong IPC.  Parallelism doesn't exist in games.  There are not many, if any highly repetitive calculations going on in games that the CPU can guess what is coming next like in video editing or rendering.  They have tricked you into thinking that more cores and higher Ghz is what matters for your CPU, when it all comes down to the architecture and instructions per cycle. 

 

Websites like cpubenchmark.net have a suite of synthetic benchmarks that they run each processor through to spit out a score.  Going by this, the FX8 outperforms the i5 because those synthetic tests are highly repetitive calculations that benefit from more cores.  People see that result and automatically think "Oh, the FX8 is a much stronger processor than the i5."  And in some tasks it is, gaming is just not one of them.

[Xizerz]

It is measured in GHz. 

Well then why is a 4.0 GHz core weaker than a 3.5 one?

[connorpiper]

Well then why is a 4.0 GHz core weaker than a 3.5 one?

 

AMD, no matter the speed, will have a weaker core than Intel. (Excluding A series APUs) 

[Xizerz]

AMD, no matter the speed, will have a weaker core than Intel. (Excluding A series APUs) 

Why, though?

[connorpiper]

Why, though?

 

Cores are made up of transistors, or gates. That turn on or off. There are millions of them. The more, the more each core can do.

AMD cores have less (About half) the transistors that Intel cores do. Meaning that the AMD core can do less each cycle than the Intel core. 

 

1GHz = 1 Million clocks per second (Or 1 million cycles per second) 

[Xizerz]

Cores are made up of transistors, or gates. That turn on or off. There are millions of them. The more, the more each core can do.

AMD cores have less (About half) the transistors that Intel cores do. Meaning that the AMD core can do less each cycle than the Intel core. 

 

1GHz = 1 Million clocks per second (Or 1 million cycles per second) 

So GHz measures the speed of the transistors, but not how many there are?

[tmlhalo]

Here is my response I gave to someone else a while back
 

Performance is about the architecture and not the number of cores, GHz, or cache. Computers process instructions and tend to get a set amount done per clock cycle. This is known as IPC or instructions per clock cycle. When comparing AMD to Intel, or even AMD vs other AMD lines, it is about the architecture.

 

Now I'm going to make up some numbers here for example. We're going to have a 6 core 3.6 GHz against a quad core clock at 3.7 GHz. Each core in the 6 core has a IPC of 2 instructions per clock. So if we take 2 instructions times it by how many clock cycles it has in a second (3.6 GHz which is 3.6 x 10^9). You get 7.2 x 10^9 instructions per second for one core. Now also for this example we're going to pretend the processors have perfect multicore scaling. So we have 6 cores doing 7.2 x 10^9 instructions a second or 43.2 * 10^9 instructions per second for the 6 core.

 

Now the 4 core is newer and much more efficient. It averages 3.5 instructions per clock cycle and its clock cycles per second is 3.7 GHz. So 3.5 x (3.7 x 10^9) or 12.95 x 10^9 instructions per second for a single core. Now there are 4 cores so 4 x 12.95 x 10^9 equals 51.8 x 10^9 instructions per second for the newer quad core. As you can see the quad core easily beats the 6 core, it would even easily beat it if you downclocked the quad core to 3.5 GHz (49x10^9 vs 43.2x10^9). Now you may be thinking stuff like this doesn't happen often outside of examples, I used the FX 6100 and the Athlon 860k as examples. (IPC I still made up cause i don't have access to that info).

FX 6100
http://www.cpubenchm...X-6100 Six-Core

Athlon 860k
https://www.cpubench...ad Core&id=2362

 

Intel has a huge lead over AMD in IPC. Which is why the 8 core AMD FX 8350 sits behind the lower clocked 4 core I7s and 6 core I7 Extremes.