why is amd so much cheaper than intel i can get 4 more cores for the same price

[thomas harding]

i looking at a new cpu for my build but then i found that amd has realy cheap prossesers but intel dont i can get double my cores

[Enderman]

because double the number of cores does not mean you get double performance

also double frequency does not mean double performance

 

you really need to do some research

start by choosing how much you want to spend, then choose an intel CPU that fits that budget

 

unless youre trying to make a really cheap build with less than $100 for a CPU, intel will always be better

[DWN]

You can also get a vehicle with 4 more wheels for the same price.

[manikyath]

because those double the amount of cores are WAY slower, run hotter, and are becoming horrendously outdated.

(new line of AMD cpus anyone?)

[Burusutazu]

 Higher cores does not = performance. AMD is behind on the game and most Intel processors can outperform AMD in most tasks despite having fewer cores.

[Aytex]

the architecture is old and outdated

[Godlygamer23]

Core count is not the only thing that matters. The underlying architecture is also important. Intel's single threaded performance is significantly higher than AMD's and as such, Intel has more powerful cores than AMD. While Intel only offers quad cores on the consumer side, most games only utilize a maximum of 4 cores. In rendering, those extra cores/threads will come in handy though.

[thomas harding]

good becasue i got the intel

• CPU
  intel core 15-4460
• Motherboard
  asrock b85m pro4
• RAM
  8gb
• GPU
  gtx 570
• Case
  corsair
• Storage
  intel 120gb ssd and 1 tb wd green
• PSU
  corsair 500w
• Display(s)
  hisence tv and grundig tv
• Cooling
  stock
• Keyboard
  imac
• Mouse
  lenovo
• Sound
  sony and logitec
• Operating System
  windows 8.1

[Godlygamer23]

What was the point of this thread?

[suchamoneypit]

AMD is usually the budget option. A 4-core AMD CPU will typically not perform as well as a 4-core Intel CPU. Cores are not everything. More cores can be beneficial, but usually, having 4 extra cores usually means that the individual cores might not be as powerful, and typically in games only a couple cores are utilized, in which cases having an extra 4 cores wouldn't help you, whereas getting an intel quad core CPU would probably perform better.

[Misanthrope]

Also, let's not forget that you not only get the added performance but a significantly better feature set: most AM3 boards are quite fucking old by now, you can have issues finding boards that have things like USB 3.0 headers and sata 3.0 and you can pretty much forget about modern things like esata, m.2 or usb 3.1

[suchamoneypit]

 

good becasue i got the intel

• CPU
  intel core 15-4460
• Motherboard
  asrock b85m pro4
• RAM
  8gb
• GPU
  gtx 570
• Case
  corsair
• Storage
  intel 120gb ssd and 1 tb wd green
• PSU
  corsair 500w
• Display(s)
  hisence tv and grundig tv
• Cooling
  stock
• Keyboard
  imac
• Mouse
  lenovo
• Sound
  sony and logitec
• Operating System
  windows 8.1

 

it probably wasn't a good idea asking this question after you already made the purchase... 

[lukky211111]

i looking at a new cpu for my build but then i found that amd has realy cheap prossesers but intel dont i can get double my cores

not sure if youre trolling but on the off chance youre not core to core performance intel wipes the floor with amd a dual core cpu of intels can keep up pretty well with a quad core cpu from amd.

[Str_Mape]

you can have issues finding boards that have things like USB 3.0 headers and sata 3.0 and you can pretty much forget about modern things like esata, m.2 or usb 3.1

Are you serious? The majority of 970 boards are using entirely SATA3 as are all 990 boards, its not that common for an AM3+ board still being sold not to have an internal USB 3 header and I've had two separate AM3+ boards with esata.

[TheKDub]

i looking at a new cpu for my build but then i found that amd has realy cheap prossesers but intel dont i can get double my cores

 

AMD's processors are much weaker when it comes to single threaded tasks such as gaming, and their processors are also kinda old and shitty imo, 99% of the time now adays people should go with intel over amd.

[tomas710]

i looking at a new cpu for my build but then i found that amd has realy cheap prossesers but intel dont i can get double my cores

I consider myself non biased, so, first, the chip arquitecture from AMD hasn't changed in quiet a while, also they boundle cores together each pair sharing L2 cache which doesn't give as much performance per core as what intel does. In reality AMD can't charge too much for a chip since they haven't come up with something really new in 4-5 years, it's like Intel had made refreshes of sandy bridge for 5 years (Let's face it, they haven't done much more tho) Anyway, what i can tell you is that at the 150-200$ price range, you will have AMD 8 cores CPUs trading blows with Intel's I5s, and both are good options, if someone praises too much a side dismiss them, some people have an abusive relationship with corporations and think CEOs give a fuck about them, let them be delusional, i tend to be critical since neither AMD or Intel is making the best products they can, there are 2 things i strongly believe that i think are based on fact not bias. First, AMD does not make enthusiast class CPUs, meaning a high performing 3-400$++ chip that dominates it's price range, if you want to edit or do video rendering, and you want the best, go with intel. Second, AMD is the logical choice for a 100ish dollar processor. At that price point Intel is throwing I3s that are way overpriced and the Pentium at 70 bucks, which may be an option if ur budget is really tight, but other than that, you can get a 6300 hexacore which is old and not best performance per core, but it sure beats an I3, specially with some overclocking

[Misanthrope]

Are you serious? The majority of 970 boards use entirely SATA3 as are all 990 boards, its not that common for an AM3+ board still being sold not to have an internal USB 3 header and I've had two separate AM3+ boards with esata.

 

The majority of the boards are not 970 ir 990 in fact those are the more pricey ones which is a pretty bad choice for what's essentially a dead platform. For the same 100 or so bucks he could be getting h97 that does include support for the other features I mentioned on top of this ones plus access to much better upgrade options in terms of chips.

 

Even if you save considerably with an 8350 by the time you get a motherboard that can overclock it nicely and an aftermarket cooler, you could have gone with an i5 and cheaper z97 which beats it on nearly every respect: speed, temps, overall performance. Plus instead of being left with a board that it's already outdated you're left with one that can update later to i7 chips which no AMD chip at this time can even touch.

[Str_Mape]

The majority of the boards are not 970 ir 990 in fact those are the more pricey ones which is a pretty bad choice for what's essentially a dead platform. For the same 100 or so bucks he could be getting h97 that does include support for the other features I mentioned on top of this ones plus access to much better upgrade options in terms of chips.

 

Even if you save considerably with an 8350 by the time you get a motherboard that can overclock it nicely and an aftermarket cooler, you could have gone with an i5 and cheaper z97 which beats it on nearly every respect: speed, temps, overall performance. Plus instead of being left with a board that it's already outdated you're left with one that can update later to i7 chips which no AMD chip at this time can even touch.

I'm well aware of the drawbacks of AMD, I had an 8120 until a few months ago. I was purely calling out the statement on lack of features, the two cheapest AM3+ boards $40-$45 both have onboard headers and for an extra $15 you get into the boards with 6 x SATA 3 and onboard USB 3.0 which is no way near the $100 price point.

 

[Misanthrope]

I'm well aware of the drawbacks of AMD, I had an 8120 until a few months ago. I was purely calling out the statement on lack of features, the two cheapest AM3+ boards $40-$45 both have onboard headers and for an extra $15 you get into the boards with 6 x SATA 3 and onboard USB 3.0 which is no way near the $100 price point.

They're not as commonly found, in my experience, as the crappier ones without usb 3.0 headers and such. I think that it's counter intuitive to recommend this for someone kinda new to building knowing that most of the times they might walk into an outdated motherboard with 0 upgradeability, people who know what they're doing and what they need wouldn't ask about it anyway imho.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

What was the point of this thread?

I'm honestly lost on that as well. This is practically the definition of flame bait.

[-rascal-]

The majority of the boards are not 970 ir 990 in fact those are the more pricey ones which is a pretty bad choice for what's essentially a dead platform. For the same 100 or so bucks he could be getting h97 that does include support for the other features I mentioned on top of this ones plus access to much better upgrade options in terms of chips.

 

Even if you save considerably with an 8350 by the time you get a motherboard that can overclock it nicely and an aftermarket cooler, you could have gone with an i5 and cheaper z97 which beats it on nearly every respect: speed, temps, overall performance. Plus instead of being left with a board that it's already outdated you're left with one that can update later to i7 chips which no AMD chip at this time can even touch.

 

The 900 series chipset was intended for AM3+, while 800 series was for socket AM3.

If you are referring to the cheaper 760 / 780 motherboards, then there is why.

 

The 700 series chipset came out in 2007 / 2008. This is with the first-generation Phenom CPU's on the AM2+ socket. SATA3 was just drafted to be a thing possible in 2008.

Same situation for USB 3.0 - near the end of 2008.

 

To be honest, I don't know why they kept the 760G / 700 series chipset motherboards. The PCB design traces / board design was never intended to handle 125W / 140W CPUs -- then you take into account overclocking. Back in 2007 / 2008, most of the Processors were 65W, 89W/90W, and 95W. You then had three or four 125W Processors that were the high-end unlocked 'Black Edition' parts. At that point, you wouldn't be using a 740(G) or 760G motherboard -- 790GX, 790X, or 790FX (equivalent to Z97, 990X or 990FX).