CPUs different

[DominicNikon]

how are amd cpus different from Intel? a amd cpu has 8 cores and turbos up to 4.3Ghz for less then my i5 4670k was. and the i7 5960x is $1000. so whats the different? why is amd lower price then Intel 

[olback]

Becuase AMD CPUs are old, and not very good anymore

[iiNNeX]

how are amd cpus different from Intel? a amd cpu has 8 cores and turbos up to 4.3Ghz for less then my i5 4670k was. and the i7 5960x is $1000. so whats the different? why is amd lower price then Intel 

 

Mainly because even a cheap quad core is faster than AMD's 8 core top of the range CPU, which is because intel has much much better IPC, and also is a lot cooler to run (temp wise). Also AMD is still on 45nm... 

[Paytend01]

Yah AMD is still on 45nm... Haswell are on 22nm i think (NM is Nano Meter)

[TheRandomness]

An i3 has better single core performance than even an FX-9590. The only time nowadays you should use an FX CPU is when you need a budget-oriented workstation or something.

[Imakuni]

how are amd cpus different from Intel? a amd cpu has 8 cores and turbos up to 4.3Ghz for less then my i5 4670k was. and the i7 5960x is $1000. so whats the different? why is amd lower price then Intel 

What's better: 8 economists using paper and pen to do calculations (and sharing the same pen in pairs) or 8 economists, each with their on PC and excel table?

 

In other words, FX 8350 or 5960x, which is better?

[iiNNeX]

 

Yah AMD is still on 45nm... Haswell are on 22nm i think (NM is Nano Meter)

 

Even 14nm now on Skylake

 

 

An i3 has better single core performance than even an FX-9590. The only time nowadays you should use an FX CPU is when you need a budget-oriented workstation or something.

 

And even then you can get some cheap Xeon or even an i5, and they perform faster haha.

[DominicNikon]

so my dad needs a cpu for just video editing and rendering. so the 8 core amd or i7 6700k or a xeon

[TheRandomness]

And even then you can get some cheap Xeon or even an i5, and they perform faster haha.

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i54460 - i5-4460 - Would beat any lower in multithreaded applications - £139~

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd8320frhkbox - FX-8320 - Would beat i5 in multithread applications - £108.89

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646e31231v3 - Xeon E3 1231v3 - Would beat 8320 in multithread applications - £196~

 

Budget workstation = FX

[iiNNeX]

so my dad needs a cpu for just video editing and rendering. so the 8 core amd or i7 6700k or a xeon

 

Totally depends on his budget, an 8 core AMD CPU will be fine for most "casual" users. Some quad core xeon's can be found for cheaper than i7s and will perform a lot better than the AMD. 6700k will be the fastest, with the ability to overclock and go faster of course. But it is priciest.

[DominicNikon]

Totally depends on his budget, an 8 core AMD CPU will be fine for most "casual" users. Some quad core xeon's can be found for cheaper than i7s and will perform a lot better than the AMD. 6700k will be the fastest, with the ability to overclock and go faster of course. But it is priciest.

ok

[Interfectorem]

Yah AMD is still on 45nm... Haswell are on 22nm i think (NM is Nano Meter)

 

Yah AMD is still on 45nm... Haswell are on 22nm i think (NM is Nano Meter)

AMD's Piledriver is 32nm, which is the FX series. AMD's Steamroller is 28nm, which is the Athlon 860K, A10-7850K and others.

 

Mainly because even a cheap quad core is faster than AMD's 8 core top of the range CPU, which is because intel has much much better IPC, and also is a lot cooler to run (temp wise). Also AMD is still on 45nm... 

FX chips runs quite cool believe or not. They have a much lower TJ Max of 70C, while Intel has a TJ Max of 105C. My heavily overclocked FX-8320 with 1.45v running through it would never go above 60C with a Corsair H105. They're not as hot as you think.

[Interfectorem]

What's better: 8 economists using paper and pen to do calculations (and sharing the same pen in pairs) or 8 economists, each with their on PC and excel table?

 

In other words, FX 8350 or 5960x, which is better?

Good analogy.

[FruitBasketSilex]

AMD's Piledriver is 32nm, which is the FX series. AMD's Steamroller is 28nm, which is the Athlon 860K, A10-7850K and others.

FX chips runs quite cool believe or not. They have a much lower TJ Max of 70C, while Intel has a TJ Max of 105C. My heavily overclocked FX-8320 with 1.45v running through it would never go above 60C with a Corsair H105. They're not as hot as you think.

That's not how it works. The 9590 (I chose it because I know its TDP offhand) has a TDP of 220w. That means it puts out 220w of heat in a certain amount of time, regardless of what the CPU is running at, that much heat is pushed out.

My 4790k has a TDP of 88w. Meaning that in a given amount of time, it is releasing that much heat. My i7 can run at 95c and still being running cooler than a 50c 8350 or 9590.

[Interfectorem]

That's not how it works. The 9590 (I chose it because I know its TDP offhand) has a TDP of 220w. That means it puts out 220w of heat in a certain amount of time, regardless of what the CPU is running at, that much heat is pushed out.

My 4790k has a TDP of 88w. Meaning that in a given amount of time, it is releasing that much heat. My i7 can run at 95c and still being running cooler than a 50c 8350 or 9590.

I know that an AMD chip will output more heat. I poorly worded my other post.

 

My i7 can run at 95c and still being running cooler than a 50c 8350 or 9590.

I think you mean that it will still be drawing less energy?

[FruitBasketSilex]

I know that an AMD chip will output more heat. I poorly worded my other post.

I think you mean that it will still be drawing less energy?

Nope. The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, is the maximum amount of heat generated by the CPU that the cooling system in a computer is required to dissipate in typical operation.

So, my statement still stands correct. A 50c 9590 is running hotter, and putting out more heat, but has a cooler running die at the moment, than my i7.

Edit: Although the i7 is STILL drawing less power.

[Interfectorem]

Nope. The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, is the maximum amount of heat generated by the CPU that the cooling system in a computer is required to dissipate in typical operation.

So, my statement still stands correct. A 50c 9590 is running hotter, and putting out more heat, but has a cooler running die at the moment, than my i7.

Edit: Although the i7 is STILL drawing less power.

How do you suppose that happens? Heat being drawn away faster? Because saying that 95C is cooler than 50C is not really helping my understanding on your viewpoint. I understand that the 9590 is drawing much more power, but how do you suppose that it's staying at 50 degrees Celcius while the i7 is drawing 90w whilst at 95 degrees celcius. I believe it may have something to do with the use of solder to join the die and IHS as opposed to crummy TIM used in Haswell?

[FruitBasketSilex]

How do you suppose that happens? Heat being drawn away faster? Because saying that 95C is cooler than 50C is not really helping my understanding on your viewpoint. I understand that the 9590 is drawing much more power, but how do you suppose that it's staying at 50 degrees Celcius while the i7 is drawing 90w whilst at 95 degrees celcius. I believe it may have something to do with the use of solder to join the die and IHS as opposed to crummy TIM used in Haswell?

The package on AMD chips is what is monitored, IIRC. It is figured out with a (fairly meh) algorithm. But the way it works is thus:

 

The TDP of my i7:88

TDP of 9590:220

 

FX9590@50calsniper vs i7 4790k@90C07B12

 

the i7 is running hotter on the die, but the 9590 is pushing out almost 3 times the heat. The 9590 needs a beefy cooler to function because of its TDP.

I can put the intel stock cooler on my i7 and be fine, or I can throw an H100i on it and have the die be cooler. The 9590, cannot be run with something as week as the Intel stock cooler because it requires more heat to be moved in a given amount of time.

 

My i7 can have a hotter package temperature, such as 90c, than a 9590@50calsniper. This means the 9590 has a cooler die, or package, BUT it is pushing out almost 3x more heat, hence it running hotter. The cores on the FX are probably at a higher temp than 50c, but iirc it's not monitored on AMD, so we wouldn't know, not that it matters much.

 

That is where you get the hotter but cooler bit from.

[Glenwing]

How do you suppose that happens? Heat being drawn away faster? Because saying that 95C is cooler than 50C is not really helping my understanding on your viewpoint. I understand that the 9590 is drawing much more power, but how do you suppose that it's staying at 50 degrees Celcius while the i7 is drawing 90w whilst at 95 degrees celcius. I believe it may have something to do with the use of solder to join the die and IHS as opposed to crummy TIM used in Haswell?

 

Temperature can be thought of as a measure of heat per amount of material, not just total heat. The FX-9590 has a 315mm² die, and the i7-6700K has a 122mm² die, less than half the area. So the i7 may produce less total heat, but that heat is concentrated in a smaller area and in a smaller amount of material, and so the temperature is higher. That combined with the fact that the heat doesn't transfer away from the i7 as efficiently as on the FX (due to the smaller area = less contact area for heat to transfer across + less efficient transfer medium by using TIM instead of soldering) means that the temperature on the i7 needs to get much higher for the heat to be drawn away as quickly as it's being generated.

[Interfectorem]

Temperature can be thought of as a measure of heat per amount of material, not just total heat. The FX-9590 has a 315mm² die, and the i7-6700K has a 122mm² die, less than half the area. So the i7 may produce less total heat, but that heat is concentrated in a smaller area and in a smaller amount of material, and so the temperature is higher. That combined with the fact that the heat doesn't transfer away from the i7 as efficiently as on the FX (due to the smaller area = less contact area for heat to transfer across + less efficient transfer medium by using TIM instead of soldering) means that the temperature on the i7 needs to get much higher for the heat to be drawn away as quickly as it's being generated.

Bingo. Clicked into my head. Thanks. I forgot to account for CPU lithography.