Intel Vs AMD Processors

[Poledancerz]

Hello, I have a quick question about Intel and AMD processors. I notice that Intel processors are very expensive compared to AMD processors. For example, I have seen Intel processors go for over 300 dollars when they are a quad-core at around 3.5ghz, meanwhile, I have seen AMD processors that are eight-core running at 4 ghz, for nearly half the price. 

I have tried doing some research of my own, and the only solution that I could come up with is it seems like Intel has more technologies in their processors such as hyperthreading. 

 

Do they measure their speeds in a different way? Why would an eight-core cost less than a quad-core? 

 

The two processors listed below are two examples of an AMD/Intel processor.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113285

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116941

[DirkaFat]

More cores doesn't make it better

 

 

 

Were you a recent console convert?

[Coombzy]

holds the answer

[tS_kStin]

The i5 is comparable to the 8320, the i7 off in its own league in a way. Its the way the cores are, not all cores are the same.  

 

 

Edit: Just cuz there are more cores does not make it more better. That is also the same with GHz, the clock speed of a CPU is only comparable between 2 identical CPU's.

[Hirad123]

Cores don't mean anything. It is the technology behind the cores that makes them fast. While AMD may have 8 an intel quad core uses a much faster architecture thus giving it faster speeds with less cores and power draw. 

[Godlygamer23]

AMD's CPUs cost less because they have to to remain competitive against Intel. FX CPUs have a lower IPC than Sandy, Ivy, and Haswell CPUs. Frequency does not mean performance.

 

Also, we need an Intel vs AMD sticky thread.

[Darell3]

For me, I had a choice for FX-4100 or FX-6100. I personally went with the FX-6100 for future proofing. So.. the more cores for me, more future proofed it is for me.

[Hazy125]

Their speeds are measured the same way, Intel has more powerful cores than AMD. So, while AMD may have 8 cores, Intel has 4 more powerful cores. Another thing to consider is that AMD's CPU's have half the physical cores(The same amount as Intel). So the 8 core AMD CPU's have 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores, which essentially what Intel does on their i7 as hyper-threading is like adding 4 extra virtual cores, but the cores on Intel is more powerful so the Intel chip is more powerful. That being said, as far as price vs. performance goes, AMD beats Intel 9 times out of 10

[piplupgao]

Intel cores are more powerful than amd cores

[Godlygamer23]

So the 8 core AMD CPU's have 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores, which essentially what Intel does on their i7 as hyper-threading is like adding 4 extra virtual cores

No. That's wrong. Very wrong.

[DirkaFat]

No. That's wrong. Very wrong.

Just put an 8. Take away a 4. And it's correct.

[GarryElite]

More cores doesn't make it better

 

Well it really depends what you are doing, if OP is rendering videos at high resolutions and the video program accepts 8 cores then yes it would make sense. But for gaming uh its no better than a i5.

[Poledancerz]

Thanks everyone who answered.. I got a lot more answers than I was expecting.. Really fast too.. =p. I always thought that more cores were just like a processor in another processor... If that makes sense. I thought that a 2 core processor was better than a single-core processor... 

Thanks for the answers.

[Hazy125]

No. That's wrong. Very wrong.

Fine. AMD CPu's have 8 physical cores, split into 4 modules. Each module case 2 cores that share some resources, which is why the cores are not as powerful as Intel's. This gives each module in effect 1.5 cores per module because of the shared resources between them. The easiest way to represent that is by calling the second core on each module a virtual core. This does differ from Intel as the hyperthreading is entirely virtual

Just put an 8. Take away a 4. And it's correct.

[Godlygamer23]

Fine. AMD CPu's have 8 physical cores, split into 4 modules. Each module case 2 cores that share some resources, which is why the cores are not as powerful as Intel's. This gives each module in effect 1.5 cores per module because of the shared resources between them. The easiest way to represent that is by calling the second core on each module a virtual core. This does differ from Intel as the hyperthreading is entirely virtual

Better.

[DirkaFat]

Better.

Snickers satisfies

[fuse]

More cores doesn't make it better

 

 

 

Were you a recent console convert?

It depends on what you are doing. 

[DirkaFat]

It depends on what you are doing. 

Even then, there are other factors.

[I'm Batman]

yea when it comes to CPU s intel beats AMD most of the times

[fuse]

Intel chips are amazing at floating point operation and low power operation. Most games are built around floating point operations but you have a gpu for that. AMD is better at other operations that require the 8 physical cores. Cores do matter sometimes. For example, Adobe applications will utilize the 8 cores and you will see a performance difference. Intel cpus still do preform well since they have integrated gpus. General gpu architectures are really good at most operations and will mostly always beat out cpus (emphasis on mostly). Though most programs still don't use the integrated gpu since they aren;t that powerful, they are really good for low grade gaming and media pcs. The perks of using AMD is that you can have a lower cost workstations and put more money towards other parts. 

 

Gaming wise the performance difference isn't that different. If you are going to be playing games like Starcraft, Arma, and Civ5 Intel is the way to go because they use the cpu more to do floating point operations even though you have a CPU. Though if you aren't building a personal workstation and aren't craving every single frame from every game out there, I recommend AMD chips. They are cheaper, so you can put more money towards the gpu or other parts. Here's something to consider also, if you are planning on picking up a new cpu, you need to consider what you will be using your rig for. The real world performance isn't noticeable, IMO. Also you should consider that the FX cpu are quite old when compared to the Intel chips and you should wait maybe till the end of the month since AMD is going to have a few announcements, even if its just for gpus they will most likely talk about cpus also. 

 

For me I would go for the AMD 8350 because I would actually utilize the 8 cores in professional applications. You will need to do some research man. Atleast get some background info so you can way out your options instead of just us telling you what to do. 

 

Also you should look out the APUs if you are purely going to be gaming, maybe even Tek Syndicate's test with 2400Mhz RAM. The performance is ridiculous for the cost. Just another thing to consider. 

Edited September 15, 2013 by fuse

[WoodenMarker]

Not all cores are equal.

If you're going to compare cpus, compare ALL their specs and not just a few or look at relevant benchmarks.

[SSL]

Fine. AMD CPu's have 8 physical cores, split into 4 modules. Each module case 2 cores that share some resources, which is why the cores are not as powerful as Intel's. This gives each module in effect 1.5 cores per module because of the shared resources between them. The easiest way to represent that is by calling the second core on each module a virtual core. This does differ from Intel as the hyperthreading is entirely virtual

 

I think you may be confusing virtual cores with logical cores. A physical core cannot, by definition, be virtual. Intel hyperthreading is actualy virtual as you say, although hardware components such as the instruction pointer are replicated.