Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why AMD is cheaper than INTEL

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 15, 2013 9:25:44 PM

Can anyone tell me why AMD is cheaper than INTEL. But AMD gives more feature than INTEL. I didn't use AMD. But now planning to buy a new rig. So please anyone tell me Difference between AMD CPU & INTEL CPU. All the cons & pros. Thank you

More about : amd cheaper intel

a b à CPUs
March 15, 2013 9:38:40 PM

Intel has more powerful cores, AMD gives you more cores... however, a i7 3770 using Hyper threading will be beat by a FX 8350. Because the FX 8350 is using actual cores. AMD also offers a better value IMO, But if I could afford it, I'd buy a hexacore i7 (12 threads).
Related resources
March 15, 2013 9:38:45 PM

Intel i3- best for low to mid end gaming, w/ 2 hyperthreaded cores.
AMD A series (a6 a8 a10) decent processors, but with excellent integrated grfx, for those without dedicated gfx.
Intel i5 (especially 3570k) arguably the best processors for gaming. most games only use 4 cores, and for 4 cores, these are best.
AMD fx series, phenoms. good gaming proc's, but 4xxx are overpriced when compared to i3s, and phenoms are old. The 8350 is excellent, but most games don't use more than for cores (but with the ps4's 8 x86 cores, this proc. will probly will be much more useful in the future)
I7's- the best for when a proc. is needed (like compressing files, etc) but expensive
March 15, 2013 9:39:39 PM

jayadratha said:
But now planning to buy a new rig.


Hello Jayadratha,

What kind of system are you looking for?? [I.e Gaming, video editing/photoshop, media, etc]

Warmest Regards,

Coffee

a b à CPUs
March 15, 2013 9:40:12 PM

The main difference between the company's cpu's are the single core performance. Intel, as of now, has had much higher single core performance. That is why you see most Intel cpu's with 4 cores. With AMD they provide more cores and are more focused on budget. Also why the top AMD cpu is an octa-core. AMD is always going to give you a better price for what you are buying, as a drawback they don't give quite the power of the higher end Intel cpus
March 15, 2013 9:41:35 PM

Since Intel is more famous than AMD and Intel is a top choice for most users, AMD has to put their prices lower than Intel for them to penetrate the market.
For example, in smartphones competition, Samsung Galaxy phones is more affordable when they entered the market than the Apple's iPhone because of course, if you have a big budget, you might think, why would you go for samsung if you can buy an iPhone. and now you can see that samsung has beaten the apple in terms of sales. same thing with the processors, Intel is a top choice for most users so AMD's advantage is their lower price for the users to buy its products, then they will notice that AMD is not that bad. Intel have always proven that they have better processors so they already built a reputation and people will buy them even at higher prices. but AMD has to prove that they can be better than Intel and the best way to show that is to give lower prices so people can buy them.

I do not believe that AMD is not as good as intel even if they have lower prices. The element of competition is the reason why they have lower prices than Intel. I currently use AMD platform. FX and Radeon.
March 15, 2013 9:47:05 PM

coffeecoffee said:
jayadratha said:
But now planning to buy a new rig.


Hello Jayadratha,

What kind of system are you looking for?? [I.e Gaming, video editing/photoshop, media, etc]

Warmest Regards,

Coffee



now what should I say. I do all the things you mentioned. I.e gaming, app developing, image or video processing.
a b à CPUs
March 15, 2013 9:48:23 PM

Because Intel sold Sandy Bridge processors for way cheaper than they could have and spoiled us all. And hardly anyone remembers that a mid level CPU used to sell for $850 (example is Intel Q6600, release price).

Plus a lot of people are lazy and won't work. So the difference between $200 and $300 is alot to them.
a b à CPUs
March 15, 2013 9:49:22 PM

What?? Intel is "light years ahead?" If that was true, they would have offered the first 8 core desktop processor. I've even had Intel workers tell me AMD's newest offerings are decent... Even though the i7 is no competition when it comes to single thread performance.

If you bought a FX 8350 and OverClocked it, you would not notice the difference.

There was a study conducted with AMD vs Intel, They switched tags, people liked the "Intel" system better even though it had the AMD processor in it.

The only reason as to why I'm buying an i7 for my next system, is to say that I have one... lol. Otherwise, I'd go AMD because It's cheaper and it's way decent. Still.
March 15, 2013 9:50:51 PM

I heard that AMD's performance degrades by time. Is it true??
March 15, 2013 9:53:45 PM

jayadratha said:
I heard that AMD's performance degrades by time. Is it true??


Yes. Like all hardwares do. even intel.
March 15, 2013 9:55:34 PM

rainbueza said:
jayadratha said:
I heard that AMD's performance degrades by time. Is it true??


Yes. Like all hardwares do. even intel.


I'm telling that I heard that AMD's performance degrades more than INTEL.
a b à CPUs
March 15, 2013 9:56:18 PM

jayadratha said:
I heard that AMD's performance degrades by time. Is it true??

Hilarious, yet sad what people think.

However, AMD has nothing that matches up to an i5-2300 or above.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

Which is another answer to your question. AMD CPU's are priced accordingly.
(also AMD doesn't have an EIGHT core CPU, their 8 core CPU's feature simulated cores. It's all based on a 4 module shared resource system and it doesn't work very well)
March 15, 2013 10:02:08 PM

jayadratha said:
However, AMD has nothing that matches up to an i5-2300 or above.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...


While that is true, AMD CPUs are priced accordingly in relation to Intels. Basically.. your paying more... for more. There's nothing wrong with that. On a completely different note. AMD APUs are blowing Intel CPUs out of the water for their value [graphics + CPU package in one] for budget oriented users. On top of which, their APUs are every power efficient. In fact, you can do some nice light gaming on a AMD A10-5800k APU. Here's an example. Keep in mind he's running AND recording on a A10-5800k. Quite impressive if you ask me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qluPwppvWU

Coffee~
a c 138 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 15, 2013 10:02:35 PM

AMD is friendy with my pocket :D  .. i had amd and intel rig
March 15, 2013 10:51:27 PM

Oh god!! I'm totally confused, now what to do. what should i buy :( 
a b à CPUs
March 15, 2013 11:01:22 PM

For overclocking, Go AMD. For raw performance and no overclocking, Go Intel.

Go intel if you have the money. Go AMD if you're on a budget. That simple.

Yes, 4 Modules. But each module has 2 physical cores. Get your facts straight. They're not independent cores, but they're cores. Not threads.
March 15, 2013 11:06:19 PM

amd is pocket friendly with decent performance.intel for best performance with excellent power consumption efficiency though it will be costlier.
keep in mind that intel like to release new socket whenever they want ,amd has a better upgrade path as of now.
March 15, 2013 11:07:12 PM

griptwister said:
For overclocking, Go AMD. For raw performance and no overclocking, Go Intel.

Go intel if you have the money. Go AMD if you're on a budget. That simple.

Yes, 4 Modules. But each module has 2 physical cores. Get your facts straight. They're not independent cores, but they're cores. Not threads.

I don't change processor so much, and didn't use AMD before. So my question is if i buy AMD then will I be without problem atleast for 5years?? that is without significant performance reduce..
March 15, 2013 11:08:26 PM

xeon3d said:
amd is pocket friendly with decent performance.intel for best performance with excellent power consumption efficiency though it will be costlier.
keep in mind that intel like to release new socket whenever they want ,amd has a better upgrade path as of now.


Yes this is true.
March 15, 2013 11:12:09 PM

In reguards to what you should buy, take a look at the rest of the system you're building. If you've got a 7870 planned for that bad boy, then an AMD chip will do you up just fine. Pair of 680s in SLI, you're gonna want the I7 most likely. How long do you plan to use this machine personally? Are you wanting the best or the best bang for the dollar? The prices on both companies chips are right in line with performance, give or take a few frames. Also important to looksee at the resolutions you're playing at or planning on playing at. 1920X1080, you probably don't need a 3570k. Blashpemy, I know. I have one with a 7870 XT I just built and I get 200FPS in some games, that being said, I don't notice that much of a difference from my old Phenom 965 BE + 5770, even though with that I was only getting around 80 FPS (Both instances are with tweaks to eye candy, the 7870 has more candy, but the game seems about the same), I'm in a unique spot though, I'm on a 40in LED monitor, so I'm not right up against the screen.

If you're building a system for total less than a grand, I'd greatly consider an AMD build, over a grand, there's no reason not to get a 2500k or 3570k.
March 15, 2013 11:25:04 PM

i have a AMD Athlon 64 :pt1cable:  rig 6 years old still running great .
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2013 12:55:51 AM

rainbueza said:
Since Intel is more famous than AMD and Intel is a top choice for most users, AMD has to put their prices lower than Intel for them to penetrate the market.
For example, in smartphones competition, Samsung Galaxy phones is more affordable when they entered the market than the Apple's iPhone because of course, if you have a big budget, you might think, why would you go for samsung if you can buy an iPhone. and now you can see that samsung has beaten the apple in terms of sales. same thing with the processors, Intel is a top choice for most users so AMD's advantage is their lower price for the users to buy its products, then they will notice that AMD is not that bad. Intel have always proven that they have better processors so they already built a reputation and people will buy them even at higher prices. but AMD has to prove that they can be better than Intel and the best way to show that is to give lower prices so people can buy them......

+1

The Intel also have better cores (right now) performance and had better tech (and fabrication which they also own) so they can afford to stay in higher price point..

a b à CPUs
March 16, 2013 1:15:09 AM

1) AMD occupy a lower market share and thus focus heavily on value orientated market namely the sub $200 market.

2) Intel's fabs allows them to recycle unused chips into the rest of its product line and keep prices high.

In terms of technology, those who have jumped onto the Intel bandwagon, the most advanced processor on the market is a APU, its just AMD and Intel are driving two different architectures. While AMD are using the heterogeneous and parallelism approach, intel are adopting the lower power, smaller die approach in effort to break into the mobile market, there is adequate sources suggesting that intel like IBM may pull out of the mainstream x86 market, not good for the enthusiast but it will leave it exclusively for AMD.
March 16, 2013 1:31:35 AM

sarinaide said:
there is adequate sources suggesting that intel like IBM may pull out of the mainstream x86 market, not good for the enthusiast but it will leave it exclusively for AMD.


I hope that will never happen. We need at least two CPU giants competing in the x86 market to promote competition for better hardware at a lower cost. If there is only one CPU company around, they will have a monopoly and fix prices. It will be Microsoft with Windows all over again, but with hardware instead.

Coffee~
March 16, 2013 3:23:45 AM

i know that very good

1-AMD fx series has been a bit of failures in the last years so amd is going through many financial problems
2- to fix that and make money they now build cpus like 8350!the only purpose of that cpu is not performance but the company to make money!
3-so to fascinate the consumers they put 8cores 16mb L3 catche 4Ghz!so when the consumer see that they say oh what a power and they just buy it!after they see the benchmarks and say what have i done
4-they are cheaper beacuse they wont be sold otherwise!
5-amd has disappointed everyone so their fans!

on the other hand intel provides stability trust and power so performance thats why they are more expensive!
you get what you pay dude!intels cpus were always ahead and i dont think this is going to change if amd does not see its real problems!
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2013 8:07:49 AM

jayadratha said:
Oh god!! I'm totally confused, now what to do. what should i buy :( 

It can be confusing, but Tom's has answered all the questions in their tech articles. You just need to do some reading and make an educated decision.

As a guide you need to know that AMD CPU's can be a major bottleneck. In January Tom's tested the FX8350 in regards to bottlenecking Radeon 7970's. In some games the FX was ok and in others in was bad(vs. an i7-3770K). Example of the bad: 8350 scored 59 fps in Syrim @1080p, the i7 scored more than double @123 fps.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...

The bottleneck will just get worse with stronger GPU's in the future. And the screwed up cores/modules, high power consumption and the hotfixxes:

AMD credits its effort with lower power consumption compared to a full eight-core design - (That's funny) http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bu...
March 16, 2013 8:30:42 AM

Go with Intel... For gaming i5 3570 (k if overclocking) or i7 3770 (k if overclocking) if youre more in bussines (video editing, app creating, photoshop...). AMD is just showing off with 8 cores and high clock rates. If you look at benchmarks you will see that their best fx is slower than i5 3570k. Only good thing at AMD are their APUs (Im talking about processors; AMDs graphics cards are great). But only if youre comparing them without graphics (only integrated turned on) (without special graphics they are 50% better) but when you put graphics and turn down integrated ones, then any AMDs CPU (APU too) are worse than intels mid-end ones. And Intel is worth any penny youre going to put in; Ive got 10 year old pentium 4 and it can run things that lots of modern day CPUs cant. Graphics are more important than CPU in gaming (in most games). But if you have to go with AMD its going to serve you well.
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2013 12:43:16 PM

jayadratha said:
griptwister said:
For overclocking, Go AMD. For raw performance and no overclocking, Go Intel.

Go intel if you have the money. Go AMD if you're on a budget. That simple.

Yes, 4 Modules. But each module has 2 physical cores. Get your facts straight. They're not independent cores, but they're cores. Not threads.

I don't change processor so much, and didn't use AMD before. So my question is if i buy AMD then will I be without problem atleast for 5years?? that is without significant performance reduce..


Hey bro, Look... If you buy a FX 8350, you WILL NOT regret your decision! It's 8 cores, and on water you could get to 5Ghz easy! You will get fantastic FPS, you will not regret your decision... so long as you OC, you'll get the full awesome performance you want! You will be future proofed for about 3-4 years I'd say... even the current i7 3770K is at risk of being demoted fast because of how fast the demand for more cores is becoming relevant. Esp with the new consoles!
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2013 1:03:04 PM

griptwister said:
jayadratha said:
griptwister said:
For overclocking, Go AMD. For raw performance and no overclocking, Go Intel.

Go intel if you have the money. Go AMD if you're on a budget. That simple.

Yes, 4 Modules. But each module has 2 physical cores. Get your facts straight. They're not independent cores, but they're cores. Not threads.

I don't change processor so much, and didn't use AMD before. So my question is if i buy AMD then will I be without problem atleast for 5years?? that is without significant performance reduce..


Hey bro, Look... If you buy a FX 8350, you WILL NOT regret your decision! It's 8 cores, and on water you could get to 5Ghz easy! You will get fantastic FPS, you will not regret your decision... so long as you OC, you'll get the full awesome performance you want! You will be future proofed for about 3-4 years I'd say... even the current i7 3770K is at risk of being demoted fast because of how fast the demand for more cores is becoming relevant. Esp with the new consoles!


Talk about fanboy alert.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performanc...

Even overclocking to 5GHz still would bottleneck Crysis 3. Good for 3-4 years? Isn't good even today.
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2013 2:36:54 PM

babernet_1 said:
griptwister said:
jayadratha said:
griptwister said:
For overclocking, Go AMD. For raw performance and no overclocking, Go Intel.

Go intel if you have the money. Go AMD if you're on a budget. That simple.

Yes, 4 Modules. But each module has 2 physical cores. Get your facts straight. They're not independent cores, but they're cores. Not threads.

I don't change processor so much, and didn't use AMD before. So my question is if i buy AMD then will I be without problem atleast for 5years?? that is without significant performance reduce..


Hey bro, Look... If you buy a FX 8350, you WILL NOT regret your decision! It's 8 cores, and on water you could get to 5Ghz easy! You will get fantastic FPS, you will not regret your decision... so long as you OC, you'll get the full awesome performance you want! You will be future proofed for about 3-4 years I'd say... even the current i7 3770K is at risk of being demoted fast because of how fast the demand for more cores is becoming relevant. Esp with the new consoles!


Talk about fanboy alert.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performanc...

Even overclocking to 5GHz still would bottleneck Crysis 3. Good for 3-4 years? Isn't good even today.


What are you talking about. This benchmark isn't even overclocked and the 8350 still has a better frame rate than the 3550.
a c 446 à CPUs
a c 110 å Intel
a c 111 À AMD
March 17, 2013 2:51:21 PM

jayadratha said:
I heard that AMD's performance degrades by time. Is it true??


The performance of the CPU (or any other hardware) does not "degrade over time". I'm sure if you bought a CPU with stock speed 4 years running at 3.0GHz, it would still be running at 3.0GHz today. Unless there is a hardware failure which is different to performance degradation.

As time goes by, programs becomes more demanding and advances in CPU R&D improves the efficiency / performance of the CPU. So overall, programs have become more demanding over the past 4 years and CPUs have also become more powerful as well. A modern 3.0GHz CPU provides better performance than a 3.0GHz CPU from 4 years ago, but that CPU from 4 years ago still provides the same level of performance since the day you bought it.
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2013 4:11:58 PM

babernet_1 said:
griptwister said:
jayadratha said:
griptwister said:
For overclocking, Go AMD. For raw performance and no overclocking, Go Intel.

Go intel if you have the money. Go AMD if you're on a budget. That simple.

Yes, 4 Modules. But each module has 2 physical cores. Get your facts straight. They're not independent cores, but they're cores. Not threads.

I don't change processor so much, and didn't use AMD before. So my question is if i buy AMD then will I be without problem atleast for 5years?? that is without significant performance reduce..


Hey bro, Look... If you buy a FX 8350, you WILL NOT regret your decision! It's 8 cores, and on water you could get to 5Ghz easy! You will get fantastic FPS, you will not regret your decision... so long as you OC, you'll get the full awesome performance you want! You will be future proofed for about 3-4 years I'd say... even the current i7 3770K is at risk of being demoted fast because of how fast the demand for more cores is becoming relevant. Esp with the new consoles!


Talk about fanboy alert.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performanc...

Even overclocking to 5GHz still would bottleneck Crysis 3. Good for 3-4 years? Isn't good even today.


Dude, I could barely understand you with that foot in your mouth. The FX 8350 beat the i7 3770K (and i5 3570K) in other websites Crysis 3 benchmarks... Unless if this dude is planning on Buying a freaking Hexi-core i7 (which is what I'm buying after I get a Summer Job), I recommend the FX 8350. It's a beast for the price!!

Fanboys are flamers who don't know what they're talking about and they continue to defend their product and refuse to have an impartial view. So, who's the fanboy here? If you OC'd a FX 8350 to 5Ghz, you wouldn't notice the difference really... Even though an i7, clock for clock is faster.

I'm not an AMD fanboy, I'm not an Intel Fanboy... I've conducted a lot of research, and have decided the FX 8350 is the best value chip for an OverClocker who doesn't have a Phat wallet, and the i7 is the best option for those who have the money and are willing to Spend $$$. Imo, you can't go wrong with an i7 or a FX 8350. Just one saves you a bundle. You can't compare a 6 core i7 to a FX 8350, they're both two totally different beasts.
March 17, 2013 4:39:02 PM

Eveyone has their own likes and interest. I've been installing AMD cpu's for the last 5 or 6 years now and have no problem with the product... I'm not a AMD homer, i'm more of a price / performance person. Sure Intel may benchmark better than AMD in the overall scheme but your shelling out a lot more $$ for that Intel CPU vs. AMD CPU.
!