why is intel considered better

Jagger McCrimmon · May 10, 2013

i knew to pc and im building my first desktop and amd is cheaper and has more ghz and core than intel fx 8350 and over clock to 4.8 ghz and intel i5 3570k can only 4.5....not sure if its true i seen it in searches i was looking for. if its true that the amd has high ghz and cores why do people say its not good or even close to the intel someone please help me out here.NO ARGUING OVER THEM i just want a simple awnser

Matsushima · May 10, 2013

First of all, I'm not an Intel/AMD fanboy. The performance between the 3570K and the FX8350 is nearly the same, who said that AMD was not close to the intel. However, AMD's architecture is somewhat inefficient, and the AMD chips usually draw more power and generate more heat, and have to have higher clockspeeds and so on(it was the reverse a decade ago)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html
As you can see, the FX-8350 has similar performance to an i5. The 8350 however has 8 cores and should be better at multithreaded applications. In 2002, AMD's processors had low clockspeeds than Intel's but still beat them. Now it is almost the opposite. What you heard is not true, it just really depends on your budget and both Intel and AMD have similar levels of performance. (I have used both Intel and AMD)

Sakkura · May 10, 2013

Raw clock rates are largely meaningless when comparing different architectures. Intel's CPUs generally do a lot more work per clock cycle than AMDs FX CPUs, and many games only really benefit from the first 2 to 4 cores.

i8myhippo · May 10, 2013

First, this is a debate that is never going to be settled.

1) There is far more important factors than simply clock speed, such as memory caches.

2) My i5-3570k has run at 4.8, others have run much higher.

3) There is far more important factors than simply cores or threads. A 256-core processor is no better than a 1-core at performing a single, non-parallel task.

This isn't the "simple answer" that you are looking for, but it does settle some common misconceptions that a beginner frequently has.

Oh, and I believe that, on average Intel processors run on less power than their AMD counterparts.

EDIT: And welcome to Tom's Hardware!

TheinsanegamerN · May 10, 2013

The main reason people say this is that, in games, the fx 8350 performs similar to a core i5. however, the fx is clocked at 4.2 GHz, with 8 cores, while the intel chip is only 3.4 GHz with 4 cores. since most games only use 2-4 cores, many see the fx as weaker. on heavily threaded apps, such as rendering, the fx shows it's true strength. The only real weakness is that the fx, at stock, pulls about 183 watts, while the i5 only pulls about 85 watts at maximum load. of course, the amd cpu has more internal hardware running on an older manufacturing process. having used both, they are both amazing processors, though I tend to favor the fx a little more. neither is bad though, unless you use dual geforce titans at 1024x768 resolution. thats about the only time youll see a huge difference.

Search

why is intel considered better

Jagger McCrimmon

Honorable

Matsushima

Honorable

Sakkura

Illustrious

i8myhippo

Honorable

TheinsanegamerN

Distinguished

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page