Differences between CPUs

Duom

Honorable
Jun 11, 2013
13
0
10,510
Hi all!

Could someone explain me in which regard these two CPUs are different, and the i5 is considered / or performs better regardless of the fact that the i5 has an integrated graphic chip and that it has a larger cache size:

- AMD Phenom II x4 970be
- Intel i5 4670k

Because in the end both run at 3.5GHz, so if someone could point me where to look at to understand the price and perfs difference.

Thanks in advance!
 
Solution
Its all in the design of the chips. The 2 CPUs work differently. During each clock cycles, the 2 different architectures perform a task differently.

An example would be - both CPUs have addition X to do. The CPU will need to break down the addition into stages. Lets say an AMD CPU requires 10 stages to do the addition. An Intel CPU might need only 8 stages to complete the work. That means at equal number of ticks, the Intel CPU will finish the addition first.


Simply put, an Intel architecture can do more work per clock cycle. That's why at the same clock speed, there is a performance difference.
sure.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

assume any haswell cpu (like your i5-4670k) will be on tier 1. Generally speaking in 95% of daily activity you'll never be able to tell the difference between cpus within 3 tiers of each-other on that chart... and cpus on the same teir you'll never tell the difference without a benchmarking suit. That chart is a "user experience" chart. Meaning chips on the same level are side-steps at best in an end user experience. While chips within 3 tiers you won't see an improvement worth the money.

in your case you're looking at a chip on tiers 1 (i5) and tier 3 (PhII). There will be an advantage to the i5 that you will notice from time to time... but generally speaking in most tasks you won't be able to tell the difference. That said, If getting the PhII allows you to get a better gpu, get the phii... as the better gpu will probably eliminate all difference between the chips while gaming. If money is no object, get the i5.

Ignore the ghz rating... amd and intel chips haven't been comparable with ghz since the k6III and P3... clock for clock the intel is much faster then that amd. If you're looking for a good bargin chip buy in the AMD side of things the FX6300 compares very favorably to the i5 in power usage, multitasking, and when overclocked will even keep up on a single threaded basis pretty well.

if you have no interest in buying a gpu, then get an A10-6800k... no better integrated gpu out there for the desktop.
 

Lord_Kitty

Honorable
May 31, 2013
214
1
10,760
Generally speaking, an Intel CPU will perform better than an AMD CPU at equal clock speeds. That's because Intel's architecture can perform more tasks per clock cycles due to a more efficient design.


The i5 4670K is also a newer architecture. If you are gaming or doing CPU intensive tasks, there will be a notable difference between the two.

The 970BE is a good mid level CPU if you are gaming. It can hold its ground despite being an old chip since games are able to use multiple cores better nowadays compared to when it was released.

There's a lot more to the differences, but it will depend on what you intend to do with it.
 

Duom

Honorable
Jun 11, 2013
13
0
10,510
So here we are seeing things in relation to the end user experience, but what if we go down one level? I mean if you take just the hardware: a 3.5GHz processor ticks 3 500 000 000 times each seconds (so say X numbers of additions/substractions/etc).

So in which way should there be any difference between two CPUs with the same clock speed? Would it be the way the ticks are interpreted or a different optimisation in regard to how the instructions are executed?

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to answer me :)
 

Lord_Kitty

Honorable
May 31, 2013
214
1
10,760
Its all in the design of the chips. The 2 CPUs work differently. During each clock cycles, the 2 different architectures perform a task differently.

An example would be - both CPUs have addition X to do. The CPU will need to break down the addition into stages. Lets say an AMD CPU requires 10 stages to do the addition. An Intel CPU might need only 8 stages to complete the work. That means at equal number of ticks, the Intel CPU will finish the addition first.


Simply put, an Intel architecture can do more work per clock cycle. That's why at the same clock speed, there is a performance difference.
 
Solution
For budget builds, I will still recommend a PH II BE Processor. You can use some pretty decent GPUs with those things. One thing that was only periphially mentioned is that for Multithreading, Intel surpasses AMD. I have a friend who finally moved from a Phenom II 955 BE to an Intel i5 3670k ( Ivy Bridge ) and got one heck of a performance kick and you can find that with moving from one intel CPU to another. I just moved from an Intel i7 2600k ( Sandy Bridge ) to an Intel i7 4770k. The 2600k had a modest OC at 4.4 Ghz and when I benched it after the upgrade and out of the box with no OC on the 4770k, there was one heck of a boost. Clock speed isn't necessarily a factor as has been explained. AMD is not a bad CPU, but just not the choice if you are looking for performance.
 

Duom

Honorable
Jun 11, 2013
13
0
10,510


I'm really having a hard time making a decision between keeping that CPU and upgrading the GPU and vice versa. The thing is for the CPU, I don't know if the perf boost with my 570gtx is worth it. And if I choose to upgrade the GPU to a 770gtx or maybe even a 870gtx (next year) instead I don't know if I'd be bottlenecked too much (I'm sure I will be but if the bottleneck still makes me be able to play at 50/60fps on ultra/high settings I'll live with it :) ).

I don't need the best components on the market since I'm playing at 1600*1050 res, I'm just looking for a smooth 50fps experience with highest settings on the next gen games to be released.
 
I know of two who were running a Phenom II 955 BE with a GTX 460 GPU with no apparant bottle necking. For the GPU you are looking at, I would go with the the Intel choice. I am running at 1680x1050 because my monitor won't run any higher. I am runniing the GTX 680 and have no plans to move up as it does just fine and I don't see the need. If you go with the Ivy Bridge, be sure to get a Motherboard with a Z77 chipset as you have larger pipes for transferring data.
 


i'm playing current gen games on high to ultra at 1080p with a hd 7770 and a PhII x4 965be. (specifically far cry 3 and mass effect 3). both are smooth, gorgeous and stutter free. Granted Far Cry 3 is not at ultra settings but i'd say high is almost visually indistinguishable from ultra anyway.

dude... i would totally get like at least 1 more monitor and play across 2 of them... or get a giant monitor and play at some sick resolutions. I would be pissed if i spent all that cash on a 680 and an intel cpu and was gaming at lower resolutions then someone (like me) who dropped less then $150 on his 2nd hand pc, of which $84 was spent on a hd 7770 gpu. Especially since my experience is stutter free and silky smooth... someone might think the PhII system is the superior gaming machine if they saw them next to each other and we weren't playing Crisis 3.

unleash your system my friend, there is no reason you shouldn't be gaming in glorious hd or better on an eyebleedingly great monitor or three. I got my 22" hd monitor on craigslist for $60. best investment i could have made.
 
I need to modify my desk to accomodate a larger monitor. I am currently using a 22" Samsung and that is a s big as I can get into the space. :p I have Played through Mass Effect 3 and if you are playing it at those settings, you are doing well. Haven't played Crysis. Not bad for a second hand rig. You are also right abiut the resolutions. I feel like I am not getting al I can get with this, but haven't felt like tearing this desk apart to modify it. I would probably just go to a 24" monitor as 1920x1080 would be fine. Definitely don't have the room for three monitors. I am stuck at 1680x1050 with this 22'' thing. I haven't really unleashed this thing yet. I moderate on another board and they have been keeping me busy over there.