Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Solved

Why exactly are Intel's processors so much better than AMD's?

Tags:
  • AMD
  • CPUs
  • Intel
  • Processors
Last response: in CPUs
October 29, 2013 8:04:30 PM

I've been reading around lately and I can't wrap my head around this. It seems to me that AMD must have some crazy advantage in benchmarking because I don't see what people say and what happens in benchmarks lining up at all. I've never owned any serious computer parts but I'm getting ready to create a build and I'm seriously trying to get someone to thoroughly convince me to go Intel but for the price/performance I can't see myself doing so. This article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

helped me reinforce my decision so far to get a fx-6300, but further confused me with the previously mention issues. Tom's formally recommends me to get the i3-4130, and even its little chart shows that it outperforms the fx-6300. But everywhere else I look I see the opposite. Even on Tom's benchmarks the 6300 comes up way before any i3.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/-04-...

That's the overall, I've heard a lot about intel being a lot better at single thread processes which include a lot of gaming so I went and looked at a single thread benchmark as well.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/-01-...

In both cases the 6300 is way higher on the charts than the i3. It just leaves me confused about where the charts in the article showing better gameplay come from. If someone could help me out here understanding (in layman's terms) why the i3 supposedly outperforms the fx-6300 according to that article and several others. I don't care about electricity costs by the way.

More about : intel processors amd

Best solution

a c 1207 à CPUs
a c 509 À AMD
a c 211 å Intel
October 29, 2013 8:10:34 PM

Last chart the I3 3220 is way higher than the FX6300 so you are reading wrong. 3dmark is as well not a very good benchmark for CPU performance.
The FX6300 is though a solid choice for a budget gaming build since it will handle threaded apps better than the I3.
Share
October 29, 2013 8:13:39 PM

From what I have experienced and seen first hand, AMD TENDS to run hotter with more power usage. Also, the motherboards for AMD, in general, seem to have more issues than Intel motherboards. I think the "Intel is better than AMD" is more related to the high end CPUs though.
m
0
l
Related resources
October 29, 2013 8:26:09 PM

rolli, thanks for pointing that out, I have no idea how I did that. And logox, yeah I've been seeing that. Actually in general it seems like most things associated with Intel are better quality, which is why I've been trying to get convinced to go with them. Based off of your answers I might stick with AMD for my around 700 dollar build.

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/noshness/saved/2GBj

Thanks again guys. If you feel like it I would appreciate criticism/help with the selections in that link.
m
0
l
a c 116 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
October 30, 2013 12:03:44 AM

If you could buy a better motherboard (for ocing and bigger support of CPUs 125w+) would be in the long run a better investment.

I'm not so sure about that PSU on the case, for that price I really doubt it's a 80+ bronze certified PSU, and you want a good PSU to handle and protect your cpu-gpu.

Try looking for the same case (if you chose it because you like it) without a PSU and buy some 80+ certified PSU preferably from Antec, Seasonic or others I'm sure other ppl will suggest.
m
0
l
October 30, 2013 6:13:39 PM

I agree with RaDiKaL, a cheap PSU is not a good idea. More than likely the one in that case is not that high quality, I would recommend either Seasonic or XFX as far as the brand of PSU goes.
m
0
l
October 30, 2013 8:43:42 PM

Yeah I don't think I will be ocing and Tom's used that motherboard with my processors so I'm okay with that. But I am having second thoughts about the case and psu. It just seemed like on Newegg the review were good enough but I guess it probably is too good of a deal to be true heh.
m
0
l