Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Why do Intel cpus have less cores than AMD cpus?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 23, 2014 7:52:19 AM

Title is pretty self explanatory.


:pt1cable: 
a c 102 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2014 7:54:27 AM

because it still run as well.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 23, 2014 7:56:47 AM

Intel has strong single core performance, AMD has weaker single core performance, thus the added cores to "compensate", even though it's still pretty much a crapshoot and Intel will outperform AMD in most cases.
Share
Related resources
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2014 8:13:15 AM

No derza the i7s don't have 8 cores. They have 4 and use hyperthreading. FX-8xxx actually has 8 integer cores and 4 floating point cores that can be split to 8. Along with some other shared hardware. non E i7s have four cores period.

AMDs implementation is not as good as having 8 completely separate cores but its still better than hyperthreading for many highly threaded programs. Intel happens to have better IPC though which tends to be more important
m
-1
l
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2014 8:21:07 AM

Marketing/Sales departments. AMD has abandoned the PC enthusiast, but they desperately need to make money. Some people don't research... see a high core count & clock speed(MHz) and will buy!!

Intel is "the strong silent type" I guess... they let the benchmarks do the talking. And they always "underrate" their thread count. Windows may see 8 or even 12 threads, with their high ends CPU's.

It almost impossible to find a benchmark or test were the shared module FX design beats hyperthreading. Found one thou, Sandra MultiMedia Integer benchmark:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/451/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2014 8:24:23 AM

unksol said:
No derza the i7s don't have 8 cores. They have 4 and use hyperthreading. FX-8xxx actually has 8 integer cores and 4 floating point cores that can be split to 8. Along with some other shared hardware. non E i7s have four cores period.

AMDs implementation is not as good as having 8 completely separate cores but its still better than hyperthreading for many highly threaded programs. Intel happens to have better IPC though which tends to be more important


Yea i had edited my post like 10 mins before you posted.. I had gotten the 4 modules that the FX has confused with cores. FX has 2 cores per Module so each pair of cores has to share a single floating point unit... Anyway the I7 pretty much outperforms the FX-8XXX's in all situations.
m
0
l
May 23, 2014 8:49:22 AM

enemy1g said:
Intel has strong single core performance, AMD has weaker single core performance, thus the added cores to "compensate", even though it's still pretty much a crapshoot and Intel will outperform AMD in most cases.


Even though you were being a little bit of an Intel fanboy! (no offence!)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2014 9:20:48 AM

urgle2203 said:
enemy1g said:
Intel has strong single core performance, AMD has weaker single core performance, thus the added cores to "compensate", even though it's still pretty much a crapshoot and Intel will outperform AMD in most cases.


Even though you were being a little bit of an Intel fanboy! (no offence!)

I wouldn't call him a fanboy, if anything he was "tip towing". Adding weaker cores typically doesn't "compensate", especially for gaming. Take Battlefield 4(high end gaming benchmark, 1080p Ultra). With a 290X GPU the dual core i3-4130 out performs a FX 6350. Adding more weak cores does work(FX 8350 beats i3-4130), but not by much(6 more cores, lol).

AMD has stopped loosing billions, but they are in rough shape; after a brutal downsizing. What Intel makes(profits) in few months is more than all of AMD is worth(~3 billion). The "Bulldozer" architecture was a disaster, the FX line is a lingering refresh of that failure.

Hopefully their APU's/FM2+ and the next-gen 20nm Radeon GPU chips out of TSCM keep them going!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 23, 2014 10:10:54 AM

Call me a fanboy or not. I definitely do make my preference towards Intel known. AMD doesn't offer anything I want. I'm not concerned about price, only performance. When Intel performs better, runs cooler, and uses less power, that justifies the extra cost for me. It may be different for other people, and more power to them. If AMD produces a top tier gaming CPU that completely dominates Intel's i5s, then I would consider AMD. But until that time comes, I'll gladly pay the extra ~$100-200 for the motherboard and CPU.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2014 7:48:57 PM

I have to laugh every time an Intel fanboy says "runs cooler". Yes intel has a better architecture but they also bounce off 99C overclocked. AMD is at 60C overclocked to the same performance level... intel runs hot. period.
m
-1
l
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2014 11:20:42 PM

unksol said:
I have to laugh every time an Intel fanboy says "runs cooler". Yes intel has a better architecture but they also bounce off 99C overclocked. AMD is at 60C overclocked to the same performance level... intel runs hot. period.

That's the crappy thermal paste Intel started using under the IHS. With an aggressive overclock you just can't "pull" the heat away. But that "limiting" manufacturing process should be over. We'll know in a week or so if the i7-4790K is soldered(5 GHz ?? !!) Even thou you really don't need to overclock an Intel CPU.

But wasted electricity is another story. Kind of surprised the EPA hasn't gotten after AMD. But what do you do, I guess.... they are trying to make a comeback, so the environment suffers. No worse than all the GPU's wasting power by mining litecoins.
m
1
l
a c 77 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2014 11:40:34 PM

AMD really has nothing to offer me...

None of my favorite games use more than 4 cores. Most use 2-3. So Intel is ahead in that regard.

I care about the environment actually more than I care about gaming, so pretty much whoever makes the lowest wattage reasonably performing CPUs has my money. Intel is ahead there as well.

I keep my CPUs for at least 4-5 years (foolishly chose a Phenom II last time though), so that rules out heavy 24/7 overclocking, and pretty much defeats AMD's only advantage for me...

You could call me an Intel fanboy, I suppose. But that wouldn't really be accurate, considering fanboys seem to defend a company even in the areas it's weaker. And I would switch if Intel was actually weaker, because loyalty to a company that exists to make money is very silly.

To answer the question, AMD only has more cores because their cores share modules, and end up being much weaker. It's as much of a marketing ploy as anything, because a lot of standard users see "AMD 4Ghz 8 cores", and think it must be better than "Intel 3.5Ghz 4 cores", when in reality the opposite ends up being true. But it still gets AMD plenty of sales.

To be fair, AMD did do one thing exactly right; their gaming CPUs don't come with an iGPU. That's mostly where AMD's lower costs come from, because their APUs cost a lot more considering the performance. Intel could easily slash $50 off their prices without losing gaming performance if they cut out the iGPUs from some models of i5 or i7. (which they sort of did, with the Xeons)
m
0
l
!