AMD's Multi-core strategy Vs Intel's power-packed

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Solution
D

both make good processors at different price points. in terms of raw performance in most tasks, intel is ahead right now. but those high performance processors also cost a lot compared to amd's. amd offers a large percentage of intel's performance at a lower price.
Sort by date Sort by votes
D

de5_Roy

Splendid
Oct 14, 2011
7,159
0
26,960

both make good processors at different price points. in terms of raw performance in most tasks, intel is ahead right now. but those high performance processors also cost a lot compared to amd's. amd offers a large percentage of intel's performance at a lower price.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Shneiky

Shneiky

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2011
2,323
1
20,960
The FX 8350 (Lets call it 8 core) which was released in Q4 2012 loses the majority of benches (some are a tie with neglectible difference, sometimes 8350 wins by a very narrow margin) against the Q1 2011 I7 2600 (lets call it 4 core). Now, two years later, Intel has 3770, 4770 and even 4790K which runs 4 GHz out of the box. AMD is far behind. They have not made an update in 2 years.

The again - the FX 8350 costs 1/3 less, but it sucks double the power. If you live someplace with cheap electricity - it doesn't bother you. But I live in a place where electricity is quite pricy, and I made the calculation with comparison to my own usage (through many nights my computer is rendering, so it is a full load and full power consumption) that in 1.5/2 years, the AMD price + the difference in electrical consumption would be the same as the I7.

Overall - better processor is Intel.

Price / Performance - depends on what you do, AMD can deliver very good price/performance if you do things that the FX is good at.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
O

oxiide

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2011
850
0
19,360
More cores only matter if those cores are getting used by your applications, and in the vast majority of cases AMD's better multithreading will not see the kind of use they need to keep up with Intel's much, much faster cores.

Those cases where AMD's hardware does do well are heavily multithreaded workstation applications, where they can perform a little better than an i5. But if you're a professional content creator, chances are you're looking at an i7 or Xeon anyway.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MeteorsRaining

MeteorsRaining

Champion
Jul 27, 2014
8,346
3
50,565
The myth about AMD's hexa and octa processors:

The 6300 ('hexa core') has 3 modules with 2 cores each. So that makes the total 6 cores which the company markets. But the catch is a deeper and more technical thing. Each module (or 2 cores) get the same resources and are not separate in computing different items. So its a technical 6 core CPU with a tri-core performance. Even a i3 4150 can beat it, really, provided both are at stock speeds. Also, FX cores have weak single core performance. Even a non-OCed i5 can beat 8320/50 at stock with its powerful single cores.
2 modules= 4 cores, 3 modules= 3 cores, 4 modules= 8 cores and dual core, tri core and quad core performance respectively.

Intel on the other hand are really power efficient and have solid single core performance. Also, they get less heated than the AMD. A premium of about $50-100 is very much appreciated for less wattage, more performance and less heat.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
O

oxiide

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2011
850
0
19,360


Do you have a source for that? A sub-$400 hexacore Core i7 seems like it would cannibalize LGA-1150 sales, I'd be [pleasantly] surprised to see Intel do that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MeteorsRaining

MeteorsRaining

Champion
Jul 27, 2014
8,346
3
50,565
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/intel-core-i7-haswell-e-processor-lineup-detailed.201243/

122a.jpg


I'm excited for the $400ish CPU :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

de5_Roy

Splendid
Oct 14, 2011
7,159
0
26,960

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/haswell-e-hedt-refresh-intel-cpu,27119.html

it won't cannibalize due to intel's timing and product positioning. the hsw-e will compete with old haswell and current haswell refresh cpus and upcoming but long delayed desktop broadwell cpus. besides, hsw-e being ddr4 compatible, the platform will end up a different price segment and budget range. mainstream users will generally opt for cheaper lga1150 cpus and ddr3 ram until ddr4 comes down in price. these are preorder prices, but should give you an idea
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8326/crucial-ddr4-available-for-preorder-at-overclockersuk
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
O

oxiide

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2011
850
0
19,360


Oh, interesting indeed, especially if the pricing remains the same as the Ivy Bridge-E SKUs. Surprising clock frequencies though—3.5 GHz for the mid-range, but only 3 GHz for the top-end? I suppose that's the sacrifice made for eight physical cores.

I can see where the LGA-1150 i7's might beat the -5820K in single-threaded performance, so maybe they'll continue to differentiate themselves that way.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mlga91

mlga91

Admirable
Jul 8, 2014
2,545
0
7,960
The problem with FX cpus is that there are almost no apps that use more than 4 cores, maybe amd had in mind that theese days cpu cores hungry apps will merge, but it was not the case, personally, i find very clever the use of modules instead of true cores, they reduce the price at the cost of performance, but hey, 8 cores at $160? thats a great deal considering also the factor that they dont actually have the same performance of real 8 cores. In my opinion, amd should have waited for this, and focus on real 4 core cpus, they were doing very well until the phenom ii x4.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom