Is Intel CPU really better than AMD o is it just a matter of how they differ in there approach?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
senseijtitus

senseijtitus

Honorable
Apr 13, 2015
1,687
0
12,460
Hi Guys. Hope all of you have been doing well.

I just wanted to know about how AMD and Intel CPU architectures differ from each other and is one better than the other or is it just like two different ways to do the same thing and achieve the same results.

I was surfing through the web searching for an answer to this question for a long time. Every time i get to a closer answer in one result, i get confused by the answers in the other ones.

So here I Am. I know a lot of you guys are really experts in both of these CPUs and I don't see any other community that does not have allegiance with any one of these companies(Fan boy type I mean).

I just want a lively discussion here with all of the experts in the CPU segment of THW. This would be a great opportunity for me to learn and develop my understanding about these architectures.

If you are reading this thread, Thank you very much for doing so and I would really appreciate it if you could share any of your opinion and experience regarding this.
 
Solution
Dunlop0078
Here is a good thread with a lot of info about the architecture of amd and intel cpu's and how they compare.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/48571-intel-amd-architectural-discussion-how-far-ahead-is-intel/
Sort by date Sort by votes
Dunlop0078

Dunlop0078

Titan
Ambassador
Feb 13, 2014
13,306
146
70,990
What do you mean by better? In terms of performance intel has left amd behind unfortunately especially with their enthusiast chips i currently have an amd fx 6350 and its great for the price but its just not as good as a say an i5 or even an i3 in some games the single core performance is just not on par with intel. The fx chips use a 32nm manufacturing process which is not as efficient as intels 22nm. For consumer cpu's amd makes sense they have their apu's which are reasonably priced and they do what they are meant to do well. But again if were talking pure performance intel wipes the floor with amd, but if we are talking price to performance idk amd makes a bit more sense. I am curious to see what amd will do next in the enthusiast/gaming market if they do anything, they have a lot of catching up to do.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
senseijtitus

senseijtitus

Honorable
Apr 13, 2015
1,687
0
12,460
I know. AMD is going to release its new line of processors by 3rd Quarter of 2016 it seems. Lets see what AMD has got under its sleeves. In the mean time, I got to know from one of those web sites that the building block of AMDs CPU architecture is called a module and for intel it is a core.

It seemed to me that AMD's modular architecture is not an x86 core, but an x86 module which contains everything that a core contains but with a number of components doubled, these components as I was able to understand are the integer scheduler, its datapath, 16KB of L1 DCache & it's own load/store unit.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
spdragoo

spdragoo

Splendid
Ambassador
Oct 17, 2011
3,166
8
27,115
It all depends on the performance you're looking for. If you're only interested in pure performance, Intel can't be beat...but you pay a premium to do so. On the other hand, if you don't need absolute, top-of-the-line performance, or are perhaps a little more limited on your budget, then AMD still provides a good alternative to Intel.

I see the analogy as with buying a car. Yes, it would be super-cool to have a Ford Mustang, especially one of the Shelby versions. Yes, it would be super-cool to have one of those Shelby Cobra 427s. But I don't live in Montana, or any other state with open flat areas of roadway stretching for hundreds of miles and no posted speed limit; I live in a heavily built-up urban/suburban area, & my daily commute involves a lot of stop-and-go city driving. I don't need a super-fast car that can go 0 to 60 MPH in under 8 seconds; I need a reliable car with good gas mileage that doesn't cost an arm and a leg each month.

That goes with computing needs. I play games, but a) I don't play them every day, b) I play a mix of newer (BF3/4, Starcraft 2) & older (Starcraft: Brood War, SWAT 3/4, even X-Wing, TIE Fighter, X-Wing vs. TIE, & X-Wing Alliance) games, & c) I don't even game at 1080p resolutions (monitor tops out at 1600x900). I don't need a Mustang or Cobra equivalent for my PC, but a nice 4-cylinder or even V6-equivalent model will be more than enough for me. Hence why I've stuck by AMD all of these years: they've been reliable, they've been inexpensive, & they provide a lot of performance for the price you pay.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
senseijtitus

senseijtitus

Honorable
Apr 13, 2015
1,687
0
12,460
The performance yield of AMD and Intel processors would then greatly depend on what kind of task it is doing. Right?

If that is so, a 4 module (8 core)AMD processors can either perform as eight processing units or as four depending on whether the type of workload is integer or floating point calculations.

Am I going in the right path here?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
senseijtitus

senseijtitus

Honorable
Apr 13, 2015
1,687
0
12,460
I know in price performance ratio, AMD is very good. specially the FX 6300. I recently bought one for my new built and am really happy with the performance. If I had a lot of money to spent, I would have gone with Intel's higher end chips. But for people like me, AMD is the best choice.

I am using this thread to find out the core differences between the architecture and real world performance impacts of both CPU lines. I want to learn more from you guys coz u guys in Toms are the most knowledgeable people I would rely on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Dunlop0078

Dunlop0078

Titan
Ambassador
Feb 13, 2014
13,306
146
70,990


I think AMD will probably just release another line of APU's unfortunately i really hope not but i just dont see how amd will be able to release a chip that is going to hang with intels enthusiast chips we will see but i dont have too much hope.

As far the architecture i have never really gone that in depth i just know AMD's is not quite as efficient and is really starting to show its age especially on the FX chips. I know my fx 6350 for example is not a true 6 core processor, it actually only has 3 physical cores with 3 logical cores i dont really understand that i have always thought of it being like hyperthreading on an intel chip.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
senseijtitus

senseijtitus

Honorable
Apr 13, 2015
1,687
0
12,460
You are right about that when comparing AMD Cores to Intels. But the difference is in the way the components are set inside each core. I will try it with an example.
Lets say, Intel Processor is Box "A" has 4 separations(Core) with 10 blocks(Computing Components) inside each of them.

AMD is Box "B" with 2 separations(Modules) with 20 Blocks(Computing Components) inside each of them.

For Intel the 4 boxes are 4 cores.

But when it comes to AMD the module has twice the components in it than a single core of Intel.

Now the components (The blocks that we mentioned inside the separations) are used for processing and calculation of data. Say for example capacitors or something of that sort.

The physical difference being AMDs single Module contains double of the same components that an Intel Core has in it. This makes a single AMD module a 2 core structure or which can perform the same task of a dual core structure. The doubling of these components is what gives the AMD module essentially two cores/threads.

It has its advantages and disadvantages as well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
woodsro

woodsro

Reputable
Feb 26, 2015
12
0
4,520
Honestly, I think better is purely a matter a preference. As someone who has built hundreds of computers over the years, The differences between AMD and Intel is so insignificant it really doesn't matter, and is nothing more then marketing hype from both sides.

I have both an i7-4690k and an FX 8350 system at home, both running Crossfire R9 280x's at 1440p and see zero perceptible differences between either of them in the games i play. I really don't think it matters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20QPpIqo-YY

Watch that Video above, the FX 8350 @ 4.7Ghz vs the I5-4690k@ 4.8Ghz in 9 games.

In only two games, Rome Total War and Arma i believe, can you tell any difference and IMO both of those games are just poorly optimized and Intel maybe does better in poorly optimized games, So 2 out of 9 games(22%). So 22% of the time Intel will be better, otherwise you will probably not be able to really tell a perceptible difference, at that point, just buy whatever is the cheapest, on sale, and fits your wallet. The only exception to that would be their are a few specific games that due to their nature just simply run better on Intel, so if those are games you play then that makes sense, otherwise, its usually wash.

I bought the 4690k rig at the the time instead of a 2nd FX 8350 rig because the board and cpu combo was cheaper at the time then the AMD with rebates, otherwise i would have gotten the FX. Just buy whatever is on sale, it rarely really matters IMO unless you buying in the upper enthusiust range such as dual Titans and all that, then it probably makes sense to buy the high end Intel. At that point, whats another grand when you ahve already spent a few, might as well go all out :).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
senseijtitus

senseijtitus

Honorable
Apr 13, 2015
1,687
0
12,460


Good answer woodsro. I guess there is not much of a difference in both but the price point and how they execute stuff. Thank you very much.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
woodsro

woodsro

Reputable
Feb 26, 2015
12
0
4,520


Your welcome. :)

 
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