I would like to know what is the massive difference that intel offers that makes me spend a lot more to buy it. I have been thinking of intel for a while now but in my opinion I do not think it is worth it. I know intel is better I am not suggesting AMD is, but I think AMD products offer more for the price than compared to a product of intel for the same price. So anyway back to the point, what does intel have over AMD?
(mainly use my PC for gaming, and the occasional editing and not exactly heavy editing).
Is there really a question here or just a bang for your buck justification thread? It seems the op already has their mind made up, they don't want to see benchmarks of real world programs (not talking synthetics) which clearly show the performance differences. It depends on what task you want to do. Amd's prices aren't that much better, they're in line with their intel counterparts and amd has come out and stated this. It's not my opinion.
Same here! Loads of people on the forum are saying intel is so much better, but they can't really say why. They just basically say it just is.
yeah I think its only better if you are building a high end (tier 1) system with an i7 CPU. AMD cant really match that.
No, there are tons of game, office tasks, encoding, benchmarks that all prove Intel comes out on top. Even I3s can best high end AMD CPUs in many tasks. Not to mention Intel will do all this stuff using much less energy, and creating less heat.
AMD has impressive specs to market, but they don't translate to real world performance.
The cost difference isn't that much different really.
Same here! Loads of people on the forum are saying intel is so much better, but they can't really say why. They just basically say it just is.
yeah I think its only better if you are building a high end (tier 1) system with an i7 CPU. AMD cant really match that.
No, there are tons of game, office tasks, encoding, benchmarks that all prove Intel comes out on top. Even I3s can best high end AMD CPUs in many tasks. Not to mention Intel will do all this stuff using much less energy, and creating less heat.
AMD has impressive specs to market, but they don't translate to real world performance.
The cost difference isn't that much different really.
I agree with you, I did say intel was better but the thing about i3 cpu, you are wrong on that one. i5's and above do beat amds' amd is just better for your money.
It's about the core strength, or 'instructions per cycle' and the architecture. Take the lowest end current generation i3, the i3 4170 and the FX 9590, both at stock and the i3 4170 per core is 10% quicker despite the 9590 having the higher clock speed. Intel also has superior floating point performance, bearing in mind AMD's architecture with the FX series; you're getting 1 FPU split between 2 ALU, so you have 4 FPU's on an '8 core' product, 3 FPU on a '6 core' and so on. Floating point performance is what really affects game performance.
At the end of the day though, it comes down to whether you're happy with the performance. I don't think it's right when people only suggest Intel for a build, when an often cheaper AMD CPU will provide enough power for them.
I have owned both so while I would agree that Intel has a performance edge I personally found the performance didn't justify the price premium. Also in most cases I never really noticed a difference unless I pulled out a stop watch or ran fraps. The funniest moment was when I went to a LAN party and my Intel fan boy friend was so impressed by some random persons super smooth game play experience and when asked which intel CPU he was running the guy said an 8350 at that point my friend went "oh I would have never guessed".
So yes there is a difference between them but just like most things in life people tend to support what's popular sometimes for no other reason than it just is. Nike is the largest shoe company in the world to my knowledge and charge more but there shoes are no better than fila or addidas.
Of course this is only my opinion and I've had both CPU's. I wasn't impressed with Intel so I went back to AMD.
AMD Vs Intel comparison (Real world events not just "what the benchmarks say")
I would like to know what is the massive difference that intel offers that makes me spend a lot more to buy it. I have been thinking of intel for a while now but in my opinion I do not think it is worth it. I know intel is better I am not suggesting AMD is, but I think AMD products offer more for the price than compared to a product of intel for the same price. So anyway back to the point, what does intel have over AMD?
(mainly use my PC for gaming, and the occasional editing and not exactly heavy editing).
I tend to just ignore this AMD vs Intel drivel that seems to pop up here every other week or so, but after seeing as much of it as I can stomach, I tend to think ignorance is partially to blame, and ignorance defined, meaning, simply unaware, (not a direct insult), so here's My 2 Cents!
Why do you think anyone really cares whether you buy Intel or AMD?
It is your money, spend it how you like since you want benchmarks excluded, there's really no argument anyway!
Your title seems to come across as down to real world events, but you do not clarify what real world events are, or how they are measured.
So for the record, my personal reasoning for buying Intel, is the overclock ability of the Intel unlocked multiplier CPU!
Maybe I am just addicted to overclocking and I'll gladly admit that openly, and guess where the initial overclocking addiction came from?, AMD!
Back in the day when AMD was actually the King of the Hill with the releases of the Sledgehammer, Clawhammer, San Diego, and Toledo core CPUs!
When it came to overclocking with the original FX57 and the Dual Core FX60, which by the way were $1,000.00 range CPUs when first released, but they had unlocked multipliers.
AMD was the King back then, and overclocking got them there, they stood on the backs of the overclocking community to reach their levels of glory!
Ahh the good ole days, when we used the pencil trick to overclock the AMD Thunderbird! (Probably before your time)
The overclocking community back then was very much responsible for AMDs rise to glory, which enticed many to try their hand at overclocking just to see if they could do it, and we were happy and elated for the simple mhz crumbs of increase that AMD was allowing us to get.
Because back in that day Intel was giving away absolutely nothing, you pretty much got exactly what you paid for and any overclocking was barely noticeable.
But then unfortunately AMD reveled too long in their victory over Intel, and the sleeping Dragon released the overclockable Core 2 Duo, and suddenly AMD was King no more!
Well the loyal AMD servants waited, and waited, and waited, for the once great AMD to release some new secret weapon to rise to the pinnacle of speed and regain it's lost overclocking Crown.
However sadly to us overclocking AMD loyalists that day never came, and AMD abandoned the overclocking community that got them where they were and forgot about them and decided to pursue the server business end of computing with their Opterons.
Many of us loyally waited and waited for AMD to rise from the ashes like a Phoenix, but it just did not happen, and we saw the Intel overclocking train pull further, and further, and further away?
So some of us decided to jump ship and go Intel for our overclocking hopes and have not the first time been dissatisfied.
AMD realized they were loosing some of the foundation they stood on and began flooding the market with unlocked multiplier CPUs in an attempt to get back what they had lost, but the trinkets they released were not enough to get back the loyalty they lost.
But AMD did one thing good by releasing their unlocked trinkets, for Intel to stay competitive they must also release their CPUs with an unlocked option, and the Intel overclocking train kept pulling away from AMD.
So now I happily run my Intel 3770K at 5ghz everyday and I like running 5ghz every single day rock solid, and I've been running a 5ghz rock solid overclock now coming up on 3 years!
With 3 different Intel CPUs, the first 5ghz was the 2500K, and the next 5ghz was the 2700K, and now the 3770K confirmed by the CPU-Z validation in the sig.
I also like the fact that Intel can run whatever memory speed you throw at it with the CPU overclocked as high as 5ghz, even way past the CPUs designed memory speed specifications.
Overclocking wise it would be nice if AMD could do that, but from the results I see the AMD users reaching, high memory speed and high CPU multipliers like 25x can be an be an overclocking limitation.
AMD realized they were loosing some of the foundation they stood on and began flooding the market with unlocked multiplier CPUs in an attempt to get back what they had lost, but the trinkets they released were not enough to get back the loyalty they lost.
That part is funny. AMD tried to restore some loyalty but ended up losing more loyalty because of their shady tactics with Bulldozer. AMD literally held back Bulldozer, saying they weren't happy with performance, but told their board partners to go ahead and release the motherboards, then they called for a press event a while later when Bulldozer was ready, talking about how it beat an i7... without showing any proof whatsoever. Then they released Bulldozer without making any changes at all in the delay and it was an absolute flop, but thousands of people had already purchased the kit. It was quite a clever scam really.
AMD realized they were loosing some of the foundation they stood on and began flooding the market with unlocked multiplier CPUs in an attempt to get back what they had lost, but the trinkets they released were not enough to get back the loyalty they lost.
That part is funny. AMD tried to restore some loyalty but ended up losing more loyalty because of their shady tactics with Bulldozer. AMD literally held back Bulldozer, saying they weren't happy with performance, but told their board partners to go ahead and release the motherboards, then they called for a press event a while later when Bulldozer was ready, talking about how it beat an i7... without showing any proof whatsoever. Then they released Bulldozer without making any changes at all in the delay and it was an absolute flop, but thousands of people had already purchased the kit. It was quite a clever scam really.
You're right!
AMD kept making claims that failed to deliver!
Which resulted in many of the old loyalty hoping for an AMD comeback but never seeing it.
If find it ironical that many that thumb their noses at Intel because of CPU cost never even bring to the table the fact that at one time in history AMD was the most expensive CPU you could buy!
So is it really money?
I would say that it is the not knowing!
You can be satisfied with anything as long as you are unaware there is something better available!
What happens though, once you discover the difference?
How many that have gone to Intel from AMD, actually desire to go back to AMD for what's market available today, Please raise your hands?
Not really the answers i am looking for, I have heard so many intel fanboys praising intel so much. And again same with AMD fanboys, the main question is how big of a difference would it be for gaming, as I said on my original question. I don't care whether amd is this scam artist or whether intel is this supreme leader, I just want to know would it actually be worth paying a lot more and then getting a new motherboard ontop of that to make it compatible with a intel cpu. How much of a difference? (gaming wise like I just said), if intel is only like 15 - 20fps faster on games on ultra then there's no way I am spending double for what I would have to pay for an amd processor. If they both manage over 60fps then that is fine.
Not really the answers i am looking for, I have heard so many intel fanboys praising intel so much. And again same with AMD fanboys, the main question is how big of a difference would it be for gaming, as I said on my original question. I don't care whether amd is this scam artist or whether intel is this supreme leader, I just want to know would it actually be worth paying a lot more and then getting a new motherboard ontop of that to make it compatible with a intel cpu. How much of a difference? (gaming wise like I just said), if intel is only like 15 - 20fps faster on games on ultra then there's no way I am spending double for what I would have to pay for an amd processor. If they both manage over 60fps then that is fine.
If all you do is game then the CPU is irrelevant as long as it is capable to simply run the game without bottle necking the GPUs performance.
About 98% of the games out there are totally GPU dependent, but there is a lot more that can be done with a CPU besides just gaming.
Under those circumstances your graphic card is what really matters, but most everyone already knows that!
And IMO is not a viable AMD vs Intel argument, when most PC games are not even designed around the CPU, and some games still run on a single CPU core, but if gaming is all you do, that's your choice, enjoy your AMD.
Edit: Now if you are running a CPU dependent game like Flight Simulator 10, well that's a totally different story!
Is there really a question here or just a bang for your buck justification thread? It seems the op already has their mind made up, they don't want to see benchmarks of real world programs (not talking synthetics) which clearly show the performance differences. It depends on what task you want to do. Amd's prices aren't that much better, they're in line with their intel counterparts and amd has come out and stated this. It's not my opinion.
In an attempt to show value, they've lumped their own products together as amd cpu + amd gpu (formerly ati) against intel + nvidia as if intel and nvidia are the same company. In reality it was amd, intel for cpu and ati, nvidia for gpu. Even now that amd owns ati (until they sell it off again anyway), it's a bit of ignorance to suggest an intel build HAS to use nvidia. Typically nvidia cards run a bit more than amd gpu's. Even with current pricing for the comparison slideshow, there's roughly a $20 difference between between the 8320e and an i5 4460.
In all honesty, $20 is a fast food meal you'll likely eat today and forget tomorrow. So not really sure where all this 'intel costs way more' assumption comes from. Intel motherboards can be a bit pricier compared to extremely low budget amd motherboards but they also don't suffer from weak vrms and overheating issues. Once you get an amd board that overcomes that downfall it's not so cheap anymore.
What does intel have over amd? Performance. Efficiency. Stability. Not all amd cpu's suffer this, but many do suffer from thermal throttling. It's just not an issue with intel. Do some people have issues with cooling intel as well as amd? Sure. Then look at why those issues happen, because of faulty cooler installation, too much thermal paste, aio cooler issues such as faulty pumps or pump speeds running too low etc. Under load, intel based systems draw far less power. If you're in dire need of saving $20 over the next 2, 3, 4 years by all means enjoy all that 'bang' for the buck. Just don't order a pizza or you'll have lost all that price savings. Amd offers less performance for less money, no surprise there. It's all relative. Then again former ceo rory read also made the fabulous statement that we don't need cpu's that perform any better and laptops have all the processing power we need. That's just gold right there. The clear cut strive for mediocrity. Please show me one person who games or does video editing or content creation or any other task besides checking email who said you know, this is it. I'll keep this laptop forever, this mobile cpu is all the performance one could ever use. If that were the case we'd have all just hung onto our core 2 duo's or athlon x2's.
If you're not putting your pc through much stress then you may not need a more powerful system than an amd provides. But those are your needs, not everyone's. For the same reason I wouldn't immediately recommend every user a $1000 5960x cpu, they probably don't need it. For those that do, amd flat doesn't have an equivalent. It's kind of like saying well when I'm checking my email, I don't see why I need an i5. You don't, a pentium anniversary edition for $52 will do that much. In that case, amd doesn't have bang for the buck. It's all relative to what you do with your pc as to what performance you need.
Call it nothing more than personal preference, but I dislike amd systems. They feel sluggish. Whether back in the early days when one system was based on a p166 vs an amd k2-350 in the other, the intel system felt faster. It had less ram on top of it. Most of the pc's I used at work were amd based, one was an athlon, another was a sempron (to be expected it felt sluggish), another was an athlon x4. Compared to my p2-450 they felt like molasses. When the boss 'upgraded' to an athlon 64 fx system, my p4 was still well ahead of it. I've personally yet to feel an amd system that was consistently fast, that didn't bog down under load. They felt about the same on the desktop and that was the end of the similarities. Someone once described the cpu's as being a box, the intel being a wooden box and the amd being a cardboard box. The minute you stepped on them, the cardboard box couldn't handle it and that's pretty consistent with my experiences. Have I worked much with the latest amd chips like the 8350? Not much no. I don't have any desire to invest my money in products that have continually disappointed me through the years in the hopes they finally got it right when intel does the job. That wasn't comparing top of the line hardware, it wasn't purely gaming since much of it was office productivity. It wasn't just one isolated instance, and it was actually back when amd was the most competitive with intel unlike today. Repeatedly older intel's were outpacing newer 'faster' amd chips on systems that used edo ram, ddr ram, ddr2 ram etc.
For the occasional user who powers up their system every other day for half an hour, no it probably doesn't matter. In all reality, the cost difference is minimal between the two brands. The concept applies to just about any product though. Pricing becomes even more minimal when you consider a user who will be working with their system often over the lifespan of a pc. A pc isn't a monthly purchase, it's a long(er) term purchase. I don't bother worrying about a $20-40 difference in tv's either, a tv isn't something I buy every 4-6mo. To be honest I've never had a tv that was a smaller screen size and at the end of even 3-4yrs looked at it and said wow, I'm so glad I saved $40. For the same reason I've never looked at my wallet and thought I wish I hadn't wasted that dinner out at applebee's last year. Funny enough the same people who complain about a slight up front cost difference probably spend more than that in 6mo on bottled water alone, something that comes out of the faucet for free. It's all about perspective.
I agree with you, I did say intel was better but the thing about i3 cpu, you are wrong on that one. i5's and above do beat amds' amd is just better for your money.
No. Just a post or two above mine there are links to game benchmarks, that place an I3 above an FX8350 even on some games.
I agree with you, I did say intel was better but the thing about i3 cpu, you are wrong on that one. i5's and above do beat amds' amd is just better for your money.
No. Just a post or two above mine there are links to game benchmarks, that place an I3 above an FX8350 even on some games.
Idk then, you may be right. I am just saying there are other sources out there as well and youtube videos saying otherwise. I am not doubting you I just have seen different results from different sources.
Idk then, you may be right. I am just saying there are other sources out there as well and youtube videos saying otherwise. I am not doubting you I just have seen different results from different sources.
Stop watching Youtube videos. Jo-schmo is not a pro and doesn't understand architecture. 90% of the Youtube videos never tell the whole story. Read a review and tell me if a third of the information about setup and software is stated in a Youtube video.
Idk then, you may be right. I am just saying there are other sources out there as well and youtube videos saying otherwise. I am not doubting you I just have seen different results from different sources.
Stop watching Youtube videos. Jo-schmo is not a pro and doesn't understand architecture. 90% of the Youtube videos never tell the whole story. Read a review and tell me if a third of the information about setup and software is stated in a Youtube video.
Who is jo shmo? I have a couple of friends who have intel and amd and tbh there isn't much of a difference when it comes to gaming. Real life situations not some benchmarks (even though they are helpful) benchmarks are good and all but put the test and gaming in real life its always a bit different. I don't know if I have more money I will get intel but from my own experience there isn't enough of a difference for me to splash out my cash. And just to say I did mention I would use my pc mainly for gaming and the occasional edit so I don't know if intel would be worth it, I need to go on my friends intel computer and compare it.
AMD Vs Intel comparison (Real world events not just "what the benchmarks say")
I would like to know what is the massive difference that intel offers that makes me spend a lot more to buy it. I have been thinking of intel for a while now but in my opinion I do not think it is worth it. I know intel is better I am not suggesting AMD is, but I think AMD products offer more for the price than compared to a product of intel for the same price. So anyway back to the point, what does intel have over AMD?
(mainly use my PC for gaming, and the occasional editing and not exactly heavy editing).
I tend to just ignore this AMD vs Intel drivel that seems to pop up here every other week or so, but after seeing as much of it as I can stomach, I tend to think ignorance is partially to blame, and ignorance defined, meaning, simply unaware, (not a direct insult), so here's My 2 Cents!
Why do you think anyone really cares whether you buy Intel or AMD?
It is your money, spend it how you like since you want benchmarks excluded, there's really no argument anyway!
Your title seems to come across as down to real world events, but you do not clarify what real world events are, or how they are measured.
So for the record, my personal reasoning for buying Intel, is the overclock ability of the Intel unlocked multiplier CPU!
Maybe I am just addicted to overclocking and I'll gladly admit that openly, and guess where the initial overclocking addiction came from?, AMD!
Back in the day when AMD was actually the King of the Hill with the releases of the Sledgehammer, Clawhammer, San Diego, and Toledo core CPUs!
When it came to overclocking with the original FX57 and the Dual Core FX60, which by the way were $1,000.00 range CPUs when first released, but they had unlocked multipliers.
AMD was the King back then, and overclocking got them there, they stood on the backs of the overclocking community to reach their levels of glory!
Ahh the good ole days, when we used the pencil trick to overclock the AMD Thunderbird! (Probably before your time)
The overclocking community back then was very much responsible for AMDs rise to glory, which enticed many to try their hand at overclocking just to see if they could do it, and we were happy and elated for the simple mhz crumbs of increase that AMD was allowing us to get.
Because back in that day Intel was giving away absolutely nothing, you pretty much got exactly what you paid for and any overclocking was barely noticeable.
But then unfortunately AMD reveled too long in their victory over Intel, and the sleeping Dragon released the overclockable Core 2 Duo, and suddenly AMD was King no more!
Well the loyal AMD servants waited, and waited, and waited, for the once great AMD to release some new secret weapon to rise to the pinnacle of speed and regain it's lost overclocking Crown.
However sadly to us overclocking AMD loyalists that day never came, and AMD abandoned the overclocking community that got them where they were and forgot about them and decided to pursue the server business end of computing with their Opterons.
Many of us loyally waited and waited for AMD to rise from the ashes like a Phoenix, but it just did not happen, and we saw the Intel overclocking train pull further, and further, and further away?
So some of us decided to jump ship and go Intel for our overclocking hopes and have not the first time been dissatisfied.
AMD realized they were loosing some of the foundation they stood on and began flooding the market with unlocked multiplier CPUs in an attempt to get back what they had lost, but the trinkets they released were not enough to get back the loyalty they lost.
But AMD did one thing good by releasing their unlocked trinkets, for Intel to stay competitive they must also release their CPUs with an unlocked option, and the Intel overclocking train kept pulling away from AMD.
So now I happily run my Intel 3770K at 5ghz everyday and I like running 5ghz every single day rock solid, and I've been running a 5ghz rock solid overclock now coming up on 3 years!
With 3 different Intel CPUs, the first 5ghz was the 2500K, and the next 5ghz was the 2700K, and now the 3770K confirmed by the CPU-Z validation in the sig.
I also like the fact that Intel can run whatever memory speed you throw at it with the CPU overclocked as high as 5ghz, even way past the CPUs designed memory speed specifications.
Overclocking wise it would be nice if AMD could do that, but from the results I see the AMD users reaching, high memory speed and high CPU multipliers like 25x can be an be an overclocking limitation.
That's so sad!
Enjoy your AMD Trinket!
Yeah I guess, what I mean is by is there an actual difference while playing a game. How much of a difference, if the AMD is getting an average of 65+ than that's good enough for me, I just mean at the end of the day graphs are graphs but when you sit down and play a game you just want to have a good experience not compare which are better. Even though I asked what is better, I am just asking what would give me a better experience but how much of a difference and would it be worth it. I do kinda want to go intel that is the reason why I asked, but I think I may stick with amd for a couple of months as I already bought a new amd cpu so I would lose out on even more money!
Yeah I guess, what I mean is by is there an actual difference while playing a game. How much of a difference, if the AMD is getting an average of 65+ than that's good enough for me, I just mean at the end of the day graphs are graphs but when you sit down and play a game you just want to have a good experience not compare which are better. Even though I asked what is better, I am just asking what would give me a better experience but how much of a difference and would it be worth it. I do kinda want to go intel that is the reason why I asked, but I think I may stick with amd for a couple of months as I already bought a new amd cpu so I would lose out on even more money!
When you ask, " is there an actual difference while playing a game", how do you expect to get a useable answer without any benchmarks, without proof and facts to back claims it is just someones opinion.
Anyone can have an opinion and be 100% wrong!
Regarding you said "when you sit down and play a game you just want to have a good experience not compare which are better."
That doesn't make any sense, I've never played a game wondering whether what I was using was good enough because the gaming experience is what matters, and as long as you can play it smoothly, that's what matters to me whether it is AMD or Intel is totally irrelevant.
There are many PC gaming factors that matter to me that all work together to create the illusion of actually being there as I am a First Person Shooter fan, and for the experience to be smooth and fast the key elements are #1, a fast responsive monitor.
No matter the power you have in your CPU/GPU combination if your monitor is slow, your gaming is slow, blurry, and the fast response is gone!
CPU wise as I've already stated has to be capable enough to handle your graphics card without bottle necking the performance, so if that's the case even with your AMD CPU, then it's all on the GPU for a major amount of games.
However then comes the eye candy (High end graphics settings), and how much is your GPU actually able to handle vs the games you're playing, and does the game rely on the CPU for anything like PhysX?
I still play some old favorite games that are DX9 and as powerful as my machine is, I run into problems with those older games and it's really because the GPU is just too powerful to efficiently drop back to that lower level of DX9 graphics.
In most all the modern day DX11 games I usually just totally max the graphics settings out and play the game and look for problems to arise and if none arise play it set like that.
But there are PC gaming features that run better on a AMD GPU than an Nvidia GPU and vice versa, so you have to experiment with the settings and see what runs best.
If you are happy with your AMD and it is doing all you need it to do, then just enjoy it, you probably should not have even started this thread excluding benchmarks, if you were 100% happy with what you have.
Excluding benchmarks from the AMD vs Intel comparison kinda points towards you already knowing where your CPU falls in that category, and you're possibly curious about the future?
So if PC Gaming is all you care about doing, just do it and enjoy it, and when the day comes your setup falls short of what you expect, then investigate what to replace to get it back to your enjoyment level.
(Probably before your time)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram