Amd vs Intel
- Thread starter qwase0123
- Start date
Gamer Cat
Reputable
- May 11, 2015
- 313
- 0
- 4,960
More cores are usually not better. Intel is the way to go right now; they have been beating AMD for... I do not remember how long - I believe it was like two years in a row... Or three. I don't quite remember.
Anyway, Intel is the way to go most of the time, but what is the specific model of both AMD and Intel?
Anyway, Intel is the way to go most of the time, but what is the specific model of both AMD and Intel?
Intel CPU's have much faster performance on a single core, clock for clock. An AMD system has to be clocked a lot higher to match the performance on a single core. So when a game doesn't need more than 4 cores, the Intel system is going to pull ahead easily. When a program is well threaded, and uses all 6 cores of that AMD system, then things can get a lot closer.
Gamer Cat
Reputable
- May 11, 2015
- 313
- 0
- 4,960
- May 27, 2010
- 25,841
- 4,188
- 139,340
AMD AM3+ is basically a 5 year old design. Been about three release of the FX series chips. Early ones were fairly abyssmal, second generation were competitive price wise, third release was mostly power efficiency.
Core count is not a good comparison. On the FX series AMD uses dual core packages that share resources. So effectively 6 core = 3 real cores in terms of cache, ALU, etc.
Instructions per cycle and power efficiency. Intel wins hands down. So that 3.2Ghz Intel chip is faster then the FX running at 4.0Ghz.
AMD cheaper platform, older tech (motherboards lack things like M.2, NVMe, SataExpress, etc), but all are capable of overclocking.
Intel, more expensive, newer technology, faster for gaming, and their mid-range chips compete well with AMDs best chips. Overclocking only on high end chips and boards.
Core count is not a good comparison. On the FX series AMD uses dual core packages that share resources. So effectively 6 core = 3 real cores in terms of cache, ALU, etc.
Instructions per cycle and power efficiency. Intel wins hands down. So that 3.2Ghz Intel chip is faster then the FX running at 4.0Ghz.
AMD cheaper platform, older tech (motherboards lack things like M.2, NVMe, SataExpress, etc), but all are capable of overclocking.
Intel, more expensive, newer technology, faster for gaming, and their mid-range chips compete well with AMDs best chips. Overclocking only on high end chips and boards.
compare the benchmark
on single core performance intel is faster
on all cores performance intel is faster
and not only frequency depend the performance
performance is depend on the microarchitecture as well
so in other words, intel has a better microarchitecture
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4460-vs-AMD-FX-6300
on single core performance intel is faster
on all cores performance intel is faster
and not only frequency depend the performance
performance is depend on the microarchitecture as well
so in other words, intel has a better microarchitecture
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4460-vs-AMD-FX-6300
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Buying a used card, what should I look for before purchase?- Started by MatthewJamess
- Replies: 8
-
Question Download speed is slow on only my PC - please help!- Started by Ograsmium
- Replies: 16
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram