Why intel is better than AMD in terms of performance?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
P

PreevBR

Commendable
Feb 22, 2016
163
0
1,710
I see lots of people saying that AMD needs overclock to beat Intel, but I was wondering here, why an i5 with lower clock than a FX-4300 with same amount of cores can be faster?
Some people said to me that is caused because of Intel way to build things being optimized, doing more things per cycle while AMD just focus on more cores, but main question still is, with same nm/GHz and core count, they should be equal no?
 
Solution
Supernova1138
Intel has a much more efficient architecture that allows their cores to do more work for each clock cycle compared to AMD. As a result, Intel's cores are about 40 to 50% faster than AMD's and will be about that much faster when looking at an AMD CPU at similar clockspeed and core count.

Another factor is AMD's current architecture has shared resources that can slow things down for them, AMD pairs two cores into a module which has two integer cores and one floating point unit. Intel has 1 integer core to each floating point unit and no resource sharing. As such, an FX 8350 will only have 4 floating point units, and is effectively a quad core CPU as far as floating point math goes, while somthing like the FX 4300 is a dual core when...
Sort by date Sort by votes
P

PreevBR

Commendable
Feb 22, 2016
163
0
1,710


I understand that, but I mean, Intel i5 with 4 cores each core at 2.6 GHz can even beat a FX4300 with same core count, at 3.4GHz each core on almost any games, which is quite hard to understand...

My opinion is that Intel has better logic processing, like processor is told to add 2+2, instead of using 4 cycles to add one by one it would use just one cycle for adding these numbers together, but its just a theory I think...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Supernova1138

Supernova1138

Illustrious
Mar 22, 2011
5,340
54
37,690
Intel has a much more efficient architecture that allows their cores to do more work for each clock cycle compared to AMD. As a result, Intel's cores are about 40 to 50% faster than AMD's and will be about that much faster when looking at an AMD CPU at similar clockspeed and core count.

Another factor is AMD's current architecture has shared resources that can slow things down for them, AMD pairs two cores into a module which has two integer cores and one floating point unit. Intel has 1 integer core to each floating point unit and no resource sharing. As such, an FX 8350 will only have 4 floating point units, and is effectively a quad core CPU as far as floating point math goes, while somthing like the FX 4300 is a dual core when doing floating point math and an FX 6300 would be a three core CPU in floating point operations.

AMD's big problem, aside from not releasing any new high performance CPUs in more than three years is most software simply isn't written to work all that well with their architectural decisions. AMD tried to compensate for their poor per core performance by putting more integer cores onto the CPU, and that works well in certain tasks like video rendering, but it doesn't work so well in applications that primarily use one, two or three cores effectively like most games. Between an architecture that simply isn't designed to meet the needs of most consumer software and AMD not releasing anything truly new outside of low end, low powered products, AMD has fallen pretty far behind in terms of performance. Overclocking AMD's CPUs can help them stay somewhat competitive with a stock clocked Intel i5, but at the cost of generating a lot more heat and using a lot more power. It's why you won't see a lot of people recommend AMD processors anymore outside of extreme low budget gaming builds, and low budget rendering builds.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
cemerian

cemerian

Honorable
Jul 29, 2013
1,011
0
11,660
that is because per core ipc of intel chips skyrocketed with the launch of nehalem which is still faster clock/clock compared to anything amd has, and than sandy bridge widened the gap massively, after that each subsequent gen of intel cpu simply increased it by another 5-10%. what matters is not just clock speed and core count. Things like cache, io, imc and of course ipc (instructions per clock or cycle) and in that regard intel is around 50% faster than any amd product, so they can clock their chips lower and get more sku's with just different clock speeds. In generaly it all comes down to ipc
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
P

PreevBR

Commendable
Feb 22, 2016
163
0
1,710


Now I got it, Intel's better architecture is mostly because it uses no shared resources (Theres 1 cache memory for each core maybe?), and the AMD part is true, FX4300 is mostly likely a dual-core processor with hyperthreading from my understandings.
Thanks for the response :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Spectre694

Spectre694

Dignified
Feb 28, 2014
2,907
0
13,960
Supernova1138 hit it on the head I'm just adding a little here.

The micro-architecture (haswell, ivy bridge, zen, bulldozer etc.) of the CPU is massively important to performance. That is the way that the transistors are arranged physically can have a huge difference in the performance of the CPU. In this case the design of Intel's is simply far better than AMD's current design.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
P

PreevBR

Commendable
Feb 22, 2016
163
0
1,710


Thanks for the response, cemerian mentioned Nehalem arch. and with a quick search, I found that on this architecture, Intel found ways to increase performance by re-adjusting the space and memory, instead of using a shared cache, they started using separated caches for each core thus increasing speed (No core depending of another one)

Thanks very much for all the responses :)
 
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