FX8350 vs i7 6700k NO overclocking

Distance03

Commendable
May 27, 2016
52
0
1,630
Please don't try to convince me to overclock in your answer. Been there, done that, I'm only interested in how these CPUs perform against each other stock.

The FX-8350 is stock at 4.2GHz while the i7 6700k is at 4.0GHz... So I'm a layman to CPUs, doesn't the high the GHz mean the faster the CPU?

Why do people lord the Intel processor over other peoples' heads?

what is that CPU like if you're NOT into over clocking??
 
Solution
No, GHz means next to nothing unless you are comparing two identical processors. A 6700k at 4GHz vs a 6700k at 4.2 is one thing, in this case however, clock speeds mean nothing.
Intel processors do carry a superior architecture when compared to their AMD counterparts. AMD processors have weaker single core performance, so while the processor is running faster it still can not keep up with the slower, yet more powerful cores of the 6700k.
No, GHz means next to nothing unless you are comparing two identical processors. A 6700k at 4GHz vs a 6700k at 4.2 is one thing, in this case however, clock speeds mean nothing.
Intel processors do carry a superior architecture when compared to their AMD counterparts. AMD processors have weaker single core performance, so while the processor is running faster it still can not keep up with the slower, yet more powerful cores of the 6700k.
 
Solution
The phase everyone here is dancing around is Instructions per Clock or IPC for short. Intel is more efficient in that on the machine instruction level, Intel takes fewer clock cycles to complete an instruction. So while an AMD CPU with a higher clockspeed has more cycles per second, it takes more cycles to complete nearly all the instructions (in the X86 & X64 instruction set), some instructions by a significant amount. This translates to more efficiency.

Intel was in the same boat when AMD released the Athlon 64 and Intel was on the NetBurst (NetBust) architecture. Intel had as high or higher clock speeds on their Pentium 4's as they have now with their newest Core i series CPU's, but NetBurst was so inefficient that AMD's Athlon 64 could beat it in nearly every metric at 2/3rds the clockspeed.
 
D

Deleted member 217926

Guest


And for the non geek among us that translates to Intel having a superior product constantly since 2006 when Core2 was released. ;) The lead is so great today that an i3 competes with or beats the FX 8xxx series in most gaming scenarios.
 

gonf

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2008
300
0
18,860
the I7 will be faster. and here is the reason why.

let explain it in easier way by giving you example.
let say CPU are train and the Ghz are the speed they move.
so a 42 km/h amd train vs a 40km/h i7 train it sure look like AMD is running faster.
but what we want to know is how much work (load) can they both carry from point a to b given the same distant and time.
in AMD the train can only carry item in 1 size (512 for example) and in Intel train they can fit in any size they need.
so let say if the both train have 10 cartage and each cartage size is 700.
and let say the total distant they need to go is 80km.
so the AMD going 42 km/h it will take 1.9 hrs to get 512x10 load from point a to b (each cartage can only carry 1x512size item.
and the Intel with 40km/h it will take 2 hrs to get from point a to b but the load is 700 caz they can fit item with different size into cartage. (let say they can put 512+128+32+16+8+4 into each train.)

this is just a very simple explanation why the intel i7 get more work done than the AMD FX even with the FX having a higher clock speed.

That is how "1" core work.

so now you must be thinking
Wait. doesn't AMD have 8 core "8 x Train" and Intel only have 4 core "4 x Train"? so shouldn't that make the different back?
in theory it should. but the thing is most of the program (mostly games) today doesn't uses all cores or most of them only uses 1 cores.
so that is the reason you hear a lot of people saying Intel have the best single thread performance.

example
the single thread = you only have 1 train track
and multi thread = you have more than 1 train track

and that is the reason why AMD make such a big deal on the DX12. caz DX12 should make games run with multi thread there for it helps AMD.
 

angelo143

Commendable
May 28, 2016
115
0
1,710
Don't consider buying an AMD CPU since they just trying to tell that ghz matters more than the architecture . No this is wrong ,for example if u have a 5ghz chip with 50nm architecture and a 3 ghz chip with 20nm architecture the second one wins in every way. Architecture goes first .because the number of transistors matter the closer to each other the more they will fit .
 
The distance on the lithography is not the same thing as architecture.
AMD never tried to convince anyone that GHz=Performance. They do run their processors at such high speeds because they have to in order to make any meaningful amounts of performance with their architecture.
 
The trouble is clock speed has been used in the past as marketing to differentiate performance. Back when there was no real metric clock speed became the yardstick by which performance was measured and so it stuck. Hard to shake off old habits. That's why amd started using their performance index and had things like the athlon 3200+ despite being only 2ghz. 2ghz didn't sound very fast so they tried to equate it to the same speed as a p4 I believe it was. They called it a 'performance rating' or PR.

The whole inspiration for that was the fact that clock speed was the measure people looked at for performance. As others have said, you can't compare speed/frequency of cpu's from different manufacturer or different families. 3ghz on a 2nd gen i5 (like a 2500k) isn't the same as 3ghz on a 6th gen 6600k because efficiency and technology improved. Albeit the increase isn't as large as the difference between intel/amd but they still don't equate.

Using speed to compare two processors would be effective if comparing an i5 6400 and i5 6600k, both from intel, both 6th gen cpu's.