BuckyJunior :
I would recommend AMD for you because of the following reasons:
1. It seems you run many programs at one time. Let's say you are using a four-core CPU trying to run all that. It would be VERY slow..
Did you read what I wrote ? ... I am running all those applications and nothing is slow.
One process on one program would have to finish before another process can start on another program, so you would be limited to running four programs/processes on a four core CPU. With an eight-core processor, you have the ability to run eight processes/programs at one time, therefore increasing efficiency, and your maximum workload. AMD uses physical cores whereas Intel may develop a processor that has four cores, but uses hyperthreading, which basically causes the processor to think it has double the amount of physical cores it has, and is nowhere near as good as having eight true physical cores. The only Intel CPUs that have eight cores cost thousands of dollars, and no one is going to spend that much money for consumer use.
2. You have made an incorrect assumption here.
a. I can control what programs use how many cores, assigning from 1-8 cores to any process.
b. If your assumption is true, that each program / excutable is assigned a core, then how the heck was I able to run 10 applications ? How is the PC running between 100 and 150+ *.exe's at one time ?
c. With two hands, two eyes and one brain, I am only physically able to provide input to one program at a time. So right now my PC is "running" 109 processes. I don't need 109 cores. My refrigerator is on, but it only uses electricity when the temp drops and needs to turn the compressor on. My backup program is running, but until 4:00 pm, it isn't doing anything. When it does kick up, f other cores are busy, it will start to do it's thing **in the background**. And if I issue a CPU intensive command in AutoCAD, the backup program will release the CPU if needed, let AutoCAD do it's thing, and then the backup will be allowed CPU time again.
d) Looking at Task Manager again, just now:
System idle Time = 98%
FireFox = 02
AutoCAD = 00
Other 106 Processes = 00
Every once and a while one of the other processes will show 01 for a half sec and drop back to 0. I read an article some years back in Professional Service Management Journal where they studied people at work and observed that:
Blue Collar Workers actually were "working" on average 55% of the time (4.4 hrs per 8 hour day)
White Collar Workers actually were "working" on average 35% of the time (2.8 hrs per 8 hour day)
I was a bit shocked, but your PC works a lot less. The only time a CPU is stressed is when it does something that takes a long time and will typically use 2-3 cores unless you set the affinity for the program to use more....that still leaves plenty of cores to do other tasks. The problem for your argument is .... very, very few programs are multithreaded.
Gaming with AMD will get you 60 FPS. Intel has better performance per core. So, that means if a game is optimized to use four cores, a four-core Intel processor would perform better than an eight-core AMD processor, but AMD would still perform well.
This isn't real... again, open task manager and see how many cores are used in gaming. I have experimented heavily with this and leaving everything at default, I got 80 fps... using a 2nd I got 83, adding a 3rd, no benefit.
I could understand if things had a changed recently but they haven't; have you ever looked at any fps comparisons ?
Here's the lowly 4430 (4 cores) match up with the 8320E (8 cores)... It can't even catch the 4430 when the 8320E id OCd to 4.6 Ghz
http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/page6.html
Let's say Intel has a four core processor, and you're comparing it to an eight-core AMD processor. Intel's processor would perform better with the four cores that it has because it doesn't have to spread the power between eight cores, it only has to spread the power between four. So, basically the difference between AMD and Intel is AMD has more, less powerful cores, and Intel has less, but more powerful cores. Performance of the processor all comes down to how many cores the game uses. In the future, when games use more cores, AMD would match, or out perform Intel if you were to compare the products available present time. .
FPS is primarily determined by the GFX card but when CPU does matter, it does not favor AMD. I don't know where you got this idea that games go out and grab 4 or 5 cores... most are single threaded and those that do might benefit from 2 but not much after that... We have just not seen any evidence of what you describe or any fps "wins" for AMD.
I am really not interested in "In the future ..." comments. Every time a new product was about to arrive it's the same story ... "Mantle is gonna change everything" ... it didn't, had no impact at all. "[insert latest generation CPU] is gonna change everything".... again, we just we have not seen that.
Intel is only practical if you are striving for FPS levels way above 100 In your case I would recommend AMD. The reason why is because you run programs in the background while gaming, and I assume you are aiming for 60 FPS
You really need to read up a bit. Again, my primary application is AutoCAD and Intel / nVidia rule here. Every action I undertake in AutoCAD is almost instantaneous. The fact that I have 9 programs running ***in the background** is meaningless as I am not entering commands in those programs when using AutoCAD. The fact that you think AMD will give me more cores for AutoCAD is also meaningless as it's is a single threaded application
From AutoDesk Site
To fully benefit from multi-core processors, you need to use multi-threaded software; AutoCAD is predominantly a single-threaded application. AutoCAD only supports multi-core technology in specific areas of the product, including:
2D regeneration
MentalRay rendering
.
Those two items are not something we have ever done in 26 years of practice... If I wanted to "render" something, that's the kind of thing that I would issue the command, leave the office and look at it in the morning. The same is true for video editing, something that really likes more cores, but the lowest price you going to get to is about $1000 with AMD build.
Please remember, this article is geared towards someone who wants a budget build [AMD] computer system for video editing and keep the price at $1000. These systems will not be as fast as a system that is built around a higher end Intel CPU. But, then again these systems will not cost anywhere near as much either.
And, no... I don't have any games that run 60 FPS... the lowest is Witcher, 3 that runs 80 -100.
As I said before, and I see bootcher has echoed in his post, AMD just doesn't have a "horse in the race" at $850 and up. But, as it's been about 7 years since anyone asked us for a build below $1,000, we just haven't gone there.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram