Intel vs AMD

Hello, Everyone
I'm a AMD kind of guy, they have never given me any problems. I was just wondering does AMD have equals Intel's I3, I5, and, I7.


Thank you, Kelley

not really. AMD's line up is about cores cores cores.

everything amd has is like a celeron with more cores.

As a consumer, it's in your best interest to favor what gives you the best value. Right now, Intel gives better value for desktop CPUs.

I'll also add that AMD will price Piledriver accordingly. Meaning it will be priced lower than Intel IB CPUs because of the performance difference. That makes a good value oriented CPU. Also, for most games as long as the CPU is fast enough gaming performance will not suffer unless the game itself is both CPU and GPU dependent. Skyrim is an example of a game who's overall performance depends on both CPU and GPU.

FX4100 -i3
4 cores vs 2 cores with hyperthreading
FX6100 -i5
6 cores vs 4 cores
FX8100 -i7
8 cores vs 4 cores with hyperthreading

thats the way AMD has placed their products. The performance is varying, AMD usually offers more threaded performance and intel more single threaded performance but AMD's lineup is somewhat lacking in performance and thus are priced lower than the intel line.

Here are some more benchmarks for your comparing pleasure. Pretty interesting.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

The big issue is the difference in archtecture vs program requirements. Some programs want as much information as they can get, while others want it as fast as possible. At stock, amd fx cpus deliver on the first option, but are plagued with a slow cache latency, wich cripples the scond scenario.

Reducing that problem is the only true way to overclock bd chips. Sure you can just up the multiplier, but the cache is still slow. Bd id very capable of high fsb speeds and that alone helps address the issue with latencies.

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/ [...] p?t=989971

This guy played with nearly every setting and benched as much as he could, and the results are very impressive and at the same time, has some suprising results.

Not at my computer right now, but scroll down to the htt+multi fsb change. Cinebench increased 27% from a 25% increase in only the fsb, both running at 4.5ghz, 3d marks, still 17% higher than stock fsb.

I will say I did a cinebench test today and got 7.60 from my 8120.

Stock amd takes a beating, but if you eliminate the worst aspects of the cpu, its pretty good.

If you are rendering, intel cpu's beat down amd cpu's.

That is audio/video compression, not rendering :S

sorry they are too different from each other as every one knew that intel has better performance as compared to AMD cpu's, intel sany bridge cpu's are still unbeatable right now!
I'm not a fan of intel or amd i'm telling the main difference of performance as both brands are good for gaming but intel is more better for hardcore gaming particularly 2500k the favorite choice of everyone. From amd i love amd phenom ii x4 980 it's really good for gaming too but not as much of intel.
Intel cpu's are expensive but excellent performance producing.
Amd are cheaper but good performance producing.
In the i love both brands.

might want to check the review here before saying that



Last I checked, photoshop was for photo editing.

If your CPU i fast enough that it isn't bottlenecking your system, then any frame rate over 60 fps is just wasted on the average gamer. If you can't get 60 fps, and the first condition is met, then your problem is your GPU, not your CPU.

If the game doesn't need more than 2 cores anyway, then an i3 2100 would be sufficient if gaming was the only criteria. Anything more would be a waste, right?

The majority of the games coming out now are nothing more than console ports, anyway. Sure, we may still see a few games that challenge the current hardware, but most of the game sales are now driven by the XBox 360 or the PS3, and last I checked, console hardware was several years behind the performance curve.

It seems many people missed the announcement AMD made recently. They have given up on competing with Intel for the desktop market, in essence. I have used many AMD processors in the past but only because they represented good value. It now appears that even AMD agrees that their desktop processors are not a good value. End of story for me.