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
23 answers Last reply
More about intel
  1. not really. AMD's line up is about cores cores cores.

    everything amd has is like a celeron with more cores.
  2. ^i lold so hard at your comment but i am ashamed to say you are right

    this is a heirarchy chart matching the game performance of different levels in both brands

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
  3. 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.
  4. At the moment AMD's best CPUs basically competes against Intel's older Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad CPUs.

    Piledriver is AMD's next CPU and if it can achieve a 10% performance increase over Phenom II / Bulldozer, then that would put Piledriver at approximately the same level of the 1st generation Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs. By then Intel will be releasing or have released Ivy Bridge; the 3rd generation Core i3/i5/i7 CPU.
  5. 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.
  6. xaira said:
    ^i lold so hard at your comment but i am ashamed to say you are right

    this is a heirarchy chart matching the game performance of different levels in both brands

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html


    Keep in mind: The chart is strictly concerned with CPUs from a gaming perspective.

    If the processor is fast enough to keep your system from being bottlenecked, then gaming performance is more readily affected by the graphics card(s) than by the CPU.

    Also keep in mind that any framerate over 60 is a waste on a monitor that has a 60 Hz refresh rate. If your system is able to keep your game running at 60 fps minimum, especially in lagged situations, than anything over that is gravy.
  7. 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.
  8. Are you in this for gaming? If so, Intel for sure. If not, AMD is very viable for soem productivity applications, especially on the low end.
  9. Here are some more benchmarks for your comparing pleasure. Pretty interesting.

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
  10. Thank you All for your answers
  11. 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/showthread.php?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.
  12. amd cpus from what ive seen do the job but no where near aswell as intel cpus. intel is just better overall in most cases,for a web surfing pc and all id say go with amd but if your gaming id go with something like a i5 2500k alot of potential there. amds bulldozer from the bench marks i seen doesnt match up to the i5 2500k at stock clock..this is a 8 core vs 4 core
  13. If you are rendering, intel cpu's beat down amd cpu's.
  14. amuffin said:
    If you are rendering, intel cpu's beat down amd cpu's.

    not really. The 6 core thubans gives near i7 performance for a lot cheaper in rendering, bulldozer actually does better than the i7 2600k.
  15. esrever said:
    not really. The 6 core thubans gives near i7 performance for a lot cheaper in rendering, bulldozer actually does better than the i7 2600k.
    http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/mac/reviews/AMD/Bulldozer/18.jpg

    That is audio/video compression, not rendering :S
  16. amuffin said:
    That is audio/video compression, not rendering :S
    sorry I always confuse rendering with video

  17. 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.
  18. amd may have higher benchmarks on some stuff but overall the 2500k decimates the fx 8150 and its cheaper off newegg,at least from every gameplay video ive seen of it. bulldozers got the power but no game or phot edidting that i know of can take advantage of 8 cores
  19. robthatguyx said:
    amd may have higher benchmarks on some stuff but overall the 2500k decimates the fx 8150 and its cheaper off newegg,at least from every gameplay video ive seen of it. bulldozers got the power but no game or phot edidting that i know of can take advantage of 8 cores

    might want to check the review here before saying that



    Last I checked, photoshop was for photo editing.
  20. ok, so it would still go like everyone here who uses intel says, it depends what you do, lets face it most people who want to buy a cpu are people who want to get into gaming. intel quadcores win in the catergory by far
  21. 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.
  22. Intel also provides better support for their chipsets, Amd currently is handicaped be $$$$ and by a shortage of personnel. AMD has also stated that it is reducing it's efforts in desktop CPUs which may also impact performance updates downstream. ie Intel is coming out with a RST driver that will support trim in a raid0 config.

    Look how long it took amd to develop a ahci Driver that worked well with SSDs. While all my desktops have AMD GPUs, their support for AMD GPUs in SB notebooks is behind Nvidia in terms of driver support to switch between IGP (2D apps) and dedicated GPU for 3D apps.
  23. big_yellek said:
    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



    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.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs AMD Intel