Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD vs Intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 14, 2012 12:16:40 AM

From what I have seen so far at least throught the search parameters ive been using it seems that AMD cpus are often as much as 50% cheaper than intel processors for the same if not, better specs. So im wondering why/what reason would you possibly buy an intel cpu. Is there something Intel has over AMD with their processors.

granted I have looked at more amd processors than intel but mainly b/c intels cpu nomenclature is very hapazard while AMD keeps their naming system orderly, imo.

More about : amd intel

a c 850 à CPUs
a c 330 À AMD
a c 140 å Intel
April 14, 2012 12:19:32 AM

It is called performance! Intel currently is more powerful than AMD! You can as well get a $120 Intel CPU that competes with $120 AMD.
This chart will give you an indication on difference in gaming performance http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
Score
0
Related resources
April 14, 2012 3:25:22 AM

I know a 120 would likely be something from the Phenom family in AMD; i havent a clue what it would be for intel care to give some details?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 14, 2012 3:50:18 AM

qwertymatrix said:
I know a 120 would likely be something from the Phenom family in AMD; i havent a clue what it would be for intel care to give some details?



125 would be a 3.1 ghz i3-2100, 128 would be a 3.3 ghz i3-2120 which means in tomshardware level, 5/8 dollars on the 120 brings it up one tier.
Score
0
April 14, 2012 4:30:44 AM

The thing you're missing is the performance per clock cycle difference between the two. Consider an AMD chip vs. an Intel chip; say, the Phenom II 955 (3.2 GHz, 4 cores) vs. the Intel Core i5 2400 (3.1 GHz, 4 cores). Just looking at speed and core count, you'd expect the Phenom II to edge out the Core i5. However, even though they run at similar speeds and have the same number of cores, Intel's processor design is significantly better, so it gets more work done with each clock cycle. Here's a rough example: Say a 3.0 GHz AMD processor can do 10 units of work in 10 seconds; a 3.0 GHz Intel processor might be able to do 13-15 units of work in the same 10 seconds. Thus, even though the speeds are similar, Intel chips do more calculations with the same number of clock cycles.

Now, it used to be that the performance gap was small enough that Intel's high prices made AMD a good budget buy. However, the performance gap has gotten so significant between the two (again a rough example, but Intel chips may do 16-19 work units in the same time that AMD does 10) that Intel is worth it at every price bracket. Check out this article; in every price bracket Intel beats AMD in performance/dollar. AMD offers true quad-core chips at ~$120, but Intel's 2-core/4-thread chips beat it in all games and several benchmarks at similar prices (check out the Intel i3-2120)

Hopefully I've explained why processors with similar stats can have different performance, and why Intel is dominating the market right now. AMD does still have a place in the desktop world, namely people on a budget who need a lot of physical cores to do audio/video work, but Intel is the king for gaming and higher-end computers nowadays.
Score
0
a c 112 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 14, 2012 4:38:30 AM

well where ever you have been looking you have been reading it wrong. amd dont offer the same specs for less money. there cheaper because they cant compete in performance. the cpus that can compete against intel are actually slightly more expensive...
take the amd 4100 bulldozer for instance it has 4 cores and is a direct competitor to the intel 2100 the 2100 will beat the 4100 in most cases even when it comes to multi threading. but the 4100 is about 10% more expensive...

like i said amd are only cheaper because they cant really compete. they have to give higher clock speeds on x2 the cores just to keep up...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2012 4:52:17 AM

10% more expensive? .. rofl highst priced 4100 is 120? Cheapest $99. How is that more expensive than $125?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2012 6:46:32 AM

Currently the best performance to price ratio holder is i7-2600k selling for $199 (Micro Centre pick up only).
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2012 6:55:22 AM

Pyree said:
Currently the best performance to price ratio holder is i7-2600k selling for $199 (Micro Centre pick up only).

that is a great deal on that cpu, cheapest I have ever seen it. was just curious going through their stores, its out of stock in nearly all locations (can get one in kansas city)
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2012 7:24:51 AM

i don't know what's the matter with ya but you should not post things like intel vs amd or nvidia vs ati.this gives birth to a lot of useless debates.tell us your needs and budget,we will let you know the best product that suits you.
Score
0
April 15, 2012 6:16:06 AM

thank you PurpleHayes that has been the most useful post ive gotten so far, clarifies for me why people say Intel has better performance.

now im in the process of buidling a new system right now (trying to keep things down to earth @ below $1000) and im looking for a minimum of quad core @ 3.2 Ghz which if im right would be the AMD Phenom and FX series and for intel the i5 and i7 species.

I found this site --> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html# and I can see the FX 8xxx series is right on par with the i7 , granted i understand a little more that it takes 2x as many cores to achieve this performance could there be some added usefulness of being able to have those extra cores to use for other tasks when multitasking?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a c 114 À AMD
a b å Intel
April 25, 2012 9:14:11 PM

qwertymatrix said:
thank you PurpleHayes that has been the most useful post ive gotten so far, clarifies for me why people say Intel has better performance.

now im in the process of buidling a new system right now (trying to keep things down to earth @ below $1000) and im looking for a minimum of quad core @ 3.2 Ghz which if im right would be the AMD Phenom and FX series and for intel the i5 and i7 species.

I found this site --> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html# and I can see the FX 8xxx series is right on par with the i7 , granted i understand a little more that it takes 2x as many cores to achieve this performance could there be some added usefulness of being able to have those extra cores to use for other tasks when multitasking?

Here's the problem with your logic. You state that you want at MINIMUM a 3.2GHz Quad-Core. Well, that means you're focused on core count and clock speed instead of actual performance. I'm sure that VIA could make a Quad-Core 3.2GHz CPU, but it wouldn't even be as fast as a Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz. As much as I don't like Intel and avoid it like the plague (by reason of principle, not merit), Intel's desktop CPUs are a better buy than the AMD CPUs unless you already have an AM2+, AM3 or AM3+ motherboard that only requires a CPU change. You seem to be purchasing on the premise that GHz actually has a lot of meaning, it doesn't. The clock speed (GHz) is only used to compare two otherwise identical CPUs, like the Phenom II X4 940 3.0GHz and 955 3.2GHz. The speed in GHz is completely irrelevant when comparing to a completely different architecture like SB or IB.
Score
0
April 25, 2012 9:48:00 PM

qwertymatrix said:
thank you PurpleHayes that has been the most useful post ive gotten so far, clarifies for me why people say Intel has better performance.

now im in the process of buidling a new system right now (trying to keep things down to earth @ below $1000) and im looking for a minimum of quad core @ 3.2 Ghz which if im right would be the AMD Phenom and FX series and for intel the i5 and i7 species.

I found this site --> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html# and I can see the FX 8xxx series is right on par with the i7 , granted i understand a little more that it takes 2x as many cores to achieve this performance could there be some added usefulness of being able to have those extra cores to use for other tasks when multitasking?



Apparently, PassMark is not really a good comparison tool and is not to be trusted (I don't know why exactly, something to do with purely "synthetic" benching).

If you consider the majority of benchmarks (besides PassMark) you will note that the FX 8XXX is not "right on par" with the Sandy Bridge i7; it is somewhere between the i5 and i7, as its price reflects, indeed, the lower-priced i5-2500K even matches it in some things, and pretty much beats it in most gaming. That is why AMD is no longer the "best bang for your buck", even though many still repeat that mantra.

Also note that the FX-8xxx does not behave quite like a true octo-core, but it does offer comparable or better performance relative to the i5 and i7, but only in an extreme minority of heavily multi-threaded apps.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 25, 2012 11:27:27 PM

Avro Arrow said:
Here's the problem with your logic. You state that you want at MINIMUM a 3.2GHz Quad-Core. Well, that means you're focused on core count and clock speed instead of actual performance. I'm sure that VIA could make a Quad-Core 3.2GHz CPU, but it wouldn't even be as fast as a Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz. As much as I don't like Intel and avoid it like the plague (by reason of principle, not merit), Intel's desktop CPUs are a better buy than the AMD CPUs unless you already have an AM2+, AM3 or AM3+ motherboard that only requires a CPU change. You seem to be purchasing on the premise that GHz actually has a lot of meaning, it doesn't. The clock speed (GHz) is only used to compare two otherwise identical CPUs, like the Phenom II X4 940 3.0GHz and 955 3.2GHz. The speed in GHz is completely irrelevant when comparing to a completely different architecture like SB or IB.


^^+1, like the plague lol.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 7:02:15 AM

Who can resist taking part in the great AMD vs Intel debate?! It's one of those things that keeps me going. Anyway, here are my latest thoughts:

I've used both brands, and think that they each have their strengths and weaknesses. Intel offers better performance, particularly at the high-end of the spectrum; while AMD generally offers "more bang for the buck". My own circumstances are such that "bang for the buck" has to take precedence over absolute performance. My current system is a $435 HP notebook running an AMD A6-3420M chip; and I'm quite pleased with its performance.

Almost all of the CPU reviews seem to focus on 3D gamers, but I don't know any. Most of the people I know have a computer, but none of them needs a high-end system; and only a few would derive much benefit from having one. I probably put my computer through more hoops than anyone else I personally know. I run Windows 7 Ultimate with XP Mode installed, do a lot of work in Photoshop, and usually have LOTS of apps running simultaneously. Yet my cheapo computer handles all of that quite easily. If I did video editing or CAD/CAM work, I'd probably need a faster chip, more memory, and a faster hard drive; but, even then, I'd consider an AMD-based system.

One factor I've never seen mentioned in any of the price-performance comparisons is that AMD chips have a built-in memory controller, while Intel chips need to have a separate controller on the motherboard. So it seems likely that, all other things (including CPU cost) being equal, an AMD-based system will need a cheaper motherboard, and will therefore cost a little less. At any rate, AMD-based notebooks are usually priced $46-$60 less than comparable Intel-based products, and generally have superior graphics.

I confess to having a soft spot in my heart (and maybe my head) for AMD, for two reasons: 1) Without AMD, we'd probably all be paying at least $1000 for a chip; and 2) I have great personal admiration for Jerry Sanders, whom I consider one of the great pioneers of personal computing.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 7, 2012 10:26:06 AM

What can be done on a Intel in 1m23s, will likely take 1m24s on a AMD chip...truely life altering.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 7, 2012 11:19:23 AM

dugger69 said:
One factor I've never seen mentioned in any of the price-performance comparisons is that AMD chips have a built-in memory controller, while Intel chips need to have a separate controller on the motherboard.

Not any more since Nehalem.

I think if the CPU do the job for you, then it's good for you, and good enough for me. It is overly hard to persuade others to join your club (I've tried).
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
June 7, 2012 1:43:25 PM

sarinaide said:
What can be done on a Intel in 1m23s, will likely take 1m24s on a AMD chip...truely life altering.

LOL. Seriously, both have strengths and weaknesses.

And I agree, if AMD goes, Intel will be just like Microsoft, charging way too much for overrated products, unfortunately, it looks like thats going to happen.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 7, 2012 4:41:27 PM

best short answer,
INTEL cpu's are alot better than AMD.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 5:50:32 PM

Pyree said:
Not any more since Nehalem.

I think if the CPU do the job for you, then it's good for you, and good enough for me. It is overly hard to persuade others to join your club (I've tried).


I think there are plenty of members of my club. All of the major corporations seem to belong to it, for instance.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
June 7, 2012 8:28:42 PM

xtreme5 said:
best short answer,
INTEL cpu's are alot better than AMD.

Actually, I wouldn't consider that to be a good answer at all.


"a lot better" at what? Gaming. Not really, since most games are GPU bound. Heavily threaded programs like video editing and CAD? Not really there either. How about onboard graphics? Llano destroys even Intel's brand new Ivy Bridge HD4000. Define "a lot better".

We can do it like the blind taste-tests they do for Pepsi vs. Coke. Fact is, benchmarks aside, hypothetically, if I set you down to play a game on 2 different computers lets say a GTX 590 video card, and one with an 8150 FX CPU and the other with the same card and a 2500K CPU, without any indication of which system is which, I wish you luck picking out which one is the Intel rig.

I've already sort of played this game with my boyfriend by letting him put some of his games on my rig. Skyrim, Metro 2033, and WOW. His rig is an i5-2400 with a GTX 460.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 7:33:20 AM

haha! Leave on board graphic's no one intend to use it, everyone using dedicated card, actually i'm talking about performance not graphic's think about AMD fx-8150 bottlenecking the 2 gtx 590 where as quad intel doesn't 2500k every AMD cpu bottleneck 2 gfx card.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 10:29:41 AM

Hmm running a trifire setup, on the Thuban BF3 ultra in eyefinity hits about 70-85FPS at stock clocks, and maxed to the highest possible settings. The 2700K managed about 80-100 FPS, its the hardest strain to put on a system but both game really well. On single monitor setups Thuban, FX 8XXX and SB/IB will hit the 120FPS limiter.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
June 8, 2012 11:20:14 AM

xtreme5 said:
haha! Leave on board graphic's no one intend to use it, everyone using dedicated card, actually i'm talking about performance not graphic's think about AMD fx-8150 bottlenecking the 2 gtx 590 where as quad intel doesn't 2500k every AMD cpu bottleneck 2 gfx card.


Perhaps you should have thought it out more thoroughly before opening your mouth huh? No offense, just some friendly advice.

Parroting the opinions of Don Woligroski will only get you so far. You didn't specify anything, you made a general statement that had no specifics, and nothing to back it up.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 11:41:33 AM

And so dies anther of those vs debates that rarely ever last more than 10 posts before the gloves come off.

I'll close it before someone loses an eye ... or we get a complaint.

:) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 11:42:43 AM

This topic has been closed by REYNOD
Score
0
!