Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Why Intel>AMD?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel
  • AMD
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 9, 2012 12:27:04 AM

I have had this question for a long time. I just don't understand why Intel is considered better than AMD. AMD is faster and cheaper. So why does mostly everyone consider Intel so superior.

My point.
Why is this considered better than this...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

More about : intel amd

June 9, 2012 12:34:56 AM

Ideally the cpu's would be overclocked correct? Disabling the extra 2 cores on the 8150 and overclocking would surely make it much faster than the Intel i7. At the point I don't see how Intel would be faster.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 9, 2012 12:35:16 AM

AMD is faster than Intel..prove it, O wait you can't because that is compeatly wrong. Intel is faster at most programs the only time AMD beats out Intel CPU's is in a very few heavily threaded programs and even there it beats out Intel by only a small amount.
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 9, 2012 12:36:40 AM

xa376 said:
Ideally the cpu's would be overclocked correct? Disabling the extra 2 cores on the 8150 and overclocking would surely make it much faster than the Intel i7. At the point I don't see how Intel would be faster.


No even overclocked a Bulldozer will be beaten by a stock I5 or I7.
m
0
l
June 9, 2012 12:36:48 AM

So would this mean Intel chips are faster then specified or AMD is slower than specified?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2012 12:38:20 AM

Hi Rolli :) 

Thanks for that link...i didnt know that comparison benchie was there...

At least my 1100T BE beats the i cpus in some comparisons lol

All the best Brett :) 
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 9, 2012 12:38:47 AM

An Ivy Bridges or Sandy Bridges I3, I5 and I7 will be faster than Bulldozer.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 9, 2012 12:38:58 AM

GHZ on 1 architecture of a processor =/= GHZ on another. For example, a 3 ghz intel chip will never be the same as a 3 ghz AMD chip
m
0
l
June 9, 2012 12:39:51 AM

dudewitbow said:
GHZ on 1 architecture of a processor =/= GHZ on another. For example, a 3 ghz intel chip will never be the same as a 3 ghz AMD chip


Do you know of some kind of comparison chart?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2012 12:41:03 AM

rds1220 said:
No even overclocked a Bulldozer will be beaten by a stock I5 or I7.


Hi :) 

Umm I am not quite sure thats true..it depends how far the dozer is overclocked...and my 1100T BE overclocked can certainly beat a stock i5 ....and in some benchmarks an i7 AS WELL...

All the best Brett :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 9, 2012 12:41:39 AM

xa376 said:
Do you know of some kind of comparison chart?


the anandtech chart posted earlier has multiple cpus that can be changed for comparison. all of it i assume is at stock clocks
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 9, 2012 12:42:12 AM

dudewitbow said:
GHZ on 1 architecture of a processor =/= GHZ on another. For example, a 3 ghz intel chip will never be the same as a 3 ghz AMD chip


What are you talking about. Intel has a faster, more efficient micro architecture than AMD. A 3 GHZ Bulldozer will never be as fast as a 3 GHz AMD CPU. You can have an I5 at 3.3 GHz and a Bulldozer at 4.1 GHz and the lower clocked I5 will still beat out the Bulldozer.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2012 12:44:16 AM

xa376 said:
So would this mean Intel chips are faster then specified or AMD is slower than specified?


You are looking at it all wrong. clock speed doesn't mean anything. so no "speed" is specified. the architecture and actual perfomance is what matters. Clock.speed hasn't been an accurate measure of PC CPU performance for over a decade
m
0
l
a c 198 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 9, 2012 12:44:39 AM

Intel's Sandybridge architecture performs approximately 2.5 times as many integer operations per core per clock as AMD's Bulldozer architecture. This is why an 8 core Bulldozer loses out to a 4 core Sandybridge on a clock-for-clock comparison
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 9, 2012 12:44:40 AM

rds1220 said:
What are you talking about. Intel has a faster, more efficient micro architecture than AMD. A 3 GHZ Bulldozer will never be as fast as a 3 GHz AMD CPU. You can have an I5 at 3.3 GHz and a Bulldozer at 4.1 GHz and the lower clocked I5 will still beat out the Bulldozer.


read my statement again. I never said either was the faster one, i only simply made the statement that the same ghz are not equal.
m
0
l
June 9, 2012 12:45:33 AM

Well lets say you disable 2 cores on the 8150 and get 5.0 ghz and overclock the i7 to 4.0 or 4.2 (not sure what it can reach) then the i7 would still be faster?
m
0
l
a c 913 à CPUs
a c 156 å Intel
a c 372 À AMD
June 9, 2012 12:48:15 AM

Yes and most of them can reach 4.5GHz on air!
m
0
l
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 9, 2012 12:49:12 AM

dudewitbow said:
read my statement again. I never said either was the faster one, i only simply made the statement that the same ghz are not equal.


ok... :pt1cable: 
m
0
l
a c 198 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 9, 2012 12:50:56 AM

xa376 said:
Well lets say you disable 2 cores on the 8150 and get 5.0 ghz and overclock the i7 to 4.0 or 4.2 (not sure what it can reach) then the i7 would still be faster?


yes

Given that Sandybridge gets approximately 2.5 times as many integer operations per clock per core we can normalize a 4 core Sandybridge to a relative performance index of 10 (4x 2.5) per clock cycle

Bulldozer with 8 cores gets a relative performance index of 8 per clock cycle and 6 per clock cycle with 6 cores. If we then overclock the 6 core Bulldozer to 5Ghz the frequency performance ratio becomes 5/3.5 (should be 3.4 but I'm being nice) 1.5

6*1.5 = 9

9 < 10

So even with 6 cores active a 5Ghz bulldozer will still fall just behind a 3.5Ghz i7 with 4 cores active
m
0
l
June 9, 2012 12:54:17 AM

So considering that 9<10 and 9 is only one number away. It would be a much cheaper route (the kind of route I like) to get a 8150 and have almost the same performance?
m
0
l
a c 913 à CPUs
a c 156 å Intel
a c 372 À AMD
June 9, 2012 1:00:24 AM

xa376 said:
So considering that 9<10 and 9 is only one number away. It would be a much cheaper route (the kind of route I like) to get a 8150 and have almost the same performance?

That is your choice, but I suggest reading this http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-efficienc...
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 198 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 9, 2012 1:00:57 AM

xa376 said:
So considering that 9<10 and 9 is only one number away. It would be a much cheaper route (the kind of route I like) to get a 8150 and have almost the same performance?


My calculation is based on two factors

1. The CPU is handling highly orthogonal workloads. Workloads that are constrained by process sequence and process interdependence (single threaded and thread-safe respectively) will perform even worse on the bulldozer processor due to each scheduler having less resources to work with. Games are highly constrained by design, which is why Bulldozer falls behind even compared to Phenom II. On the other hand, transactional workloads and simulations are often significantly less constrained by interdependence and sequence which allows them to be spread out across multiple execution units much easier.

2. That a Bulldozer CPU will not only be able to operate stably at 5Ghz but will last more than a few months. A 3.5 Ghz Ivybridge or 3.4 Ghz Sandybridge will last many many years at their stock frequencies.
Share
a c 154 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 9, 2012 1:07:07 AM

xa376 said:
So considering that 9<10 and 9 is only one number away. It would be a much cheaper route (the kind of route I like) to get a 8150 and have almost the same performance?


Sure if you like buying slow inferior hardware.
m
0
l
June 9, 2012 1:18:09 AM

Best answer selected by xa376.
m
0
l
a c 206 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 9, 2012 1:25:15 AM

the problem is that your looking at two different cpu designs. the amd chip is more of a hybrid cpu/gpu chip then intel x86 is.
also windows 7 and windows itself is written for x86 instruction set. when amd new cpu came out microsoft had to release a service patch to help them run faster. i always be an intel user i will be up front it not the "faster" issue but i never had a dead cpu or a cpu or mb issue with intel. all my intel system have lasted many long years. with pc you have to take a bench mark with a grain of salt. unless your a program and can read the code of a bench mark software they can be tweeked or changed..you see it in video card bench marking toms did a piece when they found out ati may have been cheating to get higher frame rates then nvidia at one point. there nice for yard stick test and how the cpu/gpu will work in real life. in real life it not only the speed that people look at but the price of a part.. look at all the help me builds at a price point here on toms. also look at new egg and intel price set up. look at how much a user over pays for an i7 when the i5 is the same cpu just a little slower. amd does beat intel there on price for there cpu and nvidia for there gpu.. I hope amd does not leave the cpu market as then intel going to be able to price there cpu as they please. amd has help these last 10 years or so by keeping a price to performance war with intel. in real life if your using a web browser are you really going to notice that one cpu is 2-5 sec faster then another in a side by side test...look how most non power users use a pc..my new i5 3540 right now is running at 1.6 with one core running as im on the web..yes it a little faster then my old 775 system that i replaced. next year haswell will beat the cpu that i have now big deal. three years from now intel might not be the fastest cpu that you can buy. it comes down to price and performance that a user is buying. look at the apple ipads...tell me why are they one of the top sellers...price..performance of the product..how well it works (ease of use to a user). same as the old blackbery were to biz users a few years ago or nextel direct connect. at the time they had a feature that people wanted or needed and it met there needs. you see it in retail as you walk into best buys and see there wall of tv. do i buy the sony or the samsug tv...
there both going to connect to your cable box. you as the consumer going to be looking at price..warranty..recalls or defect of the product and how the screen look to you. same issue with cars..ford or chevy.
m
0
l
June 9, 2012 1:42:02 AM

This post is my best attempt to offer a good explanation before this becomes a big AMD vs Intel flaming/bating/trolling thread :pfff: 


Quote:
I have had this question for a long time. I just don't understand why Intel is considered better than AMD. AMD is faster and cheaper. So why does mostly everyone consider Intel so superior.

My point.
Why is this considered better than this...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819116491

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103960


Okay, first off, take no offense, but you're either ignorant or trolling. I'm going to base this response off you being the former...


I'm not sure how you arrived at the idea that AMD has overall superior performance compared to Intel. Even if that was true, I would NEVER advise buying CPUs just out of brand loyalty. The best thing you can do for yourself is to look at how much money you're willing to spend on a CPU and what are the programs you run most often. You then look at the offerings from both companies at and around that price range and find what better suits your needs best, or perhaps realize you should save up some more before purchasing. Buying based off of brand bias helps companies far more than it helps you as an individual.

When comparing CPUs, the first and biggest factor that needs to be understood is that a CPU's GHz is NOT the primary factor in how fast it is. Performance is largely based on a CPU's architecture. The rating in gigahertz is just a measure of cycles per second that CPU will run. This DOES impact performance, but is far from the end all say all. The best way I can think to illustrate this is to think of 2 men hitting a wooden post into the ground (lame, I know, but bare with me). The first guy is of leaner build and he has to hit the post 4 times with a mallet to drive it all the way into the ground. The second guy is built like a boxer and hits the wooden post only twice to drive the post into the ground and took the same time it took the first to do swing. They both did the same job in the same amount of time, but the second guy had a slower cycle speed. Hopefully that makes sense when applying to CPUs... a processor will cycle so many time per second, but can do more or less work than a processor running at the same exact speed depending on it's architecture. This is why a CPU's rating in Ghz essentially tells you nothing about it's performance without knowing more about it's architecture.

As of this generation, Intel has a vastly superior CPU architecture. AMD didn't take so much of a step backward with Bulldozer as much as they took a step laterally in comparison to their old Phenom IIs. This is not to say that Bulldozer is "bad" though. As I said earlier, it's all about performance per dollar, and AMD's CPUs have just not been priced competitively of late. Ironically, AMD's biggest strength and selling point is also sometimes it's Achilles' heel in terms of performance, this being the number of cores it has.

To keep this section relatively short and to the point you have two things to look at in this regard, cores and threads. Threads are best described as inputs and cores as what calculates said inputs. Typically a dual core CPU will have 2 threads, but Intel came up with something called Hyper Threading, which gives each core 2 threads. This allows the cores to go through more data quicker. This is sometimes referred to as a "logical core" because a thread is being addressed, but is not necessarily being handled as well when compared to how another actual core would do. AMD has it's own spin on this, where they take it a bit further, that they termed a "Bulldozer module." They claim each module has 2 cores, but that's not quite true. They share a lot of resources, it's more similar to a more advanced hyper threading.

Most programs are still only able to utilize 1 thread. This means that a more efficient CPU with less threads and cores can still be faster in tasks than a CPU with more threads and cores. While, programs that ARE threaded being run by a core with more threads and cores will have the advantage over a single core processor. You will typically not see a program that can take advantage of more than 4 threads (though they certainly exist) especially games. This means, practically speaking, that a CPU with more than 4 threads will see little to any advantage in gaming performance. That's why i7's and FX-6000s and 8000s basically gain no performance in gaming compared to their less powerful counterparts. This is what makes, say an FX-4170, faster than an FX-8120 in terms of gaming.


To sum this up, it's really all about a CPU's architecture and how many threads it has compared to how many threads the programs you run can utilize. Right now, the sweet spot for gaming is a quad core Intel CPU (aka an i5). Benchmarks can back that statement up big time... This is a good article to look at the different performance of AMD and Intel CPUs, including when overclocked. Hopefully my explanation and that link together will tell you why Intel is almost always preferred at every price point right now.
m
0
l
!