Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

The Ultimate question : AMD or Intel seems to be answered very clearly

Last response: in Systems
Share
February 22, 2012 8:17:57 AM

hello I had made a topic before about collecting system , best system for battlefield 3 if you remember ^^ I was decieved since it is not a cpu dependant game. We have to think of future when buying a system so it was a mistake to put Battlefield as the only target to reach while building a pc. AMD and intel were close to each other in BF3 benchmarks...

And now... I found some extremely disturbing benchmarks >.<.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

even i3 seems better than amd's x6

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

even i3 seems better than amd has anything to offer.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

same story.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

same .. damn .. story ..

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=203

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=362

I AM AN AMD FANBOY , I have always bought amd stuff since now...but it seems like ... Intel has literally destroyed amd. We used to say "oh amd is better on medium budgets". Well , even the stupid i3 sandy bridge destroys everything amd can offer. I want to go to a corner and CRY

Can someone confirm this or save me from this torment by telling I am terribly wrong so I can continue buying AMDs :D 

Best solution

February 22, 2012 8:33:28 AM

I'm afraid I can't help much with that. Not a fanboy of either in particular myself. And I really hope AMD get their act together with the next version. They have announced that they are no longer really trying to compete in this area however, which is a bit disturbing.
Also, some people might take this topic as trolling, since it is very much a hot issue.
If you really want to buy AMD's you can always say you are doing it to support them so that they may have a comeback?
Share
February 22, 2012 8:48:56 AM

This thread again.

Basically, gather up everybody in the entire world and get them to donate £1 to AMD every day for a week.

Then see what they can do.

Or breed a super-intelligent-mega-being into their research dept to bring about a Peta-Core CPU running at 100 Exohertz (Codename - Universe-Dozer)

If either of these 2 don't work, Plan C is to give up and buy into Intel instead of trying to 'Stick it to the man' or 'Be unique'
Score
0
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 22, 2012 8:53:56 AM

koogco said:
I'm afraid I can't help much with that. Not a fanboy of either in particular myself. And I really hope AMD get their act together with the next version. They have announced that they are no longer really trying to compete in this area however, which is a bit disturbing.
Also, some people might take this topic as trolling, since it is very much a hot issue.
If you really want to buy AMD's you can always say you are doing it to support them so that they may have a comeback?



I never thought that actually. I hope people wont misunderstand me. I really want to hear peoples' ideas on this subject. I am a

desperate amd fanboy but I'd be an utter fool to continue buying amd things from this day on according to the benchmarks.


You have been terrificly helpful to be honest . I didnt know amd announced such a thing. So even they accept they cannot

compete with intel.. There is absolutely no reason for this debate to continue then.



I did not have any bad intentions with this thread. I simply offered the sources I have found and asking for your opinions. It has already been extremely helpful , that announcement of AMD made me decide very very clearly. Hello new i5 2500k (once again ty very much koogco :)  )
Score
0
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
February 22, 2012 8:54:50 AM

Quote:
I AM AN AMD FANBOY , I have always bought amd stuff ..........

your answer is right there. intel does outperform amd cpus, even with their low end cpus and in terms of power efficiency. but, amd cpus are still fully capable of performing day to day tasks. apus are very good for entry level desktop sans discreet gfx cards and laptops.
since you claim yourself to be an amd fanboy, i think trying to pursuade you with benchmarks or personal experience or anything else would be useless.
if you like amd, have always bought amd, then by all means - buy more amd. you buy what you want to buy.
btw, i wouldn't use 'destroy' for i3 vs bd. there are tasks that bd easily outperforms core i3 such as multi pass video encoding, cpu based rendering, encryption etc.
there, i saved you from the 'torment' and stuff. keep buying amd. :) 
good luck.
Score
0
February 22, 2012 8:56:25 AM

The fact is multi threaded apps are not really being used yet as soon as they do tho the 6 cores that people bought will acctually start to shine as the i3 cant really keep up in a true multi threaded apps.. and try haveing a bunch of programs running on start up and in general, and you will see the 6 core wip the i3 probly And at least keep up with the i7 or i 5....I run an 3930 I 7 it> then all..If you have alot of programs running all the time then the 6 core really does well...II have one of these aswell I t does good..
Score
0
February 22, 2012 8:58:09 AM

From what i have seen there are plenty of people on these forums still buying AMD, and for the majority of them, they're getting what they wanted and the system does what they want it to do.

So as far as i see it, if you get something that does what you want it to do, buy whatever makes you happy.

Unfortunately for AMD fans the benchmarks do seem to all be in favour of Intel.

Plus there is the point that AMD have announced themselves that they will no longer compete. I suspect there next offering will focus truly on low budget, value for money CPU's. So if you want to get serious with your PC, then i suspect Intel will be the way forward.
Score
0
February 22, 2012 9:18:20 AM

well AMD ain't bad actually, got lots of amd and intel pc right now more of a test bench and to see if this or that works nicely with the other,

if gaming wise, both amd and intel are good, but compared to the i3, amd has it better "IF" you play a game while having lots of stuff in the background, like editing and stuff,

lets say your in a budget as an i3 is a bit close to a 4 core amd, you do video editing and other stuff, then why buy a 2 core when you can easily afford a 4core or 6 core whichever one you can get the cheapest,

amd cpu are not really bad at all, but for price/performance ratio they are good for the money specially if you do something else heavy besides gaming, because not everyone games only in a pc, they do other stuff too like video/music editing cad, 3d rendering and stuff, but of course if they want to game and do other stuff and can afford an i5 then go with an i5, or if they do heavy stuff, on a strict budget, go buy a bulldozer 8150, 8 core, since most likely you can't afford a work station or sandy bridge-e, or an i7 2600k, so the bulldozer is a cheaper and value for money
Score
0
February 22, 2012 9:20:36 AM

In case you didn't already google it, here is the news piece with the quote from amd: http://www.techpowerup.com/155920/AMD-To-Give-Up-Compet...
It is somewhere here on Toms as well, but It didn't show up in my googling.
I am really hoping AMD catches up despite what they said though, otherwise, the only thing keeping Intel from ridiculous prices is fear that the x86 platform might die entirely.
Score
0
February 22, 2012 9:31:10 AM

Tavo_Nova said:
well AMD ain't bad actually, got lots of amd and intel pc right now more of a test bench and to see if this or that works nicely with the other,

if gaming wise, both amd and intel are good, but compared to the i3, amd has it better "IF" you play a game while having lots of stuff in the background, like editing and stuff,

lets say your in a budget as an i3 is a bit close to a 4 core amd, you do video editing and other stuff, then why buy a 2 core when you can easily afford a 4core or 6 core whichever one you can get the cheapest,

amd cpu are not really bad at all, but for price/performance ratio they are good for the money specially if you do something else heavy besides gaming, because not everyone games only in a pc, they do other stuff too like video/music editing cad, 3d rendering and stuff, but of course if they want to game and do other stuff and can afford an i5 then go with an i5, or if they do heavy stuff, on a strict budget, go buy a bulldozer 8150, 8 core, since most likely you can't afford a work station or sandy bridge-e, or an i7 2600k, so the bulldozer is a cheaper and value for money


Well I want a pc where I can play all the games in the market with everything on ultra . None of the games can benefit from 8 core anyway so I dont want to buy it.

I will use the pc only for gaming - wont even use a damn notepad :p  I was always thinking of :

Phenom II x4 980 BE --- Phenom II x6 1100T --- AMD FX x6 and i5 2500k. with that announcement of amd I think I'll go for i5
Score
0
February 22, 2012 10:25:02 AM

Again, don't put everything in benchmarks. There are general use plus and minus that the benchmarks don't tell the whole story.
Also, what your seeing right now is software that is optimized for Intel (and older AMD)_ cpus and when software starts to come out actually supporting the new AMD BD design it will increase it's numbers.
Really though, can anyone ever take the long view? Or even care about future outputs from AMD if everyone says they want or hope AMD will come out with a better cpu all the while telling everyone to not buy AMD so they can't afford to design a better cpu and help intel seal the deal over AMD and us users.
Everyone wants AMD to do better with one hand while buying an axe with the other hand to chop off their buy AMD hand for good. I've seen so may people that can not seem to realize AMD has to make money to spend money to make money ect ect...
If you haven't noticed the price of Intel cpu's which is going up and will continue to go up because they can now get away with it your looking at your future if AMD drops out of the top bracket cpu line.
And if you take a look at some reviews, even one on here that showed off the newest Intel cpu geared for todays and a bit of tomorrows software trends the AMD BD actually did pretty good in those tests beating the I5 and I7 in some tests while loosing in others.
AMD's cpu's are not slow by any means. They are different enough that it will take a little time for software to come out to use them like they were built for but people keep stressing scores on older software benchmarks and it will take a little while to see software that can use this new design.
And what's been said enough is AMD can run a number of programs at the same time with very little performance hit compared to current Intel and older AMD cpus. And when Windows 8 comes out and newer software also comes out the BD will increase in speed enough to compare it to buying another upgraded cpu while Intel is already running optimized software so what you see is pretty much all your going to get with them.
But regardless of any of this if any of you wants to buy low cost high performance cpu's then you better knock this benchmark says it all crap and buy some AMD products or your cutting your own AMD in the future hand off and only see high priced Intel cpus in your future.
That ALONE is why I support AMD. They need MONEY, do you understand this or are you just that stupid or just don't really care about the future.
AMD needs a lot of money just for the R&D Dept. And where the hell are they going to get it from? As far as I know santa and the tooth fairy do not pop into existance to help AMD with magic beans to guesswork design.
The performance on any home system between the two are not that far off to give AMD a bad buy sticker. It's only the people that haven't even tried AMD's cpus and just look at benchmarks that don't mean squat for next gen software where AMD's designs will start to be used and no matter what todays numbers say these cpu's are still pretty damm fast. Home systems are not being used to design fusion rocket motors to go to Saturn. They are running games and maybe a check balance software and either brand will run these types of software more than fast enough.
The real question is do you want to have a say in the future of computers?
From what I've constantly seen on here is no, you don't want a say and don't mind being channeled toward a pretty depressing future for computers.
No one is very capable of taking the long view and that is why we are always getting screwed over.
Heck, I have a 4 core Black ed. AMD that can run every game and it can also run anything else I need it too. I got a BD to play around with and it was surprising how well it performs on a home system. And I have a Intel i5 that is also fast, does everything I expect it too but I'm not seeing earth shacking difference between any of these systems that would say don't buy this one or that one for a home system. That is just hype.
Man, one thing I'm always forced to agree on is people are stupid when it comes to steering them one way or the other and how simple it is with trivial numbers that you have to squint real hard to notice with most programs that really count for a HOME SYSTEM. The video card is a lot more important in the real world. As is having enough memory and so on and on and on...

On a side note, if there are such things as UFO's out there there is no way they would let us leave this star for another one because we are just too damm stupid and we can never plan things past the next weekend. If you doubt this just start at the beginning and read again the reasons why to buy one brand over the other one!
It's meaningless dribble.
Because either one will do the job just fine. And that is what really matters. If not that just keep up with it and watch when software is released that is optimized to work with it.
At least a few on here come very close to all this benchmarking crap. It's a sad mix of illusion and reality put in a blender.
Score
0
February 22, 2012 10:45:11 AM

I told you some people would feel strongly about this topic. ^^

I agree with much of what you said billcat, but the real question is, can I justify buying a product that are either worse or more expensive? Sure it is not *much* worse. In fact it is unlikely to matter for a year or two in my case (at the very least until I get a new graphics card). But in the end, I am exited about buying hardware products that are either A. The best (not really an option as a student though) or B. Great performance for money.
I think most of what you see in my signature falls into category B (if we forget about how unbalanced the CPU and GPU are).
Now I would really like to see a realistic gaming test with the BD 8 core and the i5 2500k. Say, have skype, a web browser with some music and some other programs that make sense running in the background while testing the games. I am also interested to see what will happen with windows 8 and newer software.
As you can see, I already went for an Intel processor, but if it helps any, I am leaning towards an AMD graphics card (where they are doing well, thankfully)
Score
0
February 22, 2012 10:55:05 AM

Billcat, im curious as to your stance on buying a product because they need money for future. Why would you want to spend money on a product that isnt really as good as the competition just so that you can hope something better comes along in the future?

Just as a few random examples, do you say, buy non brand coke because coca cola has enough money already? Do you donate to linux programs because it has a chance to be a better OS than windows or osx?

Just seems a very odd view point if you ask me.
Score
0
February 22, 2012 11:13:23 AM

I feel that AMD is thinking in the past with their CPUs.
High Clock Rates, and more cores; instead of focusing on actual per core performance.

I do like what I am seeing with the APUs though. It would be great to see a chip that can surpass the performance
of an actual video card (6770-6850), but I don't think that is going to happen for a while. I think that AMD's APU systems
will be great in laptops.

Also, I hear that ARM heavily funds AMD research, so I guess we can see what market AMD is truly gunning for right now.


I almost built my computer using an A8, but decided to go with an i3 for these reasons:

1. Apparent lack of upgrade path with the A8

2. The APU would be a waste if I ever upgraded to a decent video card.

3. The i3 had a better bang for your buck in the long run when I purchase a video card.
Score
0
February 22, 2012 11:46:03 AM

I cannot rely on anything else than reviews and benchmarks. I would be a computer engineer and earn my living from it if i had the knowledge to compare cpus by their architecture and in-depth engineering .( I am totally talking about gaming , I absolutely dont care about multi tasking and stuff like that - just gaming with extreme graphics.)

Before I started reading tomshardware I was looking at the product and "oooh shiny , lots of ghz lots of cores! it has more numbers than i5 2500k ! gief ! "

Now I learned games barely use 4 cores and what really matters is the amount of stuff done each cycle rather than the amount of cycles.(which comes down to architecture)

AMD keeps increasing the amounts of cores and ghz but keeps getting low results from benchmarks. Obvious thing is obvious. None of u can like amd more than me but benchmarks dont lie , I want to play Battlefield 3, Crysis 2 , Skyrim on ultra , I dont care about anything else :p 








Score
0
February 22, 2012 11:51:29 AM

sinthoras said:
I cannot rely on anything else than reviews and benchmarks. I would be a computer engineer and earn my living from it if i had the knowledge to compare cpus by their architecture and in-depth engineering .( I am totally talking about gaming , I absolutely dont care about multi tasking and stuff like that - just gaming with extreme graphics.)

Before I started reading tomshardware I was looking at the product and "oooh shiny , lots of ghz lots of cores! it has more numbers than i5 2500k ! gief ! "

Now I learned games barely use 4 cores and what really matters is the amount of stuff done each cycle rather than the amount of cycles.(which comes down to architecture)

AMD keeps increasing the amounts of cores and ghz but keeps getting low results from benchmarks. Obvious thing is obvious. None of u can like amd more than me but benchmarks dont lie , I want to play Battlefield 3, Crysis 2 , Skyrim on ultra , I dont care about anything else :p 


I think you've answered your own question there really.
Score
0
February 22, 2012 11:52:23 AM

sinthoras, that post almost made me laugh out loud (true as it is). 6 years ago this was exactly opposite. AMD had to be creative with naming, because costumers would not believe that a 2.2 GHz AMD was as fast as a 3GHz Intel So they would call it the 3500+(I don't remember the exact numbers, but something like that)

EDIT: Probably more like 7 years, but whatever. And looking at an old review, the Athlon 64 3500+ (2,2GHz) was indeed quite a bit faster than a Pentium 4 3.0GHz
Score
0
February 22, 2012 12:14:05 PM

I think i'll buy i5 2500k but one thing I want to ask . Its greatest advantage is the overclock capability. I have noone around me that is experienced with oc'ing and i have no experience either so Overclocking is not an option for me. With having this in mind - is i5 2500k without overclock still a better choice than phenom ii x4 980 black edition and x6 1100t ?
Score
0
February 22, 2012 12:22:38 PM

sinthoras said:
I think i'll buy i5 2500k but one thing I want to ask . Its greatest advantage is the overclock capability. I have noone around me that is experienced with oc'ing and i have no experience either so Overclocking is not an option for me. With having this in mind - is i5 2500k without overclock still a better choice than phenom ii x4 980 black edition and x6 1100t ?


Well a stock i5 2400 beats them in the benchmarks so i suspect an i5 2500k would also. Hell, even a i3 2100 comes close to beating them.

Just because you have no experience doesn't mean it's not worth having a go at OC'ing. I also have no experience and i am planning to OC my 2500k when it arrives. there are plenty of good guides on here that'll run you through everything.
Score
0
February 22, 2012 12:34:54 PM

mikerockett said:
Well a stock i5 2400 beats them in the benchmarks so i suspect an i5 2500k would also. Hell, even a i3 2100 comes close to beating them.

Just because you have no experience doesn't mean it's not worth having a go at OC'ing. I also have no experience and i am planning to OC my 2500k when it arrives. there are plenty of good guides on here that'll run you through everything.



You mean like this !!!! ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GR5_X1CfUA
Score
0
February 22, 2012 12:47:26 PM

i think billcat makes ALOT of sense
Score
0
February 22, 2012 12:51:52 PM

People tend to overstate things, but yes for gaming and most other applications Intel's solutions are better than AMD's for desktops. But even AMD's processors will do just fine, getting 5 more fps when you're above 60 for instance won't matter much at all. As for the FX, they actually overclock very well, and the 8150 does compete with the 2500k and even 2600k at times. http://amdfx.blogspot.com/
So, you get more for your money with intel, but you will get by with amd if you so opt.
If you move into the laptop market, AMD's integrated solutions blows intel's integrated graphics out of the water, and expect to see a lot of those in htpc builds in the future as well.
Score
0
February 22, 2012 1:57:46 PM

I greatly dislike Intel as a business, but I can't help but buy their newest i3. I've been wanting a Phenom II X4 for a while now, but I can't justify spending the same amount of money to get lower minimum framerates (the only problem I have with my current Athlon II X2).

I also greatly dislike Walmart, McDonalds, Disney, Apple, and the Chinese government, but I can't help but buy their products.
Score
0
February 22, 2012 2:43:06 PM

jessterman21 said:
I greatly dislike Intel as a business, but I can't help but buy their newest i3. I've been wanting a Phenom II X4 for a while now, but I can't justify spending the same amount of money to get lower minimum framerates (the only problem I have with my current Athlon II X2).

I also greatly dislike Walmart, McDonalds, Disney, Apple, and the Chinese government, but I can't help but buy their products.



why do you dislike McDonalds ?
Score
0
February 22, 2012 2:58:05 PM

can we stay on topic here he was using it as an example
Score
0
February 22, 2012 4:47:16 PM

I find that the i5 2500k is fairly easy as a first timer. In most cases (unless you want super optimization) you can put down a definite goal (4.5ghz for me) and then adjust voltage untill you find the lowest stable one (don't try ones above 1.35V). If you can't find it stable at a proper temperature, you just try 100mhz lower.
There are also a few things such as load line calibration that you need to know about if it is relevant on your motherboard/cpu combo. But for most settings, all you need to do is poke a guide and see if they should be on/off/auto for overclocking and then get going.
Keep temperatures below 75C while testing and below 70C for your finished result to be on the safe side.

EDIT: might aswell complete this post:
Test stability with a program such as prime95, stable means that it can runs for hours without crash/freeze or rounding errors. Don't actually spend hours testing untill you are at a fairly low voltage though, it will take ages if start at 1.35V and test every 0.005V down.
Use CPU-Z to keep an eye on the multiplier and voltage, so you know they are around what you set them to be
Use coretemp (or similar) to keep an eye on each core temperature. When I say the end result should be below 70C, I mean that the hottest one never hit 71C.
Good luck if you choose to overclock, but know that it is fairly pointless and mostly for fun untill games become more CPU demanding.
Score
0
February 22, 2012 5:29:23 PM

I see. Well I'll be buying i5 2500k for sure. the gpu will be sapphire hd 6970 , psu XILENCE XP700 700W 135MM FAN PSU GAMİNG , no idea about motherboard! could you suggest me a motherboard suitable for i5 2500k ? (between 150$-170$)

I dont know what to look for motherboard. There is also a mhz thingie there (like 2000mhz etc) what are they for ? If someone

can give a brief explanation of what to look for in a motherboard , that would literally be epic.

Because as I mentioned for cpus - i am in a situation of : "ooh look at the mobo ! it has lots of mhz I shud buy it !! gief gief!" which is really .. really bad >.<
Score
0
February 22, 2012 8:19:29 PM

Best answer selected by sinthoras.
Score
0
a b À AMD
February 22, 2012 10:17:55 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!