Why is Intel preferred over AMD?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mundaneum

Honorable
Jul 3, 2012
11
0
10,510
I don't understand the difference. My uncle said Intel cost more for the name. I want to know because next summer I plan on building a PC. Also, could someone explain the execution process mean? And why does a 3.6 GHz 8 core AMD CPU cost $100 less than a 3.4 GHz Quad-core Intel CPU?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
DJDeCiBeL

DJDeCiBeL

Splendid
Dec 3, 2010
6,060
1
27,965
This is why: 2500K vs. FX-8150 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

The 2500K is far ahead in everything but programs that love more threads.

Basically, without getting too technical, Intel's architecture is much faster than AMD's (especially Bulldozer). Ghz don't mean anything unless you're comparing CPU's from the same manufacturer and same generation.

Also, AMD's "8 core" CPU has 8 integer cores, but only 4 execution cores, making it not perform as well as a true 8 core CPU should.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Keanu Reeves

Keanu Reeves

Honorable
Jun 11, 2012
99
0
10,660


No offense to your uncle, but he doesn't know what he is talking about. Sure, their prices are a bit steep, but performance-wise, AMD isn't even close at this point. I really wish they were to provide some competition, which would force Intel to lower prices, but I don't see that happening for a while.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
nekulturny

nekulturny

Splendid
Feb 9, 2012
5,150
0
26,460

And thats a load of crap, perpetuated by articles with outdated pricing, incomplete information, bad test system setup, and the foolish assumption that young children make that computers have no other purpose than playing CPU intensive games on. (Which the vast majority of games are actually not *that* CPU intensive. Just sayin...

Edit: Oh,, and the assumption that anything above 60FPS average gameplay actually matters.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Keanu Reeves

Keanu Reeves

Honorable
Jun 11, 2012
99
0
10,660
nekulturny, the fact of the matter is that Intel beats AMD in performance. There are no fake benches or made-up statistics. It's just the FACTS. That being said, AMD chips are great for what you pay for them, but if you think they are going to perform better, you're lying to yourself. And you can go ahead and call me a douchebag fanboy, yada yada yada, but I speak the truth. I've used AMD CPUs for years, because I didn't want to spend so much money on a processor, but I always knew I'd get better performance from an i5 or i7.

Edit: Oh,, and the assumption that people only buy computers to play games is bullcrap. Video and photo editing, rendering etc. also matter to many more than you realize.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
nekulturny

nekulturny

Splendid
Feb 9, 2012
5,150
0
26,460
I don't dispute the Intel makes a better product, you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. If you're getting all pre-defensive on me, then I'd say its you whos being the fanboy. I merely dispute the fact that, the extra power at the extra cost is actually necessary.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-3.html

I look at articles like this and say, what is Don Wolligroski smoking? 1 to 6 FPS difference is really a make or break deal? No.. it isn't. Especially when you consider all factors.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Keanu Reeves

Keanu Reeves

Honorable
Jun 11, 2012
99
0
10,660
"And thats a load of crap, perpetuated by articles with outdated pricing, incomplete information, bad test system setup, and the foolish assumption that young children make that computers have no other purpose than playing CPU intensive games on."

C'mon man, that is not what you were saying and you know it. You were saying the test systems were a sham and the information was incomplete etc. and that is total BS. Okay, let's throw out 99 out of 100 benches and just select one at random, and you know what? They will still say that core-series chips perform better. And I have always used AMD chips so the fanboy comment, I just find hilarious. I'm just being honest.

"I look at articles like this and say, what is Don Wolligroski smoking? 1 to 6 FPS difference is really a make or break deal? No.. it isn't. Especially when you consider all factors."

It depends on the game, and the OP never said it was a build strictly for gaming. If you use CS5 or 6, or do any rendering the extra $100 jump to Intel makes an enormous difference, and the price-to-performance ratio looks much, much better.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

daswilhelm

Splendid
Jan 28, 2012
3,596
1
23,460


Hey everyone, its Mundaneum's wacky uncle!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
nekulturny

nekulturny

Splendid
Feb 9, 2012
5,150
0
26,460


Alrite, lets assume for a minute, that due to the fact that I have several thousands posts under my belt in the course of many months on this forum, and the fact that I own both a Sandy Bridge i5 system and an AMD system, that I'm not a complete moron, and I actually might have something to say thats worth considering. Theres too much jumping to conclusion in these kinds of threads, and not enough with the listening ears.

C'mon man, that is not what you were saying and you know it. You were saying the test systems were a sham and the information was incomplete etc. and that is total BS. Okay, let's throw out 99 out of 100 benches and just select one at random, and you know what? They will still say that core-series chips perform better. And I have always used AMD chips so the fanboy comment, I just find hilarious. I'm just being honest.
Click to expand...

It is a sham, that artcile they benched 6 games known to be more CPU intensive, that makes sense, they want to test the CPUs to see which ones perform better. Heres the problem. Theres over 1000 computer games on the market, most of them are GPU limited, not CPU limited. How about the COD series? My Phenom II system can run those at or above 60FPS every time. How about Medal of Honor? Same deal. That article benched BF3 single player, and btw, didnt bother to mention that BF3 multiplayer is a completely different ball game. What about a Phenom II 965? He didn't include that one in his lineup. Its only $120, would that screw up his point that the i3-2100 is a better choice at $130?


It depends on the game, and the OP never said it was a build strictly for gaming. If you use CS5 or 6, or do any rendering the extra $100 jump to Intel makes an enormous difference, and the price-to-performance ratio looks much, much better.
Click to expand...

Yes it does, and most games simply are not CPU limited. Skyrim, Starcraft II are a couple exceptions, but even there, AMD is still "good enough", that only the most anal videofiles are going to complain about framerates. And those are the people that indeed should be buying Intel. As far as CS5 or 6, if you have the money go for it. Not everyone can afford to just "jump" up $100 bucks.

As far as what the OP said, he didn't say what the computer was for, he asked a general question, and I responded to one of the replies he got, NOT the OP. The OP should get accurate information, that is my goal. If you disagree with it you are entitled to do so, I like a respectful discussion as much as the next person.

But if you're going to respond like this guy:


daswilhelm
Hey everyone, its Mundaneum's wacky uncle!
===

Please don't waste my time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mace200200

mace200200

Honorable
Jun 5, 2012
1,697
0
12,160
Can't really say that one is better than the other, for the most part you can look at it as getting what you pay for, Intel performs better than AMD but generally it costs more. Also depends on what applications you are running. Intels seem to run cooler as well, doesn't save you to much money because their stock heatsinks are so bad you have to replace them anyways. AMDs aren't the greatest either but unless your doing some extensive computering it'll run fine on a stock heatsink.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
InvalidError

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
May 18, 2007
23,815
5,265
108,890

If you look at benchmarks, many cheaper Intel PSUs outperform similarly priced AMD parts in largely single/dual-threaded applications such as most games. As someone else said above, Intel is no longer systematically more expensive than AMD for a given performance level.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mace200200

mace200200

Honorable
Jun 5, 2012
1,697
0
12,160

I guess I'd have to agree with that now that I think about it, over the past few years Intel has gotten a little cheaper while AMD is starting to get more expensive, but still it's pretty hard to find an Intel CPU for around $100 that would out perform an AMD.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
nekulturny

nekulturny

Splendid
Feb 9, 2012
5,150
0
26,460
I think intel has gotten more expensive. Ivy Bridges cost more than Sandys. Intel doesn't drop the prices on their CPUs. Meanwhile AMD does. Yes, they charged far too much for Bulldozers are first, but when the demand weaned down, they adjusted the prices accordingly. I have friends on these forums who are die hard on Intel and even a couple of them will admit that 8120s aren't bad at their current $170 price point. Meanwhile the better performing 2500K Intel remains at its initial $220 price point, even though its a generation old now, and replaced with a generational equivalent 3570K which is priced more.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
InvalidError

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
May 18, 2007
23,815
5,265
108,890

For gaming, the Pentium G630 (~$68) gives most sub-$100 AMD chips a run for their money. For productivity, you need to step up to Pentium G850 (~$92) to make things more even while staying under $100.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom