Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD vs Intel... real-world performance?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 17, 2012 3:02:58 AM

I've been hearing from some guys lately that AMD CPUs are always better than Intel CPUs. To give an example, I recently purchased an i3 2100 with an B75 LGA 1155 motherboard... however I've been told that was a wrong decision, and for the same price, an Athlon II X3 with a compatible motherboard is the way to go.

I showed several benchmarks from Anandtech and Tom's Hardware for the i3 2100 and Athlon II X3, which clearly shows the i3 2100 beating the X3 in almost every benchmark by a large amount... the benchmarks even show the Phenom II X4 and FX-4100 having a hard time keeping up with the i3 2100, unless highly overclocked... however, these guys told me that benchmarks are irrelevant and misleading, and that in real-world scenarios, at equivalent price-points, AMD is always better than Intel... so what's going on here? Weren't benchmarks made to show clearly hands down which CPU is better? Have I been fooled or something by these benchmarks?

These guys even go as far as saying an i7 2600K can never keep up with an FX 8 core.

More about : amd intel real world performance

a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
July 17, 2012 3:05:02 AM

That's not true at ALL.


The FX, or any of the FX's do not compare at all to any generation of i7, especially not the 2600k.

m
0
l
July 17, 2012 3:14:01 AM

amuffin said:
That's not true at ALL.


The FX, or any of the FX's do not compare at all to any generation of i7, especially not the 2600k.


Sure, but there's something else I want to understand. The FX processors have very high memory read and write speeds, memory latencies and such... so I've seen in some benchmarks...so what does that translate into? What does it mean? These AMD fanboys said that the high memory read/write speeds translate into faster real-world experience, therefore making AMD CPUs better than equivalent Intel CPUs... or are they just trying to make up anything to back up their AMD "fanboy-ism"?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 215 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 17, 2012 3:24:08 AM

The FX series of CPUs was hyped a lot, it isn't nearly as good as AMD was playing it up to be, this does not mean that they are bad CPUs, any CPU you can get today is going to be fairly powerful and none are bad, some are just better for their price than others.


Benchmarks are designed to provide objective measures of the processors, it is very difficult to report on real world performance because there are too many variables between individual systems, a user with a very fast SSD and an Athlon II x2 250 will say their system feels very fast for some day to day tasks like web browsing, word docs, and solitaire, where a much more powerful system with a 2600k and a conventional hard drive won't feel quite as fast, this has nothing to do with the CPU and much more to do with the drive in the system.

The extra memory read and write speed of the AMD chips doesn't mean too much since most tasks are not memory limited, in the same way that 1600 MHz memory shows slight but not massive improvements over 1333 MHz memory, improving memory bandwidth in normal tasks won't get you very much, especially for applications normal users use.



How good of a choice a CPU is really depends on your needs and the applications you intend to run, someone like my mother who doesn't do anything intensive on the machine has no need for anything over a low level i3 or an AMD APU so a 2600K would be a bad choice; however, someone doing a CFD simulation would cry themself to sleep for months if they tried to do it on an i3 instead of a big Xeon workstation in which case the i3 would be a bad choice. It all depends on you.



Benchmarks are meaningless if you don't understand how to use them, they are merely data, information is data with context.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 17, 2012 3:32:28 AM

Forde3654Eire said:
I've been hearing from some guys lately that AMD CPUs are always better than Intel CPUs. To give an example, I recently purchased an i3 2100 with an B75 LGA 1155 motherboard... however I've been told that was a wrong decision, and for the same price, an Athlon II X3 with a compatible motherboard is the way to go.

I showed several benchmarks from Anandtech and Tom's Hardware for the i3 2100 and Athlon II X3, which clearly shows the i3 2100 beating the X3 in almost every benchmark by a large amount... the benchmarks even show the Phenom II X4 and FX-4100 having a hard time keeping up with the i3 2100, unless highly overclocked... however, these guys told me that benchmarks are irrelevant and misleading, and that in real-world scenarios, at equivalent price-points, AMD is always better than Intel... so what's going on here? Weren't benchmarks made to show clearly hands down which CPU is better? Have I been fooled or something by these benchmarks?

These guys even go as far as saying an i7 2600K can never keep up with an FX 8 core.


you friends are idiots. the only reason that AMD "MIGHT" own a price point is because they took their best processor and undercut an intel chip that it could beat.

show them this thread, ill call them idiots again. an athlon beats no current gen last gen or two gen old cpu from intel that has comparable thread counts.

Edit: no current AMD cpu can compete with an i7 2600k let alone the 3770k. not even close and we are talking desktop cpus too not server cpus but intel owns that too.
m
0
l
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 122 À AMD
a c 119 å Intel
July 17, 2012 3:43:40 AM

If "real world" means surfing the internet, reading / typing a Word document, watching a movie, then yes your friends are correct; there is no real difference between AMD or Intel CPUs.

For applications that are CPU intensive like video encoding, 3D rendering, and games your friends are wrong. Assuming the same clockspeed, an Intel Sandy Bridge Core i3 CPU is roughly 25% more powerful than an AMD Athlon II CPU.

Most programs / games only use 2 cores. Given the difference in raw processing power, a Core i3 CPU can performance just as well or better than some more expensive quad core AMD Phenom II X4 CPUs.

Just agree to disagree. Sometimes it's just not worth the effort to convince people otherwise.
m
0
l
July 17, 2012 3:50:18 AM

Good answers guys, clears a lot of doubt I had :) 

Alright lets put it this way. Where I am, the X3 costs $88, and the least expensive AM3 motherboard costs $64 (least expensive AM3+ costs $125, FX-4100 is $120). I was planning to unlock + overclock, so thermal paste + aftermarket heatsink is $48. There are no Phenom II's available here. Total cost: $199

Alternatively, keeping all other system components the same, the i3 2100 cost $112, and the B75 motherboard cost $72. Total cost: $184.

I am a gamer, using a Sapphire 6850 (and the i3 2100). I only do the occasional video-editing, which involves converting my Fraps .avi files to .mp4 files for Youtube videos in Sony Vegas. Whenever doing this, I always allocate the GPU to do the conversion... so I guess CPU type doesn't matter?

Taking a look at both builds and/or my needs, which build would you guys see as the better solution?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 17, 2012 3:50:18 AM

In fact hunter got everything right, in real world situations the entire system is the factor that affect the responsiveness and speed of the build, Amd do have good cpu at great price/perfomance ratio so Intel but the real question is Is that enough for me?

I mean if you´re only planning to do some basics stuff, internet, ligth gaming, etc. What´s the point of a super fast cpu with 90 cores and threads? just pick your side in the hierarchy and remember, not less than 3 tiers the update. XP
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 17, 2012 3:56:03 AM

Forde3654Eire said:
Good answers guys, clears a lot of doubt I had :) 

Alright lets put it this way. Where I am, the X3 costs $88, and the least expensive AM3 motherboard costs $64 (least expensive AM3+ costs $125, FX-4100 is $120). I was planning to unlock + overclock, so thermal paste + aftermarket heatsink is $48. There are no Phenom II's available here. Total cost: $199

Alternatively, keeping all other system components the same, the i3 2100 cost $112, and the B75 motherboard cost $72. Total cost: $184.

I am a gamer, using a Sapphire 6850 (and the i3 2100). I only do the occasional video-editing, which involves converting my Fraps .avi files to .mp4 files for Youtube videos in Sony Vegas. Whenever doing this, I always allocate the GPU to do the conversion... so I guess CPU type doesn't matter?

Taking a look at both builds and/or my needs, which build would you guys see as the better solution?


I consider myself an Amd guy but in this matter I vote for the i3 build, i got an athlon 2 x3 and I can tell you an i3 is way better, in gaming is very superior, I also have the sapphire 6850... just pick the i3 in this case IMO.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 17, 2012 4:10:12 AM

jaguarskx said:
If "real world" means surfing the internet, reading / typing a Word document, watching a movie, then yes your friends are correct; there is no real difference between AMD or Intel CPUs.

For applications that are CPU intensive like video encoding, 3D rendering, and games your friends are wrong. Assuming the same clockspeed, an Intel Sandy Bridge Core i3 CPU is roughly 25% more powerful than an AMD Athlon II CPU.

Most programs / games only use 2 cores. Given the difference in raw processing power, a Core i3 CPU can performance just as well or better than some more expensive quad core AMD Phenom II X4 CPUs.

Just agree to disagree. Sometimes it's just not worth the effort to convince people otherwise.


just cause you cant tell if there is a difference doesnt mean there isnt. an intel cpu is probably faster at everyone of those tasks but the difference is very small but none the less it is still faster. its like a 1 second shortcut on a two hours road trip. too say its faster is correct but its not really meaningful.
m
0
l
a c 152 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 17, 2012 4:13:40 AM

Your friends are idiots and obvious AMD fanboys. Only a fanboy say benchmarks don't matter or try to brush them off as meaningless or deliberately skewed. The I3 will easily beat out an Athlon. The Athlon is old and slow and will bottleneck a decent GPU. It will also beat out the Bulldozer in all but the most heavily threaded programs. Yes a little dual core I3 at 3.2 GHz will beat out a Bulldozer with more cores and a higher clock rate.
m
0
l
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 122 À AMD
a c 119 å Intel
July 17, 2012 4:36:38 AM

cbrunnem said:
just cause you cant tell if there is a difference doesnt mean there isnt. an intel cpu is probably faster at everyone of those tasks but the difference is very small but none the less it is still faster. its like a 1 second shortcut on a two hours road trip. too say its faster is correct but its not really meaningful.


Considering the difference in CPU processing power is around 25%, assuming the same clockspeed, the difference will be more than a few seconds especially if the time required to render or encode can be hours. 3D rendering can even take days depending on the scope of the project.
m
0
l
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 122 À AMD
a c 119 å Intel
July 17, 2012 5:47:00 AM

Getting back to video encoding...

I just encoded a 1 hour and 44 minute video using the XviD codec so that I can watch on my portable media player (Cowon S9). The video was encoded on my Lenovo Y470 laptop with a core i5-2410m CPU (2.9GHz Turbo Boost) and on my desktop with a Core 2 Quad Q9450 @ 3.0GHz. I used VirtualDub to encode with the same settings on both machines.

While the developers of XviD claims the codec is multi-threaded, the codec actually only use 1 core. Therefore, whether the CPU has 2 or 4 cores doesn't really affect the performance of the XviD codec.

Using the 2-pass method of encoding, the Core i5-2410m managed to complete the encoding process in 39 minutes. The Q9450 managed to complete the encoding process in 55 minutes; a difference of 16 minutes. The Core 2 Duo / Quad series is faster than AMD's Athlon II CPUs, but this basically demonstrates that a faster / better designed CPU architecture can have a significant performance impact depending on what you plan to do.

This is just one video. Sometimes I batch up to 20 videos to be encoded. Assuming the average difference in encoding performance is 16 minutes for each video, my laptop can complete the enter batch process 5 hours and 20 minutes quicker than my desktop.
m
0
l
July 17, 2012 5:50:26 AM

jaguarskx said:
Considering the difference in CPU processing power is around 25%, assuming the same clockspeed, the difference will be more than a few seconds especially if the time required to render or encode can be hours. 3D rendering can even take days depending on the scope of the project.


If someone is going to be working on projects that take hours to days to render, then they are obviously not going to be shopping or using AMD. They are going to be using the fastest and most powerful Intel CPU that money can buy.

As of right now, Intel and AMD fill certain niches in the market. High performance graphical/audio/video work is not a niche that AMD CPU's fill. They are not marketed, priced, or designed for that role. AMD's entire yearly income is what Intel spends just on research and development alone. They are not, will not, and can not be as powerful as Intel CPU's. However, they are price-to-performance competitive with Intel for the average grade CPU's. They also have Intel beat in the APU market.

m
0
l
a c 480 à CPUs
a c 122 À AMD
a c 119 å Intel
July 17, 2012 5:57:27 AM

Goden said:
If someone is going to be working on projects that take hours to days to render, then they are obviously not going to be shopping or using AMD. They are going to be using the fastest and most powerful Intel CPU that money can buy.

They also have Intel beat in the APU market.


Some people do 3D rendering as a hobby and more power CPU will have real world difference.

I believe you mean to say that AMD beats Intel in the integrated graphic core market because an APU is simply an AMD marketing term for processor that has a CPU core and GPU core; like the CPUs that Intel sells.
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
July 17, 2012 6:56:14 AM

If Intel bought Nvidia...
m
0
l
a c 191 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
July 17, 2012 7:44:19 AM

You need to talk to smarter people
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
July 17, 2012 7:48:32 AM

:lol: 
m
0
l
July 17, 2012 8:35:27 AM

Pinhedd said:
You need to talk to smarter people


Hahaha apparently so! :lol:  Fortunately the good folks of Tom's Hardware seem to know their stuff. As far as I'm concerned in Saudi, there are 2 groups of extremely biased people:

1) Intel all the way, no matter what (most people never heard of AMD). i3 2100 is extremely weak, not even usable. You must have a quad core, regardless of whether its just surfing the internet or gaming. i7 is the only way to go... this gave me good laughs hahaha :lol:  Nvidia all the way, AMD is crap. You must have the graphics card with the most GB... so in their sense: GT 520 with 2GB RAM outperforms a GTX 560 with 1 GB RAM.

2) AMD all the way, no matter what (Intel is deemed as inferior). Athlon II X2 smokes an i3 2100.

And another group, just for laughs: Laptop segment: Anything which isn't Apple (Macbook, Ipad etc) is utter crap and unusable :lol: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 17, 2012 11:36:25 AM

just for he record i was talking about general tasks like web browsing...
m
0
l
Anonymous
July 17, 2012 11:42:28 AM

Jaguarskx pretty much covered everything giving really valuable data to the public. Have no doubt in Tom’s hardware they know how to make the fast faster, with overclocking the heat above ambient temperature hardware is running as a wall than can force you down clock your CPU with Speed Step, C1Halt, Thermal monitor or Offset and ended up running their processor below 2.000 Ghz in some cases at idle just to have some low temperature readings to the cores.

I don’t use any of that and I’m runing my CPU at 3 Ghz idle, I get a boost on 100% load to my CPU with some bios settings up to 3.3 Ghz by carefully spending time exploring the cooling methods in air this thread can really help you:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/340000-10-corei-792...

I don’t like to think AMD is out of the game finally if they can deliver us a -20 C cooler CPU than we already have will help us to work at higher overclock levels and I believe we all move in there.

Have no doubt by adding +4 GBytes to your pc and with OCZ RevoDrive3 X2 240GB SSD PCI-Express x4 (RVD3X2-FHPX4-240G) as a hard disk with 1500MB/s reading, 1225ΜΒ/s writing as you can see here:

http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-revodrive-3-x2-pci-exp...

will give you a real life performance boost experience to a level making you believe that all this time you were working with a stone age PC build! All you need is a motherboard with clean PCI-E x4 root in order not bottleneck your graphics card working 3d rendering images to the size of 4 Gbytes but then again is taking only 2,6 secs to load them in memory so go figure.
m
0
l
July 17, 2012 12:37:01 PM

Well speaking of temperatures... I'm a little concerned about my i3 2100. I'm running on the stock cooler and thermal paste. After running Prime95 for about 20 mins, the cores reached 69 C... is that high or considered normal? I have some Arctic Silver thermal paste lying around, I can use that if needed.
m
0
l
July 17, 2012 12:52:11 PM

Right now the best processor are Intel, price-performance AMD.


Right now is "useless" to have and 6-8 core CPU as most programs doesn't use more than 2 cores and windows doesn't manage that many threads well.

Also I'm pretty sure that if you code video using Linux the FX8150 performance will increase dramatically, to the point of catching i7-2600K ?? I doubt that.
m
0
l
Anonymous
July 17, 2012 1:48:11 PM

Forde3654Eire said:
Well speaking of temperatures... I'm a little concerned about my i3 2100. I'm running on the stock cooler and thermal paste. After running Prime95 for about 20 mins, the cores reached 69 C... is that high or considered normal? I have some Arctic Silver thermal paste lying around, I can use that if needed.


4Ryan6 is covering the thermal paste issues as you can see here:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/274824-11-thermal-c...

Pretty good, I can’t believe why his work is not officially added to the charts I did contact with the upper clash of Tom’s hardware about this once, don’t expect to get more than -1 C -2 C this way.

You don’t provide us enough information about your prime95 test the minimal FFT size and the ram used is really an important factor. Were I’m the ambient temperature in my room is around 32 C max with all my windows wide open.

You can verify my city’s temperature seeing here:

http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/thessaloniki/

The station is really close to my home less than 1000 meters but it can give you a more clean idea of the ambient I’m in.

I guess leaving in Saudi Arabia is harder and you work with air condition on. I really believed the link to another thread I gave above can help you to close the gap between your core temperatures and the ambient temperature much more effectively see it again:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/340000-10-corei-792...

Have no doubt with a better cooler from the stoke and Raven Rv03 as a box you will go +2 C or +4 C max above ambient at cores.

I guess is the best choices you can make at the moment.
m
0
l
July 17, 2012 2:00:08 PM

it has been great reading all the above, LOL.
I have a Athlon II 620 CPU @ 3.2GHz in my PC and my laptop has the i3 380m @2.53, my laptop is great it is almost as powerful as my desktop and can feel it operating well in most tasks, my desktop is more than enough for me it does everything i would want from a PC and am happy, I have considered going for a i3 or i5 system but is more expensive overall, and I don't like the fact that I have to pay even more to get a "K" CPU to be overclockable and a more expensive motherboard to be able to overclock, I enjoy overclocking, and for me to have a similar system as I have now but with intel CPU, it would end up costing me ~£200 extra to get wht I want.
all iam trying to say is, it is not just performance that should be used to find a CPU, Price is pretty important to some (includes me!) but for most people I dont understand why they go for i7's and get a over £1000 PC that screams Power while they use it for checking facebook and E-mails, while getting something for half the price would be more suitable and still an over kill for their uses.
so No CPU now is "crap", as said by someone earlier, but some are just a bit better and most of the time the extra money you spend on "a bit better" device is just a waste of money.
P.S. nice system :)  @Forde3654Eire
m
0
l
Anonymous
July 17, 2012 2:30:53 PM

I don't have a problem running my cores at 3.5 Ghz idle but we scored 37 C couple of days beffore in thessaloniki...

The primary objective is keeping my cores below 60 C with as full as possible load to the machine.
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
July 17, 2012 3:41:03 PM

30c idle ;) 
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
July 17, 2012 3:54:26 PM

Intel makes better CPUs as a rule, but just because its funny:

m
0
l
July 17, 2012 3:59:09 PM

Yeah a 4GHz AMD processor that is highly overclocked looks like it can match a stock clocked mid ranged intel chip :)  Nice pic though!

AMD CPU's are just a poor overall choice. It's amazing they still make Desktop processors to be honest. Anything Intel is going to be better.

The guys that tell you otherwise, are the ones still trying to claim that their FreeBSD server outpaces a top of the line 2008 R2 box. They just want to be different for the sake of being different, even if its the stupid choice.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
July 17, 2012 4:02:24 PM

Quote:
Yeah a 4GHz AMD processor that is highly overclocked looks like it can match a stock clocked mid ranged intel chip :)  Nice pic though!

Not highly overclocked, lol. Stock clock on a 975 is 3.6GHZ (so its a 400mhz OC). But yea it does say something that it takes 4.0GHZ on the P II to match the 2.8GHZ on the i5. However, its something to think about considering you can get a Phenom II 965 for $110 from Newegg now, and yet i5-2300s cost $180. For that reason, I wouldn't agree with your statement AMD is a poor overall choice. Maybe when all the Phenom IIs are gone, but they aren't yet.
m
0
l
July 17, 2012 4:37:28 PM

nekulturny said:
Quote:
Yeah a 4GHz AMD processor that is highly overclocked looks like it can match a stock clocked mid ranged intel chip :)  Nice pic though!

Not highly overclocked, lol. Stock clock on a 975 is 3.6GHZ (so its a 400mhz OC). But yea it does say something that it takes 4.0GHZ on the P II to match the 2.8GHZ on the i5. However, its something to think about considering you can get a Phenom II 965 for $110 from Newegg now, and yet i5-2300s cost $180. For that reason, I wouldn't agree with your statement AMD is a poor overall choice. Maybe when all the Phenom IIs are gone, but they aren't yet.


have you got any benchmarks of both systems on the same GPUs?
how much was each of the systems???
m
0
l
Anonymous
July 17, 2012 4:52:52 PM

amuffin said:
30c idle ;) 

Posting temperatures without the ambient temperature is meaningless, helps noone,

What really counts is how many C you getting above ambient there for someone else can estimate how it will work the build you suggesting in the ambient temperature he is into.

Anyway i think i over do it in here cya arround.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
July 17, 2012 4:57:30 PM

Quote:
have you got any benchmarks of both systems on the same GPUs?


I don't have any benches of the GTX 460 in my Phenom II system no or the 550 TI in the i5 system. The i5 build is technically not my computer, its my boyfriend's, he had it build by a local shop in his home town, as such its not really mine to mess with and I won't if theres nothing wrong with it.

As far as what both systems cost, I can answer that. He had a local shop build his for $700 give or take. Which was a pretty good deal at the time. It was built right after Sandy Bridge was released, at the time the GTX 460 1GB was about $200.

My 550 TI is a Zotac AMP edition, it was $170 when I bought it, and my Phenom II 975 was $150+$25 for the aftermarket cooler. My build did cost more (around $900), but the price difference is in the better quality motherboard, case and power supply. (I actually initially thought it was an i5-2400, but when I ran the Cinebench I realized it wasn't.) He has an ugly looking generic case that was probably like $40, I have a $130 NZXT Phantom for example.

If you want the detailed spec list on the i5 system. I'll get it later on today. And I can check my email for the invoices for my Phenom II computer. But I do know you can build a Phenom II system similarly spece'd with more modest computer parts for about $600 or so today.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
July 17, 2012 5:17:31 PM

Arlite, I got a CPU-Z validator file on 'em. BTW, does anyone know why CPU-Z seems to always show Intel CPUs running at a lower clock speed? I know this thing ain't running at no 1.6GHZ.


i-5 Build
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2442120

Phenom II build
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2316227

Building similar systems today:

Phenom II @4.0GHZ
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/cmZE

i5-2300
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/cmYc
m
0
l
Anonymous
July 17, 2012 5:20:54 PM

nekulturny said:
Quote:
have you got any benchmarks of both systems on the same GPUs?


I don't have any benches of the GTX 460 in my Phenom II system no or the 550 TI in the i5 system. The i5 build is technically not my computer, its my boyfriend's, he had it build by a local shop in his home town, as such its not really mine to mess with and I won't if theres nothing wrong with it.

As far as what both systems cost, I can answer that. He had a local shop build his for $700 give or take. Which was a pretty good deal at the time. It was built right after Sandy Bridge was released, at the time the GTX 460 1GB was about $200.

My 550 TI is a Zotac AMP edition, it was $170 when I bought it, and my Phenom II 975 was $150+$25 for the aftermarket cooler. My build did cost more (around $900), but the price difference is in the better quality motherboard, case and power supply. (I actually initially thought it was an i5-2400, but when I ran the Cinebench I realized it wasn't.) He has an ugly looking generic case that was probably like $40, I have a $130 NZXT Phantom for example.

If you want the detailed spec list on the i5 system. I'll get it later on today. And I can check my email for the invoices for my Phenom II computer. But I do know you can build a Phenom II system similarly spece'd with more modest computer parts for about $600 or so today.


look the scores:

http://www.cbscores.com/

amd scores higher than any intel machine
m
0
l
a c 191 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
July 17, 2012 6:13:34 PM

Anonymous said:
look the scores:

http://www.cbscores.com/

amd scores higher than any intel machine


You realize that's comparing 48 cores to 12 cores right?
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
July 17, 2012 6:15:50 PM

Pinhedd said:
You realize that's comparing 48 cores to 12 cores right?

Also not particularly useful to the PC user, considering they're server grade chips.
m
0
l
July 17, 2012 6:31:04 PM

Im just downloading cinebench to run it and see how my PC compares to your systems. any specific settings to use for cinebench?
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
July 17, 2012 6:49:52 PM

I just run the OpenGL and the CPU tests. You can run it single core or all available cores. For best results you want to close as many background programs as you can when you run it. Ideally, you should run it a couple times to make sure the results are consistent.
m
0
l
Anonymous
July 17, 2012 8:20:06 PM

Pinhedd said:
You realize that's comparing 48 cores to 12 cores right?


Of course when it comes to 3d rendering you see workstation cpu’s on top is their territory and I wouldn’t be surprised if they have ocz drives like I post above and no one can get them.

I didn’t came reading 1 benchmark backwards and claiming Intel’s Arithmetic Logic Unit is better than AMD’S was never been.

PS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opteron
PS2 the topic is "real world" even this benchmark is out of topic no one will buy a cpu like that to play games, serfing...
PS3 rajaawad23 the best you can do to a desktop pc is to build a raid 0 volume with the onboard raid controler having in mind the limitations you see here:

http://technet.microsoft.com/library/Cc938432

you can't just peek the faster HDD that you see in charts and put 6 on them you will end up with 6 terrabytes volume even some bios can't read that! OZC is the only way and PRO's have x 8 pic-e the subject you opening is very BIG. I gave a 'cheep' ocz drive above.

Ps4 I have no reason to contimue posting in here unless the op has a question.
m
0
l
July 17, 2012 8:26:14 PM


done the cinebench, results not too bad, noticed my primary hdd is faster than my secondary though.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
July 17, 2012 9:36:54 PM

Thats about what you'd expect with an Athlon II 620. The main difference between them and the Phenom IIs is the Athlon IIs don't have an L3 cache, you take a small hit from that, plus the lower clock speed.
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
July 19, 2012 6:02:28 AM

Anonymous said:
look the scores:

http://www.cbscores.com/

amd scores higher than any intel machine

Now compare sandybridge Xeons to the Bulldozer Opertons.

Let's see who wins.
m
0
l
July 19, 2012 10:42:15 AM

jaguarskx said:
Considering the difference in CPU processing power is around 25%, assuming the same clockspeed, the difference will be more than a few seconds especially if the time required to render or encode can be hours. 3D rendering can even take days depending on the scope of the project.




This really should be physically tested. I would be interesting to see what time savings are available over lengthy periods of running. Personally I don't think it would be that great. My niece found that although her C2D and NVidia 8600 was indeed fast, it over heated and blew the GPU twice. ASUS sol'n was to replace the GPU with a slower and cooler 8400 GPU on the 3rd occasion.

On my advice she moved over to an AMD Turion with 4200 GPU that gave her more consistent performance, no crashing and superior multi-tasking, all elements of intensive photo and video editing. Just one user experience, sure, but shows that bench marks are not the be all and end all and certainly don't translate from short burst testing to prolonged use.
m
0
l
July 19, 2012 11:06:48 AM

Seeing as this is my thread lol :p  ... may I ask, generally for video-editing and rendering, which would be a better option? Athlon II X3 (OC + unlock) or i3 2100?

I know that video-editing / rendering / encoding benefit from more cores... but that's 4 slow cores with no L3 cache vs 2 really fast hyper-threaded cores with 3MB L3 cache... so this thing's really twisting my brains out trying to figure out which one is the better option.

The main priority for my budget-oriented PC was gaming, so I chose gaming-oriented parts... however, I'm still wondering how my i3 2100 holds up against an identical build (slightly more expensive) with an Athlon II X3 (OC + unlock ofcourse) when it comes to video-editing / rendering / encoding.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
July 19, 2012 11:22:18 AM

Forde3654Eire said:
Seeing as this is my thread lol :p  ... may I ask, generally for video-editing and rendering, which would be a better option? Athlon II X3 (OC + unlock) or i3 2100?

I know that video-editing / rendering / encoding benefit from more cores... but that's 4 slow cores with no L3 cache vs 2 really fast hyper-threaded cores with 3MB L3 cache... so this thing's really twisting my brains out trying to figure out which one is the better option.

The main priority for my budget-oriented PC was gaming, so I chose gaming-oriented parts... however, I'm still wondering how my i3 2100 holds up against an identical build (slightly more expensive) with an Athlon II X3 (OC + unlock ofcourse) when it comes to video-editing / rendering / encoding.


IF you could get the fourth core to stably unlock AND you could OC it to 3.8-4.0Ghz, an Athlon II X3 should just about equal and possibly surpass (in a few cases) a 2100 for rendering and encoding.

Athlon II X4 645 compared to an i3 2100 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/188?vs=289 Mainly look at the video editing, encoding and rendering benches.

That's just stock speeds, of course, but that at least gives you an idea of what an Athlon II X4 would do against an i3 2100.

The thing with that of course is that you're not guaranteed to be able to stably unlock the extra core and OC's are always variable between chips (especially ones with unlocked cores).
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 19, 2012 11:33:37 AM

harna said:
This really should be physically tested. I would be interesting to see what time savings are available over lengthy periods of running. Personally I don't think it would be that great. My niece found that although her C2D and NVidia 8600 was indeed fast, it over heated and blew the GPU twice. ASUS sol'n was to replace the GPU with a slower and cooler 8400 GPU on the 3rd occasion.

On my advice she moved over to an AMD Turion with 4200 GPU that gave her more consistent performance, no crashing and superior multi-tasking, all elements of intensive photo and video editing. Just one user experience, sure, but shows that bench marks are not the be all and end all and certainly don't translate from short burst testing to prolonged use.


If you read the entire thread, you will see that its already been tested. Benchmarks also test this. The difference is pretty massive. Now, AMD is good enough for most basic tasks, but Intel is where its at for the heavy lifting. Bulldozer can keep up in only a very few circumstances, mainly heavily multi-threaded applications. I've used both modern Intel and AMD. I really cannot notice much difference in day to day tasks (word editing, excel, power point, checking e-mail, face book, some browser games). But in gaming and rendering? Biiiiig difference in speed.

By the way, I don't know why you blame the C2D for overheating. Poor airflow or a improperly seated heatsink can cause overheating. Also it could have been other components as well. The C2Ds ran cool as far as processors were concerned.

m
0
l
!