Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD VS INTEL which is best?HELP

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 25, 2012 2:10:12 PM

i am planning to buy new pc i got stuck which is best cpu intel or amd i am on a tight budget and need pc for gaming,i heard that amd cpus are having heating problem.as my pc specs are very cheap if i buy amd cpu as compare to intel cpu.


my question should i buy amd cpu?it is good or equal to intel

More about : amd intel

September 25, 2012 2:23:39 PM

so tell us what are the 2 Cpu's from intel and amd that u can afford, that you want to compare between them ?
m
0
l
September 25, 2012 2:39:08 PM

In terms of gaming this is normally hands down Intel > AMD. Intel's per core efficiency is way beyond AMD at the moment.
m
0
l
Related resources
September 25, 2012 2:50:59 PM

Intel, by far. Their per-core performance is superior and that matters far more than number of cores.
m
0
l
a c 102 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 25, 2012 11:41:16 PM

Intel are better at every price point at the moment but AMD do not have cooling problems.
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 25, 2012 11:52:16 PM

For gaming definitely go Intel. You asked if AMD has a processor that is as good as or equal to the Intel’s CPU’s and the answer is no. The Bulldozer performs on the level of a Core 2 Duo and the Llano APU’s perform on the level of an Athlon II. Both are going to be pretty slow compared to Intels SB and IB CPU's.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2012 11:54:18 PM

simon12 said:
Intel are better at every price point at the moment but AMD do not have cooling problems.



You should change your statement to Intel is better for gaming at any price point.


I Personally would not buy anything from Intel unless it was a I3 or better.
m
0
l
a c 109 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 12:22:35 AM

^ +1

@ Simon

What do you mean 'cooling problems' ? I haven't run into any issues cooling my 2700k so far :lol: 

If you mean AMD chips run cooler, then yes, this is true.
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 26, 2012 12:27:36 AM

I though Intel runs cooler. The Sandy Bridges and Ivy bridges has a lower TDP and should run cooler than the older Phenom II's and Bulldozer.
m
0
l
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
a c 115 å Intel
September 26, 2012 12:40:25 AM

jhonsm007 said:
i am planning to buy new pc i got stuck which is best cpu intel or amd i am on a tight budget and need pc for gaming,i heard that amd cpus are having heating problem.as my pc specs are very cheap if i buy amd cpu as compare to intel cpu.


my question should i buy amd cpu?it is good or equal to intel


Overall, it depends on how much you want to spend. If you do not have a budget, then the general answer is to go with Intel. Since you do have a budget, then it is either/or. For the budget conscious person I generally recommend the Phenom II X4 965 BE (unless they are no longer in stock). The X4 965 BE is a quad core CPU and it costs less than the i3-2100 (dual core). The X4 965 BE offers somewhat similar performance to the Core i3 when running at stock speed. Overall, I would rate those CPUs are near equals. However, the X4 965 BE can be overclocked (with the right mobo) and can beat a core i3 in performance, or at worse just be equal.
m
0
l
a c 109 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 12:56:14 AM

rds1220 said:
I though Intel runs cooler. The Sandy Bridges and Ivy bridges has a lower TDP and should run cooler than the older Phenom II's and Bulldozer.


No, Intel runs significantly warmer than AMD CPU's.

My i7 2700k @ 4.8Ghz with 1.4v can get as hot as 80C while my brother's Phenom II X4 955 @ 4Ghz with 1.45v only goes up to 48C. From what I've noticed, BD chips run significantly warmer than the Phenom II's, however, they're still cooler than Intel's SB or IB chips.

m
0
l
a c 109 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 12:56:19 AM

jaguarskx said:
Overall, it depends on how much you want to spend. If you do not have a budget, then the general answer is to go with Intel. Since you do have a budget, then it is either/or. For the budget conscious person I generally recommend the Phenom II X4 965 BE (unless they are no longer in stock). The X4 965 BE is a quad core CPU and it costs less than the i3-2100 (dual core). The X4 965 BE offers somewhat similar performance to the Core i3 when running at stock speed. Overall, I would rate those CPUs are near equals. However, the X4 965 BE can be overclocked (with the right mobo) and can beat a core i3 in performance, or at worse just be equal.


^ This, +1
m
0
l
September 26, 2012 1:52:09 AM

mocchan said:
No, Intel runs significantly warmer than AMD CPU's.

My i7 2700k @ 4.8Ghz with 1.4v can get as hot as 80C while my brother's Phenom II X4 955 @ 4Ghz with 1.45v only goes up to 48C. From what I've noticed, BD chips run significantly warmer than the Phenom II's, however, they're still cooler than Intel's SB or IB chips.


Yeah, just like what i saw comparing my i3-2120 and athlon ii x2 245 :p 

I thought my i3 was overheating. Idle 37-38c, Prime95/Cinebench never goes over 70c (Fullload).

My casing has a sticker on the front and it says "38c Ambient Temperature, Intel Recommended" :D 

Intel runs warmer but it can handle higher temps than amd right?
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
September 26, 2012 2:05:02 AM

Yup!

Sandybridge cores can handle up to 95C :ouch: 
m
0
l
September 26, 2012 2:21:21 AM

amuffin said:
Yup!

Sandybridge cores can handle up to 95C :ouch: 


Perhaps for a very brief period of time, but not for long term use if you want your cpu to last long at all. I agree with a few posters here about the 965BE
being better than i3 or lower is you are severely budget constrainted. A little overclocking will make a phenom II x4 perform like a lower end i5 quad with
locked down multiplier, and you can get there with a relatively cheap cooler and feature rich mobo. You may need to have a bit stronger power supply if
you go amd vs intel, but since you can achieve low level i5 quad performance(which won't bottle neck current games) then you are better of with a 965BE
(especially as more games take advantage of multiple cores like BF3 online, skyrim and RTSs. Quads will fare better where duals will fall on their faces).

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 2:33:25 AM

Well if you run threaded apps bulldozer/FX AMD would be just as good as intell for that, as a lot of the reviews say.

If you are truly budget, you could get Trinity APU that is coming out next week or so in October. Here: http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2012090301_Pre-order...

That APU is supposed to be able to play games like a lower - medium end graphics card, while being a good enough cpu. If you are budget, you probably won't be doing things that exceed what you are building right?

Otherwise Intell and graphics card I guess, but that is way more expensive.

If you are worried about overheating, no matter what cpu you get you can buy a 20ish good reviewed aftermarket cooler that will be better than stock. (at least)
m
0
l
September 26, 2012 2:39:15 AM

Btw, I was in the same boat..

I was choosing between i3-21xx, FX-4100, A6/A8.

Phenom II X4 is the one i really wanted.. so i don't need to buy a new motherboard (Cheaper upgrade). But it's really hard to find.

I ended up getting an i3 because there are no any AMD Quads available in my place.

Phenom II X4 is rare :D  So get it before it disappears.
m
0
l
a c 99 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 3:20:31 AM

rds1220 said:
I though Intel runs cooler. The Sandy Bridges and Ivy bridges has a lower TDP and should run cooler than the older Phenom II's and Bulldozer.


First of all, TDP !+ temperature. You must test with the same (aftermarket) heatsink to accurately tell which CPUs run warmer as the stock heatsinks from AMD and Intel differ quite a bit. Intel's stock push-pin aluminum hockey puck heatsinks for their "mainstream" CPUs suck. The only decent ones they make are the tower ones for the recent Extreme Edition CPUs. AMD's heatsinks for their 125+ W TDP parts like FX-8150s are pretty good units with copper heatpipes and will cool an otherwise identical CPU much better than the crappy Intel one.

Secondly, TDP is "thermal design power," not maximum dissipated power. The TDP is a figure to roughly guide system integrators in figuring how large of a heatsink to use and how much airflow a particular CPU needs. Intel and AMD figure TDP quite differently, especially now that CPUs have a Turbo mechanism to "use up unused thermal budget" to increase performance.

AMD CPUs are designed to never exceed their TDP under full load. AMD has an integrated power sensor on their Family 15h+ (Bulldozer/Piledriver/etc.) units. Power dissipation at full load at full rated non-Turbo speed is below the TDP limit. The CPU will Turbo to the maximum single or multi-core per-defined Turbo speed for the particular CPU if its current power consumption is less than the TDP, or run at lower than maximum Turbo speed to keep current power consumption <= TDP.

Current Intel CPUs are designed to on average be at the TDP over the long term but can exceed the TDP for short periods of time. The CPU will allow itself to run at Turbo speeds where the CPU can use some multiple of its TDP for 1.5x some value in seconds (defaults are 1.25x TDP and a value of 28 seconds), then reduce Turbo to where the power consumption == TDP as long as the CPU does not overheat. The aim behind this is that the CPU can run at more than its TDP for short bursts when the system was previously idle without overheating because the heatsink is cool and can absorb a higher rate of heat production for a short period of time without becoming too hot. The over-TDP Turbo then backs off to at-TDP Turbo when the heatsink gets warmed up to "full" temp. This appears to be accurate but I may have missed something, there is an entire 132-page manual just for the LGA1155 CPUs' electrical and thermal characteristics...

So in short, it's difficult to accurately say which CPU will run how much hotter due to the big differences in heatsinks and Turbo modes. If you run your CPU at sustained full load for a long period of time and use the same heatsink, AMD and Intel TDPs appear to be pretty comparable and a 77 watt Intel CPU will run a little cooler than a 95 watt AMD unit. However, if you don't routinely peg cores for very long, multiply the Intel TDP by 1.25x and that should compare to an AMD CPU- essentially a 95 W Intel TDP == 125 watt AMD TDP in that case.
m
0
l
September 26, 2012 9:18:18 AM

Hello, Mr. Moderator. You seem quite knowledgeable about these sorts of things. It makes sense to me that a far superior amd stock cooler would do
a relatively better job of cooling a high tdp cpu like phenom II or Bulldozer FX while the comparably crappy stock intel cooler doesn't do as well with
that company's lower tdp parts. I have to question what you are saying about them actually having similar power draw. Have we not all seen many
various tests online where a system with an amd processor will use quite a bit more power than an intel cpu doing the same task(besides mobo, all
other system parts being equal)? The relative heat between the two shouldn't matter that much in a system(amd's better coolers do a mediocre job of
cooling their higher tdp parts, intel's sub par coolers do a mediocre job of cooling their lower tdp parts). Where their relative tdps may matter more
(when someone is considering which company's parts to put in a build) is how it can change which power supply you may want to go with. The difference
in price you pay for a better psu to support a more power hungry cpu can modify how much you spend on other parts like a gpu(which on the low end
may use the same or less power than the cpu, or much more power than the cpu with a high end gpu). I'm not quite sure where I was going with that,
but it's pretty late here. I should probably let my brain wind down so I can get some sleep. Good morning, good afternoon and good night to all.
m
0
l
a c 99 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 4:21:42 PM

jtenorj said:
Hello, Mr. Moderator. You seem quite knowledgeable about these sorts of things. It makes sense to me that a far superior amd stock cooler would do
a relatively better job of cooling a high tdp cpu like phenom II or Bulldozer FX while the comparably crappy stock intel cooler doesn't do as well with
that company's lower tdp parts. I have to question what you are saying about them actually having similar power draw. Have we not all seen many
various tests online where a system with an amd processor will use quite a bit more power than an intel cpu doing the same task(besides mobo, all
other system parts being equal)? The relative heat between the two shouldn't matter that much in a system(amd's better coolers do a mediocre job of
cooling their higher tdp parts, intel's sub par coolers do a mediocre job of cooling their lower tdp parts). Where their relative tdps may matter more
(when someone is considering which company's parts to put in a build) is how it can change which power supply you may want to go with. The difference
in price you pay for a better psu to support a more power hungry cpu can modify how much you spend on other parts like a gpu(which on the low end
may use the same or less power than the cpu, or much more power than the cpu with a high end gpu). I'm not quite sure where I was going with that,
but it's pretty late here. I should probably let my brain wind down so I can get some sleep. Good morning, good afternoon and good night to all.


The CPU is only one part of the total system power equation. The motherboard has a lot to do with it as well. A very high-end board like an AM3+ 990FX or LGA2011 X79 board will not be as efficient as a mainstream LGA1155 P67/Z77 or FM1 A75 board. The high-end boards have less efficient but much more robust VRMs for the CPU for better overclocking of higher-TDP parts and also tend to have extra features that draw more power. Most comparisons are done between an AM3+ CPU on a 990FX board compared to an LGA1155 CPU on Z77 because cost and performance of the CPUs is roughly similar but the motherboards really are not very alike at all.

The at the wall difference between power consumption of mainstream CPUs on typical boards is pretty small- 50-75 watts is a pretty large difference unless we have overclocked the CPUs pretty heavily. Buying an extra 50-75 watt capacity in a PSU costs very, very little money. The biggest power consumers on most of the machines on this site are GPUs. A decent GPU will use 150-200 watts and a really high-end one will use close to 300 watts. Some people also have multiple-GPU setups too, so double those figures. A good dual-GPU setup may suck down 500 watts from the wall just to feed the GPUs. You would need a quad-CPU setup to draw that kind of power using processors alone.
m
0
l
September 26, 2012 5:37:42 PM

The only reason I can see to go amd right now(prior to a possibly awesome release in piledriver FX) is for the price/performance advantage at extremely
low budget levels versus core i3 or lower( get a 965BE and OC a little to match lower speed locked down i5 quads on a cheap but feature rich am3+ mobo
and cheap but effective air cooler). A 965BE(whether overclocked a little, a lot, or not at all) uses a lot more power than an i3(the mobo may use more
power too with better voltage regulation circuits, the chipset and all the features) making what psu to purchase for the build a bigger impact on budget
(if going with an otherwise similar gpu). I'm not a fan of multi gpu setups myself for a number of reasons.
m
0
l
!