Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Why cant amd keep up with intel?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 10, 2012 4:02:53 AM

Why cant amd produce faster cpus for gaming like intel????why are they lagging behind?????

More about : amd intel

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 10, 2012 4:17:46 AM

Seriously?

Intel was there first.

Intel does marketing.

Intel did a lot of dirty deals years ago to keep AMD out of some markets, even when AMD was beating them badly on performance and price.

AMD has never had the market share to make a large profit, so intel's R&D budget each year is more than AMD is even worth, which lets Intel have its own fabs.and spend its way to success. Considering AMDs massive disadvantage they have done pretty well.

but your entire premise is wrong. 3 year old Phenom IIs are fine for gaming. So are all the FX CPUs. Intel just happen to be a little faster. its kind of irrelevant who has the top spot these days. And as more programs support GPU acceleration and cores, and Intel focused on mobile parts, it may even swing back AMDs way some.
m
1
l
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2012 4:20:57 AM

Money.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2012 4:22:03 AM

AMD makes CPUs and GPUs and is not worth nearly what Intel is worth. So the CPUs are not as good.
m
1
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
December 10, 2012 4:35:33 AM

Intel has more money to throw at everything so they are "better"

AMD has to split budget to cover both GPU and CPU and their GPU side is doing fine by CPU is losing. CPU has not executed well, been delayed and been hammered by cuts and layoffs. Bulldozer was supposed to come out a while back when it actually might have been closer in IPC. Earliest I see AMD being competitive in IPC is Steamroller/Excavator as it seems that Intel is only doing incremental CPU improvements while focusing on the GPU side.

Their CPU's are fine for gaming. The FX6300 is a good CPU for gaming. Not as fast as the i5's but its more than good enough for most circumstances. Its like my defacto go to CPU for helping others build a gaming rig as long as they can afford it. You really hit the point of diminishing returns once you hit the i5 3470

i7 3770k > E3 1230V2> i5 3570k > i5 3470 > performance gap I would like to be filled that actually has a competitive price > FX6300 > i3 3220 > A8 5600k OC > Pentiums/low end APU's
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
December 10, 2012 5:21:27 AM


Toms has yet yo update their chart with complete benchmarks of the Vishera/Piledriver CPU's. I believe they are working on a comprehensive review of all vishera CPU's that will be reflected in the chart (chart reflects purely on performance and not cost, TDP, platform cost, power usage.)It is only a rough guideline. I would personally bump up the 4300 and 4170 to the i3 class. Also add a category between the i3's and the i5's and put in the Fx8350, 8320 and 6300 there. Even more ambitously add in another tier and put the FX8350 by itself there but that might be too complicated. Intel side I would bump the six core and quad core intels a bit (the i7 9xx and 8xx)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

You may notice the toms review did not have the FX6300 or the i3's benchmarked.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/10/22/amd_fx8350_pi...

In all reviews, the FX8350 managed playable framerates. In the HardOCP one, both Intel and Amd breached the 100fps barrier. AMD has given up the top performance but their CPU's are still not something to scoff at.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8350/8.ht...

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8350/9.ht...

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8350/10.h...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-83...

The 8350 equal ore worse than the 3470 which is why i did not recommend it (at least in gaming, in apps the amd is better). The 8320 is between the 3470 and the 6300 but needs its cost adjusted. The FX 6300 fits right into the price/perf gap between the i5 3470 and the i3 3220 [overall faster and will only get faster when placed in demanding multiplayer games like 64 man BF3 which can use up to 6 cores (yes it actually scales that high)]. The 4300 is worse than the i3 but costs slightly more so not a good choice. Using a A8 5600k (similar to the 4300) is slightly cheaper than a i3 while a better cpu than the pentiums so its a good choice.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2012 5:33:53 AM

sulabh biswas said:
Why cant amd produce faster cpus for gaming like intel????why are they lagging behind?????

Because Intel's Israeli division decided to work on Conroe (Core 2 Duo) and since then AMD has been unable to compete.

When Intel had the Pentium 4 AMD had the Athlon XP, and the Athlon XP incorporated the DEC Alpha EV bus, which gave DDR-SDRAM an advantage (value wise) over what Intel was offering, money that -once invested elsewhere in a system- yielded much better performance.

AMD cross licensed AMD64 to Intel, which was a mistake as the consumer market didn't want IA-64 (Itanium).

Some idiot on these very forums suggested to AMD they make chips like they are making now with a 'reverse HyperThreading', and despite advice to the otherwise (mostly from yours truly) AMD went ahead and did it. :pt1cable: 

- Until they wake the up everything they release will be 18 months behind Intel sadly.

- Heck, even the Intel Pentium Desktop processors are handing AMD's current CPU's their own asses. :heink: 
- URL: http://ark.intel.com/products/family/41877/Intel-Pentiu...

It all basically boils down to issue width, the TLB's and hidden registers that do Out-of-Order execution (beyond just register renaming) and Intel has the advantage there now. (AMD used to with the Athlon MP, XP, 64, any maybe even 64 X2 for a little while).

Clock speed means very little when it comes to performance, but that's not how consumers thought so Intel still held onto a huge market share.

Before 2H 2006 Intel had nothing to offer, compared to AMD, besides well integrated motherboard chipsets.
- Now both Intel and AMD have integrated memory controllers too.
- URL: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2045/16

AMD need to downsize, go through 3 years of hell, put more into R&D, then try and claw their way back from 10% to 15% market share (as it drops daily).

AMD have done this once before, they can do it again (as the semiconductor market is worth $300 billion a year, even a 10% share is enough to float a company).


AMD making GPUs was also a giant mistake, as they paid at least +25% more for ATI than ATI was worth and no-one else was interested.

- The Global Foundries 'split' was also a giant mistake in my eyes.

- The German Gov. should not be bailing out AMD (this made their Business Management sloppy and lead to decisions being made based on illusions, smoke & mirrors).

On the upside AMD do have the 'Slimbook' market, or WTF they call it. (Intel has Ultrabooks which are more integrated and have far longer battery life. Goverments want 7:30 to 8:00 battery life in laptops as that is a business day and the capacity reduces over time).


Socket A to Socket 939/940 was AMDs time in the sun.
- If they want to compete now (and move double the volume of CPUs) they should market dual-socket boards as consumer oriented and 'upgrade conscious', ideally with a ccNUMA memory architecture (similar to the AMD Opteron series).
- This would help them with volume and keep the motherboard vendors happy, as Intel are giving them the shits!


Sadly... I don't work for AMD, or HP, or Compaq, or DEC. etc.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
December 10, 2012 6:00:01 AM

Buying ATI was okay but they paid way too much. GPU division actually makes money right now.
I agree that the GF slpit was a big mistake.
Loved my Socket A Athlon XP
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
December 10, 2012 6:00:19 AM

Oh, and their CPU coolers are total garbage compared to what Intel packages with their CPUs for free.
- Large scale system builders (Dell, HP, etc.) hate AMD for this.
- Buying ATI was a huge mistake, they should've just invested in them and not messed with the companies management.
- When AMD started screwing with ATI that is exactly when NVIDIA's market share almost grew as large as Intel's.
- Not to mention the first batch of GPUs that AMD had their hand in just didn't perform as well as advertised.

This is what stoners play, they became AMD's target market once Core 2 Duo was out:


I don't think AMD ever knew who their tarket customers were (or became).
- Fact of the matter is that AMD need at least +20% more performance PER CLOCK CYCLE to compete with Intel.
- Ideally +28% to break even on some CPU BOUND BENCHMARKS.

Stoners might not understand this stuff, but they usually have IT literate friends who try to steer them clear of all the garbage products (which currently are what AMD are pushing, I mean 8 cores at 4.0GHz shouldn't be that slow!).


Wow, reverse hyper-theading has lost them between 3% and 8% of the performance per clock cycle WITH 'DOUBLE'* THE CORE COUNT!
- * Not really double the core count, the CPU just appears to the OS as two CPU cores in a lame attempt to offload more work to the compiler on the x86-64 platform (hasn't worked in the past, nice idea, don't expect Software Developers to do it for you for free AMD!).
- AMDs older 4C/4T CPU's clocked at 4.0GHz would outperform their own 8C/8T CPU's .... now that is just sad!


PS: I don't normally use these words to describe a companies products, but I tried to warn them and they just went ahead and ruined their future product line-up.
Share
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2012 6:27:22 AM

Scott_D_Bowen said:
Oh, and their CPU coolers are total garbage compared to what Intel packages with their CPUs for free.
- Large scale system builders (Dell, HP, etc.) hate AMD for this.
- Buying ATI was a huge mistake, they should've just invested in them and not messed with the companies management.
- When AMD started screwing with ATI that is exactly when NVIDIA's market share almost grew as large as Intel's.
- Not to mention the first batch of GPUs that AMD had their hand in just didn't perform as well as advertised.

This is what stoners play, they became AMD's target market once Core 2 Duo was out:
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/Q/357650/original/skyrim%201680.png

I don't think AMD ever knew who their tarket customers were (or became).
- Fact of the matter is that AMD need at least +20% more performance PER CLOCK CYCLE to compete with Intel.
- Ideally +28% to break even on some CPU BOUND BENCHMARKS.

Stoners might not understand this stuff, but they usually have IT literate friends who try to steer them clear of all the garbage products (which currently are what AMD are pushing, I mean 8 cores at 4.0GHz shouldn't be that slow!).


Wow, reverse hyper-theading has lost them between 3% and 8% of the performance per clock cycle WITH 'DOUBLE'* THE CORE COUNT!
- * Not really double the core count, the CPU just appears to the OS as two CPU cores in a lame attempt to offload more work to the compiler on the x86-64 platform (hasn't worked in the past, nice idea, don't expect Software Developers to do it for you for free AMD!).
- AMDs older 4C/4T CPU's clocked at 4.0GHz would outperform their own 8C/8T CPU's .... now that is just sad!


PS: I don't normally use these words to describe a companies products, but I tried to warn them and they just went ahead and ruined their future product line-up.

First off 80FPS is more then playable. Second off you picked a low threaded game. You must have really wanted to pick that one that showed Intel as the winner.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2012 7:25:05 AM

melikepie,

80fps is not 'playable' if that is the average and the titles spend 10%, 5% or even 1% of their time under 48fps at med/high visuals. (I'd forgive 1% under 48fps at ultra visuals).


AMD need to learn to compete on benchmarks that are CPU BOUND.
- As in where the CPU is the bottleneck, since that is what they are selling.
- They also need to get their average and peak power consumption down about 100 watts to compete with Intel as mass produced systems aren't made to draw 400 watts constantly.

The reason for this is that people today actually look at the spikes, the 99th percentile (weighted average(s)), and time spent on frames above 15.625ms to 31.25ms. (64fps and 32fps).

URL: http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

Pick any title at any resolution with no AA, FXAA, 2xMSAA or similar.
- Show me where AMD win just 'three' benchmarks or even win in fps per $


I'd love to see the Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 days return too mate, but it's not going to happen before the end of 2012.
m
0
l
December 10, 2012 7:40:50 AM

Scott i like ur word, seriously, that what i waiting for some time, for someone that can tell more

But i think amd gpu now is starting to rise and challenging nvidia card,
It a good sign that amd showing some fight in the market,

I really agree with u, amd will good like in the old days, at least not in the nearest future,
Hope that the rumors next gen console using amd cpu and gpu come to reality.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2012 7:47:46 AM

Ceee9 said:
Scott i like ur word, seriously, that what i waiting for some time, for someone that can tell more

But i think amd gpu now is starting to rise and challenging nvidia card,
It a good sign that amd showing some fight in the market,

I really agree with u, amd will good like in the old days, at least not in the nearest future,
Hope that the rumors next gen console using amd cpu and gpu come to reality.

I know someone confirmed a AMD based console, forgot who. They both are I think (Xbox And PS). This is really gonna help AMD by selling people these consoles which play games, or at least is whats left of them after they cut a ton of things out so its playable on $10 hardware.
m
0
l
December 10, 2012 8:29:57 AM

It saves sticking a huge GPU in the box and will keep things a bit cooler. That's where the APU has the edge, it can play games, SB and IB on their own can not.
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 115 å Intel
a c 119 À AMD
December 10, 2012 10:59:28 AM

sulabh biswas said:
Why cant amd produce faster cpus for gaming like intel????why are they lagging behind?????


In general, Intel spends 5x - 6x more money on research & development than AMD. So while AMD might be spending $1.5 billion, Intel spends around $8 billion.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2012 12:23:17 AM

The Xbox 360 GPU tender was awarded to AMD/ATI
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_%28graphics_chip%29
- I doubt they have reason to change to NVIDIA (they did the PlayStation 3 GPU).

By the sounds of the media reports the next Xbox GPU will have about 1392 million transistors and low power consumption so that it can stay cool within a game console.

I'd put it's peak performance above what the Radeon HD 7750 offers today thanks to better integration and the likelyhood of XDR and/or eDRAM being used in part(s) of the sytem.

- http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/7000/77...

The reason for this is that the power consumption of that GPU is well under 100 watts which is always the limiting factor in a game console.

The performance that GPU offers per dollar is close enough to 5,000 3DMark's and it could be tweaked to outperform the GTX650 Ti/Ti OC using only a 128-bit wide VRAM bus. (Especially as consoles are mass produced and use XDR and/or eDRAM solutions).

m
0
l
December 13, 2012 11:01:25 AM

Best answer selected by sulabh biswas.
m
0
l
!