Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why is Intel better than AMD?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 22, 2013 3:21:25 PM

Hello,

I bought the i5 3350p processor with 3.1 GHz and 4 cores. But then i say for example fx8320 with 3.5GHz and 8 cores. But why do peopel say that the Intel is better? Please explain to me!

More about : intel amd

January 22, 2013 3:25:54 PM

kaaskoekie said:
Hello,

I bought the i5 3350p processor with 3.1 GHz and 4 cores. But then i say for example fx8320 with 3.5GHz and 8 cores. But why do peopel say that the Intel is better? Please explain to me!

Those two perform about the same, the reason people say intel is better is because intel uses 4 pysical cores, amd uses 8 integer cores which is like a 3770 but with slightly better hyperthreading. The 8320 is better for video editing though.
January 22, 2013 3:29:38 PM

Opaz1ka said:
Those two perform about the same, the reason people say intel is better is because intel uses 4 pysical cores, amd uses 8 integer cores which is like a 3770 but with slightly better hyperthreading. The 8320 is better for video editing though.

But amd got 4 more cores+0.4 more GHz, how does that work because if you look at the numbers, you choose amd (of course)
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 3:42:38 PM

Numbers don't tell everything. In cars, not every 3.6L V6 has the same horsepower and fuel economy. Intel has more efficient cores that get more done with each cycle. AMD crams twice as many cores on the chip to catch up. This approach works very well for some applications and not as well for others. It also uses a bit more power.

That's why sites like this one exist to run the processors through actual tests and see how the numbers translate into actual performance. Going back to cars, Car magazines to the same thing with the new Porsche. Numbers are only directly comparable if everything else is the same.
January 22, 2013 3:46:50 PM

I really only use my pc for gaming, so not for video editing or that stuff. So it was a good choise to take the 3350p instead of the fx 8320?
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 3:54:12 PM

i5's do seem to win most gaming benchmark tests, yes. but they are also a very powerful processor even for video editing. I think a lot of people pick intel i5 because they are a great balanced processor with great performance in everything and they don't use a ton of power to do it.

So, yes, you made a good choice. But truth be told, the AMD 8300 series is quite excellent, too. So if you'd gone that way I'd be saying the same thing, too. :) 
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 3:55:27 PM

kaaskoekie said:
I really only use my pc for gaming, so not for video editing or that stuff. So it was a good choise to take the 3350p instead of the fx 8320?

Yea the intel cpu is better for gaming because no game utilizes 8 cores. Many don't even utilize 4.

And to answer your previous question, the number of cores don't matter unless you are comparing the same cpu cores. Lets say each intel core performs at 200 units. 200 x 4 = 800 units for the intel.

But for the amd cores, lets say each only performs 75 units. 75 x 8 = 600. As you can see the intel one is better. Of course this is only with made up numbers. Once again most programs dont utilize all 8 cores, so the amd cpu loses performance there as well.
January 22, 2013 4:05:53 PM

So its best to eat the higher price and go with intel?
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 4:10:16 PM

linkgx1 said:
So its best to eat the higher price and go with intel?


What's higher priced? If you compare equivalent performance, Intel is generally about the same price, give or take a few bucks.

It's never as simple as just saying "this one is always the best choice", anyway.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 22, 2013 4:19:03 PM

Never look at specs of cpu.Remember " Benchmarks are most important than specs"
January 22, 2013 4:21:35 PM

twelve25 said:
What's higher priced? If you compare equivalent performance, Intel is generally about the same price, give or take a few bucks.

It's never as simple as just saying "this one is always the best choice", anyway.

The price I'm seeing at Microcenter is that the intel is $30 more. Not only that, I can get a $15 Asus motherboard there. Were was with the intel I'm paying like $189+90 (motherboard combo).

Granted I'd be using this for a little bit of gaming (maybe FarCry 3 on med settings), coding and photoshop.
a c 140 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 22, 2013 4:24:38 PM

linkgx1 said:
So its best to eat the higher price and go with intel?


Like with most things you get what you pay for. Sure the I5 is more expensive but it is faster and more effcient than the Piledriver in single threaded programs. The same with the I7 sure it is more expensive than the the higest end Piledriver but in multi threaded, CPU intensive programs the I7 wins out in most benchmarks. So is it worth the extra cost to me yes I would rather spend the extra money and get a faster I5 if I was building a gaming computer. Also something else to think about; in the end when everything is said and done the Intel build doesn't end up being that much more. I did two buids for people one based around the I5 and the other the 8XXX Piledriver. Both were exactly the same except for the motherboard and CPU. Everything else the RAM, case, fans, were the same and the I5 build ended up being a little less than 100 dollars (I think about 80 dollars) more than the AMD build. So the whole "AMD is for good for a budget" is a load of crap. In the end it comes out pretty close.
January 22, 2013 4:31:03 PM

rds1220 said:
Like with most things you get what you pay for. Sure the I5 is more expensive but it is faster and more effcient than the Piledriver in single threaded programs. The same with the I7 sure it is more expensive than the the higest end Piledriver but in multi threaded, CPU intensive programs the I7 wins out in most benchmarks. So is it worth the extra cost to me yes I would rather spend the extra money and get a faster I5 if I was building a gaming computer. Also something else to think about; in the end when everything is said and done the Intel build doesn't end up being that much more. I did two buids for people one based around the I5 and the other the 8XXX Piledriver. Both were exactly the same except for the motherboard and CPU. Everything else the RAM, case, fans, were the same and the I5 build ended up being a little less than 100 dollars (I think about 80 dollars) more than the AMD build. So the whole "AMD is for good for a budget" is a load of crap. In the end it comes out pretty close.

I was going to say that. Especially if you look at benchmarks, then it's not cheaper. Sure you could get a 4.00ghz processor for like $100 with AMD, but the actual performance doesn't justify the price.
a c 140 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 22, 2013 4:39:26 PM

GHz and cores doesn't mean much anymore. First more cores isn't alway better. Next speed doesn't mean much either. The I5 is 3.4 Ghz the Piledriver 4.0 Ghz. Just by looking at the clock speeds you would think the Piledriver would be faster but that does not hold true. Because the Intel's core microarchitecture is faster and more effcient than Piledrivers it allows it to do more work per lock cycle. What this means is that it is faster than the Piledriver despite having a lower clock rate.
January 22, 2013 4:42:09 PM

OMG. Fanboys Can't live with them. Can't live without 'em.
a c 140 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 22, 2013 4:50:17 PM

linkgx1 said:
OMG. Fanboys Can't live with them. Can't live without 'em.


Huh who what are you talking about?
January 22, 2013 4:52:16 PM

linkgx1 said:
OMG. Fanboys Can't live with them. Can't live without 'em.

explain, please?
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 6:52:17 PM

linkgx1 said:
The price I'm seeing at Microcenter is that the intel is $30 more. Not only that, I can get a $15 Asus motherboard there. Were was with the intel I'm paying like $189+90 (motherboard combo).

.



AMD fx-8320 is $170
Intel i5-3470 is $150

AMD fx-8350 is $190
Intel i5-3570K is $190

Still not seeing the processor prices favoring AMD.

They have $40 discount on MB bundles with an i5-3570K, too.

January 22, 2013 6:54:11 PM

I just think overall, Intel is the more refined option. They make use of the cores they've got to maximize performance and efficiency, rather than AMD, who just seem to jam in more cores to keep up. Intel all the way!
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 7:08:16 PM

Just buy an i5 K edition and don't look back plus the cpu will gradually pay for its self depending where you live on utilities (electric).
a c 446 à CPUs
a c 111 À AMD
a c 110 å Intel
January 22, 2013 8:10:39 PM

Intel's CPUs have better IPC performance than AMD CPUs / APUs. That is the main reason why Intel CPUs are better. IPC stands for Instructions Per Clock (or Cycle). In essence it basically means that for every 1Hz an Intel CPU can process more instructions (or data) than AMD can. This explains why if an Intel and AMD CPUs are both clocked at the same speed, Intel's CPU wins. As an analogy, suppose person #1 can type 60 words per minute, and person #2 can type 55 words per minute. Assuming absolutely no typing mistakes, who do you think can finish typing a 1,000 word essay?

Extra cores found in AMD CPUs and Hyper Threading found in Intel's CPUs can improve performance, but only if they are taken advantage of. As stated above, AMD FX series CPUs are not "true" 8 core CPUs because the Bulldozer and Piledriver architecture is built around a modular design. There are actually two cores per module, but each module only has one FPU (Floating Point Unit), therefore if one core is using the FPU, the other core must wait. Therefore, the actual performance is less than a "true" 8 core CPU. Also, just because there are 8 cores hanging out, that does not mean a program will all 8 cores. The program must be designed to use those cores.

Programs capable of using more than one core are called "multi-threaded" programs. It is technically possible to design all programs to use 8 cores. However, doing so takes more time to design and test the program, that means more money for development. So if you don't mind potentially waiting longer for a program to come out and at the same time pay more money for it, then I'm sure software companies would be willing to design such programs if it makes sense. For example, designing a simple calculator for basic adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing operations that can make use of 8 cores is a total waste of resources.

The vast majority of games use only one or two cores. Combined with Intel's higher IPC (compared against AMD's FX CPUs), their CPUs generally perform better in games at can make use of a faster CPU. Skyrim is a good example of a dual core capable game that benefits from higher frequencies so if you can overclock your Intel / AMD CPU by 500MHz above stock speed, then you will see a performance difference. However, many (if not most) games are not really dependent on the CPU as long as it is not slow enough to bottleneck the graphics card. Crysis 2 is a good example of a games that does not care how fast your CPU is as long as it is not holding back the GPU. At 1920x1080 resolution with whatever highend graphic card used for the review I read sometime ago, Crysis 2 did not care if you were running a Core i5-2500k at stock speed or at 4.8GHz, the performance increase was only 1 or at best 2 extra frames.

There are a decent number of games that can make use of 4 cores, but in comparison to the number of games capable of using 2 (or less) cores, it is miniscule. Of course, if you know the games you will be buying can make use of more than 2 core, then it makes sense to buy a quad core CPU. The only game I can think of that may be able to use up to 6 core is Battlefield 3 in multi-player mode. But that game is the exception, not the rule.

Intel's Hyper Threading technology (HT or sometime called HTT) are virtual cores. Unlike the physical cores in AMD's FX CPUs. Generally speaking having physical cores is better than having virtual cores; even if those physical core are sharing resources. Basically speaking, HT works by searching for a core that is simply idling, if all cores are 100% busy, then HT just waits... once a core becomes available HT uses it to process another thread (stream of instructions / data). Technically speaking HT can ensure all 4 cores are full utilized as long as there are some programs running that needs to process data. This is a very simplistic description so take it with a grain of salt.

The problem with HT is similar to AMD's 8 core (and 6 core) CPUs. If a program is not designed to use HT, then it won't. Probably the most common program at almost everyone uses once in a while that are both multi-thread (using all or most of the available cores) and HT are file compression programs like 7-Zip and WinRAR. Some video encoding programs and video codecs can make of use multiple core and HT as well, but not everyone encodes videos. However, games are not designed to make use of HT. Actually, there was one game that came out in 2011/2012 that was designed to use HT. It was some space combat game that simply bombed. I think the best review it got was something like 4 out of 10; pretty bad...

Anywaste... in the end games generally perform better on PCs with Intel CPUs compared to AMD CPUs if they are CPU bound (dependent). That's assuming the same clockspeed. AMD CPUs would need to be clocked higher to provide the gamed level of performance as Intel CPUs in CPU bound games. Different games have different CPU dependencies.

For a pure AMD gaming rig I would probably go with the quad core FX-4320 which has a clockspeed of 4.0GHz/4.2GHz. It is also pretty easy to overclock as well. Sure, it does not have 6 core or 8 cores, but it also produces less heat and consumes less electricity. If you are a huge fan of BattleField 3 and plan on buying other games based on the Frostbite 2 engine, then the 6 core FX-6300 would be preferable. However (at least with BF3), the game only uses more than 2 cores in multiplayer mode.

So what about the 8 core FX-83xx series? For a pure gaming rig I think it makes more sense to get the FX-4xxx or FX 63xx CPUs. The 7th and 8th will likely never be used in games. But if you do other CPU intensive things like encode video in addition to playing games, then yes for I would recommend going with one of the FX-83xx CPUs.
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 8:44:51 PM

jaguarskx said:
Good explanation.


This basically explains most of what you should know. I'd only add that you probably wouldn't notice any difference between an I7-3770K and an FX-8350 even in games. There might be a rare game where one plays significantly better at extremely high settings with multiple video cards, but you'd probably want an Intel Hexacore for that type of setup.

You can't really go wrong with either if you're going to spend 200 on a CPU.
a c 86 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 22, 2013 8:54:52 PM

^That's because in gaming there's no difference between an i7-3770k and an i5-3570k. Just saying.

As for the OP's poster, the only thing I can say if you're still confused is to read more about the way CPUs work... the numbers you see, for the most part, are completely arbitrary.
January 22, 2013 9:18:01 PM

basically, equivalently-priced Intel CPUs are faster per-clock-cycle. A quad-core Ivy Bridge CPU at 3.2GHz will be faster than a quad-core Piledriver CPU at 3.2GHz.

Now of course the AMD FX-4100 is considerably cheaper than the i5 3570, even though both are giving you 4 threads. But really, the i5's extra cost truly is worth it - the benchmarks are all the explanation required. There just is no 4-thread CPU faster than the i5 3570, and if you get the K version and buy a good aftermarket cooler, you can OC it to 4.5GHz or higher easily, and the performance is blistering
!