Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD vs. Intel [The Coming Years]

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 23, 2013 10:30:49 AM

Recently I've been looking at a lot of benchmarks for CPUs in the game Crysis 3. If anyone has noticed the AMD FX-8300 is at the top of the list while the intel processors linger at the below the AMD processor. This is the first time I've seen this happen in a long time, so what do you think, will intel slowing fall behind as more and more companies produces games optimized for AMD processors, as the new PS4 & xbox "720" both use AMD processors. Which do you think will be more optimized and a better all around gaming performer in the coming years.

Remember this is really just predicting and discussing what will happen in the future, NOT A TOTAL FLAME WAR.

More about : amd intel coming years

a b à CPUs
February 23, 2013 11:12:03 AM

Same as always.

AMD will shine now and again, but will always win in price:p erformance.
a c 111 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 23, 2013 11:25:59 AM


It's all good.

Even better for AMD as they work with game devs on optimizing multi-core gaming on Piledrivers, not only on your Crysis3 example, but consoles, too.

Related resources
a c 103 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 23, 2013 11:46:31 AM

The Crysis CPU benchmarks are very interesting here they are to save anyone looking it up

If this is the way future games will go I would come to the following conclusions.
Core 2 Duo and Quad have had there day especially Duo, Quad may be OK for low settings for a little longer.
Pentium G series and i3s or anything dual core should not get recommendations.
965BE has gone from a dated CPU that is beated by an i3 to a very good budget CPU that is the best buy at its price and even the Athlon x 4 is worth considering on a very low budget, though its not that much cheaper than the 965BE.
FX x3xx series outperform Intel for there price massively.

But at the moment this is purely based on 1 game which may or may not be how thing go in the future. If it is Intel need to release some budget Quads and some mainstream 6 & 8 core CPUs to represent value in a gaming PC. For now it just makes it harder to recommend CPUs as the i5 3570K will beat anything AMD in most games.

I would like to see how overclocking across all platforms scales in this game if anyone has any info.
February 23, 2013 12:25:32 PM

That was always going to be the danger for Intel as the AMD chips have more resources on board. Conversely IMO Intel has not worked hard enough on their graphics chips so the gulf could widen dramatically.

Many have said in these forums that software has not yet been optimized for AMD processors. With these new console deals the the Ms Windows landscape may change very quickly.

Intel seems to be driving the Mac revolution with multitudes of my colleagues choosing Mac OS over Windows with disgruntlement over software choices the motivating factor.

If we could get volume 3D implementation for more interactive apps and programs maybe there is still time to at least halt the trend. Unfortunately the HD 3000/4000's won't cut the mustard.
February 23, 2013 12:49:11 PM

AMD is a world wide leader in the Graphic cards!

Its time for Processors... Sleeping tigers are up!
February 23, 2013 1:38:27 PM

Now with most games people say Intel is 3 generations, does everyone here believe this will be true?
a c 111 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 23, 2013 2:01:25 PM


burritobob said:
Now with most games people say Intel is 3 generations, does everyone here believe this will be true?


Can I have some of what you are smoking, Bob ??

What you (may have) started as a reasonable discussion, you just dumped the thread in the crapper.

Thanks for playing.




February 23, 2013 5:31:11 PM

burritobob said:
Recently I've been looking at a lot of benchmarks for CPUs in the game Crysis 3. If anyone has noticed the AMD FX-8300 is at the top of the list while the intel processors linger at the below the AMD processor. This is the first time I've seen this happen in a long time, so what do you think, will intel slowing fall behind as more and more companies produces games optimized for AMD processors, as the new PS4 & xbox "720" both use AMD processors. Which do you think will be more optimized and a better all around gaming performer in the coming years.


If AMD become a serious threat to Intel's bottom line they will just offer more performance for the price. They have the advantages of much more efficient hardware and nearly 10 times AMD's liquid assets, and 17 times their overall assets. Intel lead, AMD's CPUs are priced as a response to Intel's pricing and SKUs - Intel can change that if they want.
February 23, 2013 5:39:59 PM

close thread. quickly.
a b à CPUs
February 23, 2013 6:00:41 PM

Intel have speed and cores to spare. AMD have the lead in one benchmark because Intel don't want to release the 6 core chips to the general consumer market just yet.
Ivy Bridge could have been faster but they went with reduced power usage this round.

Mactronix :) 
a b à CPUs
February 23, 2013 6:09:25 PM

Please dont close it, just be sensible, this could be a very interesting conversation.
February 23, 2013 6:40:58 PM

AMD needs to cook something up that is top secret something that makes Intel scramble just like how AMD pulled that off with adding Hyper Transport technology to their chips and just wrecking like they did in the Athlon 64 days.

AMD to me scored a key strategic win with PS4 mainly because it is an 8-core chip. Granted it is being running on Jaguar cores rather than Trinity cores but the push is a solid strategy because it puts programmers into an environment where they will learn how to utilize 8-core chips over just quad-core chips. Especially with those killer app titles that want to push the system as far as they can. This translates incredibly well too if you look at PC ports as well because there will be a lot less trouble porting things over to PC because the console uses the x86 instruction set.
a c 212 à CPUs
a c 131 À AMD
a b å Intel
February 23, 2013 7:29:34 PM

mactronix said:
Intel have speed and cores to spare. AMD have the lead in one benchmark because Intel don't want to release the 6 core chips to the general consumer market just yet.
Ivy Bridge could have been faster but they went with reduced power usage this round.

Mactronix :) 


Yeah, so effectively they are ahead in development, they can drop a massive increase a generation ahead of AMD. That does not bode well...
a c 111 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 23, 2013 9:26:40 PM


gilgamex said:
AMD needs to cook something up that is top secret something that makes Intel scramble just like how AMD pulled that off with adding Hyper Transport technology to their chips and just wrecking like they did in the Athlon 64 days.

AMD to me scored a key strategic win with PS4 mainly because it is an 8-core chip. Granted it is being running on Jaguar cores rather than Trinity cores but the push is a solid strategy because it puts programmers into an environment where they will learn how to utilize 8-core chips over just quad-core chips. Especially with those killer app titles that want to push the system as far as they can. This translates incredibly well too if you look at PC ports as well because there will be a lot less trouble porting things over to PC because the console uses the x86 instruction set.


I don't think it's rumored any more :D 
Jaguar has independent cores - not modules containing *Piledriver* cores or the like
Each core is 3.1mm^2 and may be completely power-gated
128-bit wide FPU data-path
50 percent bigger scheduler queues than Bobcat

Not sure how the PS will ultimately shake out, but Jaguar is capable of all ISA instruction sets as seen in x86-64 processors, all SIMD instruction sets including AVX, and AES-NI, which accelerates AES data encryption.

I've heard rumors on the GCN graphic cores, but that's all they were - rumors



a c 473 à CPUs
a c 119 À AMD
a c 115 å Intel
February 26, 2013 2:53:13 PM

harna said:
That was always going to be the danger for Intel as the AMD chips have more resources on board. Conversely IMO Intel has not worked hard enough on their graphics chips so the gulf could widen dramatically.


In my opinion, Intel has been pretty good at delivering integrated graphics performance. Intel's iGPU performance is behind AMD's iGPU performance. While I believe the performance gap will narrow, AMD will always be in the lead. After all, after that $5 billion acquisition of ATI (double of what ATI was worth), I would expect AMD to always be in the lead with regards to their iGPU because they can always borrow technologies from their discrete cards. Which is what they do anyway.

The HD 3000 graphics core is Intel's real attempt at providing good performance in an integrated solution. Sure it was not as powerful as AMD's Llano APU Radeon HD 6550D graphic core, but the Intel HD 3000 more or less breaks Intel's traditional focus on integrated graphic cores just for business use / multimedia. The fact that Intel HD 3000 more or less was able to equal the performance of the desktop Radeon HD 5450 is pretty impressive considering the performance (or lack thereof) of their previous graphic cores like the GMA 4500HD.

Based on the benchmarks in the following Anantech article, Intel has been able to step up their game (so to speak):

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6332/amd-trinity-a10-5800...

There are a total of 22 game benchmarks in that review. Based on those benchmarks the Radeon HD 6550D is on average 158.3% more powerful than the Intel HD 3000. That is a pretty large gap. When comparing the Intel HD 4000 to the Radeon HD 7660D, AMD still has no problems beating Intel. However, the performance gap has narrowed down to an average performance difference of 105%. Still a wide gap, but much better than before.

To put a different spin on the benchmarks... The performance increase going from the Radeon HD 6550D to the Radeon HD 7660D is on average 17.3%. The performance increase going from the Intel HD 3000 to the Intel HD 4000 is on average 35.5%.

It will be interesting to see how the upcoming iGPU from both AMD and Intel will perform. The speculation on Haswell's iGPU is anywhere from a 50% to 100% increase in performance compared to the Intel HD 4000. So far, I haven't heard of any speculations on Richland's iGPU performance. Naturally there will be a performance increase over the Radeon HD 7660D, but how much remains to be seen. Since the major improvements to Intel's Haswell CPU is lower power consumption and increased graphics performance, I think Intel will further decrease the iGPU performance between Haswell and Richland. However, overall AMD's iGPU will still hold the lead, by how much is the big mystery for now.

In the end the winner is not AMD or Intel. The winner is the average consumer who is looking for a reasonably priced laptop (because desktop gamers mostly rely on discrete graphic cards) and has decent integrated graphic capabilities so that they can at least play games at low resolution (1366 x 768) and hopefully medium quality graphics.
a c 111 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 26, 2013 5:15:25 PM


Richlands is just a re-spin of Trinity. Considering higher speed RAMs can bring increases of 40-50% in frames (before increases in the clock), I'm calling shens on your 17.3%

Kaveri (fingers crossed) may well introduce GCN2 to the APU this Fall. Good luck to Haswell on that.

And, really, it comes down to drivers. That really does not help Intel at all.

a b à CPUs
February 26, 2013 6:52:55 PM

AMDs 2012 yearly looses were greater then their current cash reserves.

So yeah, lets see them start turning a non-lawsuit enhanced profit.
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 119 À AMD
a c 115 å Intel
February 26, 2013 7:46:16 PM

Wisecracker said:
Richlands is just a re-spin of Trinity. Considering higher speed RAMs can bring increases of 40-50% in frames (before increases in the clock), I'm calling shens on your 17.3%



I recorded all the FPS numbers in a spreadsheet for all four iGPUs and the 22 game benchmarks.

All the FPS values are from that link. You can throw them all in a spreadsheet yourself and run the calculations if you want to dispute my numbers. All it takes is basic math.
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 119 À AMD
a c 115 å Intel
February 26, 2013 7:47:58 PM

Wisecracker said:


And, really, it comes down to drivers. That really does not help Intel at all.


Yet despite that handicap, Intel was able to gain ground on AMD.
!