Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD and what it's all about. i'm trying to get a better picture.

Tags:
  • Processors
  • AMD
  • Intel
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 29, 2013 6:19:03 PM

what i'd like to know, is why/how intel processors always seem ahead of AMD? is single core performance really that advanced in intel processors? also, why do amd's top processors always have a super high TDP? and when i look at cpu hierarchy's why are the intel 4 core processors always faster than the AMD 8-core? is there differences in the math/engineering? also, why does AMD add graphics to the processor? wouldn't it be wise to focus on computing? it seems they have the graphics part down (somewhat, i think the whole heat/TDP thing is a big deal, considering heat=damage). i'm not one of those fan jerks. i won't support capitalism or redundancy. i loved my ps3, till it blew up on me. i'll buy any processor, as long as it's great, cheap and (somewhat) future proof.

More about : amd picture

a b À AMD
a c 110 à CPUs
October 29, 2013 6:49:02 PM

Intel has a LOT more money to work with so they can afford to put more money into research and development. There was a time when AMD out performed Intel CPUs (we're talking years ago with the original Athlon and to a lesser extent Athlon 64 cpus). However Intel was more successful for a variety of reasons so they had more money to work with and they out paced AMD.

AMD cpus have high TDP because power = cpu power. In order to keep up as much as they can to intel they need to increase the power the cpus are getting and clock them higher.

Intel quad cores are not always faster than AMD 8 cores. In fact when using a program (not a game. lets say encoding a video) that will use up all 8 cores the 8320 and 8350 out perform an i5. The i7 can handle 2 threads per core so it edges out ahead of AMD's 8 cores. In games, things are different. Even if a game is programed to use 8 cores, they won't be using those 8 cores at 100%, so intel's i5s can still out perform the 8 core processors.

The problem isn't why AMD adds graphics to a processor. Intel has been doing that too ya know. AMD adds some damn nice graphics to their APUs. Why are they? Well some ppl want an all in one solution and don't really care about gaming. They have a lot of value and overall are pretty decent processors overall. Adding a gpu to their cpu is focusing on computing. There is a type of computing that is known as GPGPU where the GPU actually computes stuff out (This happens in HTML5 for example, it is known as acceleration). AMD is taking this idea to the next level with their next line of APUs by adding HSA and HuMA to the mix. Essentially HSA and HuMA will further enable GPGPU computing and if utilized properly, can be a nice performance boost.

The GPU is just like a CPU. It crunches numbers, it is better than a CPU at some things and worse at others. There is some real potential here.

Lastly, AMD seems to be pretty forward thinking in their designs right now. They are making a push with HSA and HuMA to have the CPU and iGPU on their A series processors work together at computing. Their FX series is designed to take advantage of multi threading. Both these types of computing were not very common when they released these designs, but, for example, we are now starting to see games that make use of 8 cores. It may not be the best design choice when they started it, but then again, you can't look at it and say they weren't thinking about 4-6 years ahead.

That isn't to say that Intel sucks or anything. Right now they are beating AMD in performance, but both platforms do have their advantages. Intel just has a bigger performance advantage.
October 29, 2013 10:45:48 PM

ethereal essence said:
Intel has a LOT more money to work with so they can afford to put more money into research and development. There was a time when AMD out performed Intel CPUs (we're talking years ago with the original Athlon and to a lesser extent Athlon 64 cpus). However Intel was more successful for a variety of reasons so they had more money to work with and they out paced AMD.

AMD cpus have high TDP because power = cpu power. In order to keep up as much as they can to intel they need to increase the power the cpus are getting and clock them higher.

Intel quad cores are not always faster than AMD 8 cores. In fact when using a program (not a game. lets say encoding a video) that will use up all 8 cores the 8320 and 8350 out perform an i5. The i7 can handle 2 threads per core so it edges out ahead of AMD's 8 cores. In games, things are different. Even if a game is programed to use 8 cores, they won't be using those 8 cores at 100%, so intel's i5s can still out perform the 8 core processors.

The problem isn't why AMD adds graphics to a processor. Intel has been doing that too ya know. AMD adds some damn nice graphics to their APUs. Why are they? Well some ppl want an all in one solution and don't really care about gaming. They have a lot of value and overall are pretty decent processors overall. Adding a gpu to their cpu is focusing on computing. There is a type of computing that is known as GPGPU where the GPU actually computes stuff out (This happens in HTML5 for example, it is known as acceleration). AMD is taking this idea to the next level with their next line of APUs by adding HSA and HuMA to the mix. Essentially HSA and HuMA will further enable GPGPU computing and if utilized properly, can be a nice performance boost.

The GPU is just like a CPU. It crunches numbers, it is better than a CPU at some things and worse at others. There is some real potential here.

Lastly, AMD seems to be pretty forward thinking in their designs right now. They are making a push with HSA and HuMA to have the CPU and iGPU on their A series processors work together at computing. Their FX series is designed to take advantage of multi threading. Both these types of computing were not very common when they released these designs, but, for example, we are now starting to see games that make use of 8 cores. It may not be the best design choice when they started it, but then again, you can't look at it and say they weren't thinking about 4-6 years ahead.

That isn't to say that Intel sucks or anything. Right now they are beating AMD in performance, but both platforms do have their advantages. Intel just has a bigger performance advantage.


if amd, as a whole, focuses on CPUs in general, i truly believe they can make a huge leap in advancements. the iGPU/APU thing is great. i just think that a 32nm process isn't going to make things any easier, when it comes to heat and performance, in general. if the best AMD's are the Athlons why not go that route? the new gpu (R-9) is already making an impression. why not focus on smaller processes/better performance per core? like 16mb of cache or something. lol. i'm just sick and tired of the CPU market being controlled by monopolies. also, i think ARM should buy AMD. lol.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 29, 2013 11:47:25 PM

youcanDUit said:
ethereal essence said:
Intel has a LOT more money to work with so they can afford to put more money into research and development. There was a time when AMD out performed Intel CPUs (we're talking years ago with the original Athlon and to a lesser extent Athlon 64 cpus). However Intel was more successful for a variety of reasons so they had more money to work with and they out paced AMD.

AMD cpus have high TDP because power = cpu power. In order to keep up as much as they can to intel they need to increase the power the cpus are getting and clock them higher.

Intel quad cores are not always faster than AMD 8 cores. In fact when using a program (not a game. lets say encoding a video) that will use up all 8 cores the 8320 and 8350 out perform an i5. The i7 can handle 2 threads per core so it edges out ahead of AMD's 8 cores. In games, things are different. Even if a game is programed to use 8 cores, they won't be using those 8 cores at 100%, so intel's i5s can still out perform the 8 core processors.

The problem isn't why AMD adds graphics to a processor. Intel has been doing that too ya know. AMD adds some damn nice graphics to their APUs. Why are they? Well some ppl want an all in one solution and don't really care about gaming. They have a lot of value and overall are pretty decent processors overall. Adding a gpu to their cpu is focusing on computing. There is a type of computing that is known as GPGPU where the GPU actually computes stuff out (This happens in HTML5 for example, it is known as acceleration). AMD is taking this idea to the next level with their next line of APUs by adding HSA and HuMA to the mix. Essentially HSA and HuMA will further enable GPGPU computing and if utilized properly, can be a nice performance boost.

The GPU is just like a CPU. It crunches numbers, it is better than a CPU at some things and worse at others. There is some real potential here.

Lastly, AMD seems to be pretty forward thinking in their designs right now. They are making a push with HSA and HuMA to have the CPU and iGPU on their A series processors work together at computing. Their FX series is designed to take advantage of multi threading. Both these types of computing were not very common when they released these designs, but, for example, we are now starting to see games that make use of 8 cores. It may not be the best design choice when they started it, but then again, you can't look at it and say they weren't thinking about 4-6 years ahead.

That isn't to say that Intel sucks or anything. Right now they are beating AMD in performance, but both platforms do have their advantages. Intel just has a bigger performance advantage.


if amd, as a whole, focuses on CPUs in general, i truly believe they can make a huge leap in advancements. the iGPU/APU thing is great. i just think that a 32nm process isn't going to make things any easier, when it comes to heat and performance, in general. if the best AMD's are the Athlons why not go that route? the new gpu (R-9) is already making an impression. why not focus on smaller processes/better performance per core? like 16mb of cache or something. lol. i'm just sick and tired of the CPU market being controlled by monopolies. also, i think ARM should buy AMD. lol.


Because it costs a lot of money, that's why. AMD are barely afloat financially really, so they just take a bet on what sells - namely lower end stuff like APUs' and low end GPUs', which sell like hot cakes.

They don't have money to throw away just to try and race Intel on their home turf - desktop CPU power and in reality it is not profitable really, since bloody 85%+ of all desktop sales are budget stuff.
October 30, 2013 1:26:10 AM

Gaidax said:
youcanDUit said:
ethereal essence said:
Intel has a LOT more money to work with so they can afford to put more money into research and development. There was a time when AMD out performed Intel CPUs (we're talking years ago with the original Athlon and to a lesser extent Athlon 64 cpus). However Intel was more successful for a variety of reasons so they had more money to work with and they out paced AMD.

AMD cpus have high TDP because power = cpu power. In order to keep up as much as they can to intel they need to increase the power the cpus are getting and clock them higher.

Intel quad cores are not always faster than AMD 8 cores. In fact when using a program (not a game. lets say encoding a video) that will use up all 8 cores the 8320 and 8350 out perform an i5. The i7 can handle 2 threads per core so it edges out ahead of AMD's 8 cores. In games, things are different. Even if a game is programed to use 8 cores, they won't be using those 8 cores at 100%, so intel's i5s can still out perform the 8 core processors.

The problem isn't why AMD adds graphics to a processor. Intel has been doing that too ya know. AMD adds some damn nice graphics to their APUs. Why are they? Well some ppl want an all in one solution and don't really care about gaming. They have a lot of value and overall are pretty decent processors overall. Adding a gpu to their cpu is focusing on computing. There is a type of computing that is known as GPGPU where the GPU actually computes stuff out (This happens in HTML5 for example, it is known as acceleration). AMD is taking this idea to the next level with their next line of APUs by adding HSA and HuMA to the mix. Essentially HSA and HuMA will further enable GPGPU computing and if utilized properly, can be a nice performance boost.

The GPU is just like a CPU. It crunches numbers, it is better than a CPU at some things and worse at others. There is some real potential here.

Lastly, AMD seems to be pretty forward thinking in their designs right now. They are making a push with HSA and HuMA to have the CPU and iGPU on their A series processors work together at computing. Their FX series is designed to take advantage of multi threading. Both these types of computing were not very common when they released these designs, but, for example, we are now starting to see games that make use of 8 cores. It may not be the best design choice when they started it, but then again, you can't look at it and say they weren't thinking about 4-6 years ahead.

That isn't to say that Intel sucks or anything. Right now they are beating AMD in performance, but both platforms do have their advantages. Intel just has a bigger performance advantage.


if amd, as a whole, focuses on CPUs in general, i truly believe they can make a huge leap in advancements. the iGPU/APU thing is great. i just think that a 32nm process isn't going to make things any easier, when it comes to heat and performance, in general. if the best AMD's are the Athlons why not go that route? the new gpu (R-9) is already making an impression. why not focus on smaller processes/better performance per core? like 16mb of cache or something. lol. i'm just sick and tired of the CPU market being controlled by monopolies. also, i think ARM should buy AMD. lol.


Because it costs a lot of money, that's why. AMD are barely afloat financially really, so they just take a bet on what sells - namely lower end stuff like APUs' and low end GPUs', which sell like hot cakes.

They don't have money to throw away just to try and race Intel on their home turf - desktop CPU power and in reality it is not profitable really, since bloody 85%+ of all desktop sales are budget stuff.


if that were the case, and CPUs are budget stuff, why aren't there advancements in programming, to make computing more efficient? why not go other routes? carbon nanotubes and that FInFEt thingy should change things, right? i just hate to see the market slowing. i probably need to buy a CPU soon. i just hate that the choices are so generic and i feel like i really don't have a choice. also, if AMD makes stupid cheap APU's, why not make motherboards that support 2 at a time? wouldn't that be beneficial?
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2013 1:39:44 AM

Mate, the problem with your suggestions is simple - it requires more R&D and that requires more money also new technologies and stuff means lower yields, success rates and higher costs now. So of course everyone wants to play it safe meanwhile.

It does not take a genius to figure out that multiple CPU motherboards won't be popular (there are some already and they are like super rare and almost none uses them anyway), since they will be more expensive and I am sure it will be a software support nightmare.

AMD is not dumb, you can be sure that the route they take now is the best for them. Things like this are very popular, because it is awesome for all the grannies/noobs/people who just need cheap mail & office station/budget and it is the bulk of AMD CPU market, since it's also very popular with OEMs' (cheaper costs by ridding of extra GPU crap and also lower TDP allows to stick even crappier power supplies to save more cash).

AMD have no reason whatsoever to jump over their heads now - they got a very nice niche with their budget-friendly, casual use orientation and that's their focus.
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2013 2:04:42 AM

If your refering to the 290x for heat its designed to run at 95deg as thats where it performs best, like the thermostat in your car maintains roughly 90deg. You can turn the fan up and it runs cooler but guess what? Performance drops with the temperature! Theres a table on oc.net showing how much as the guy benched it at different temps.
October 30, 2013 10:23:34 AM

this is depressing. again, i feel like the decision is made for you. so sad.
October 30, 2013 12:47:23 PM

Gaidax said:
Mate, the problem with your suggestions is simple - it requires more R&D and that requires more money also new technologies and stuff means lower yields, success rates and higher costs now. So of course everyone wants to play it safe meanwhile.

It does not take a genius to figure out that multiple CPU motherboards won't be popular (there are some already and they are like super rare and almost none uses them anyway), since they will be more expensive and I am sure it will be a software support nightmare.

AMD is not dumb, you can be sure that the route they take now is the best for them. Things like this are very popular, because it is awesome for all the grannies/noobs/people who just need cheap mail & office station/budget and it is the bulk of AMD CPU market, since it's also very popular with OEMs' (cheaper costs by ridding of extra GPU crap and also lower TDP allows to stick even crappier power supplies to save more cash).

AMD have no reason whatsoever to jump over their heads now - they got a very nice niche with their budget-friendly, casual use orientation and that's their focus.

Oh guy, you really make me laugh...I mean i didn't think a person would be so off the mark, AMD cpus are for casual every day uses!!? well it sad to be this biased.
As for the topic here, AMD is doing a booming business in today's world, producing APUs for both next gen consoles, mobile phones, tablets... It was AMD which provided Intel with x64 architecture, hadn't AMD done so, Intel could be vaporized by now, these guys might not remember those days, because they were not born, any how...as for now AMD doesn't need to go overboard, when you produce there should be a market for it, how many people will buy a 1000$ cpu!? the most demanding systems are usually for pc gamers, and yet can you tell me what you can't do with their fx 9370 or fx 8350!? what 190fps looks better than 165 fps!? and yet in crysis 3, battlefield 3, call of duty AMD beats Intel, Amd is not dumb no...it's buying itself shares, and is doing that cunningly...
a b à CPUs
October 31, 2013 1:39:02 AM

Samuel25 said:
Gaidax said:
Mate, the problem with your suggestions is simple - it requires more R&D and that requires more money also new technologies and stuff means lower yields, success rates and higher costs now. So of course everyone wants to play it safe meanwhile.

It does not take a genius to figure out that multiple CPU motherboards won't be popular (there are some already and they are like super rare and almost none uses them anyway), since they will be more expensive and I am sure it will be a software support nightmare.

AMD is not dumb, you can be sure that the route they take now is the best for them. Things like this are very popular, because it is awesome for all the grannies/noobs/people who just need cheap mail & office station/budget and it is the bulk of AMD CPU market, since it's also very popular with OEMs' (cheaper costs by ridding of extra GPU crap and also lower TDP allows to stick even crappier power supplies to save more cash).

AMD have no reason whatsoever to jump over their heads now - they got a very nice niche with their budget-friendly, casual use orientation and that's their focus.

Oh guy, you really make me laugh...I mean i didn't think a person would be so off the mark, AMD cpus are for casual every day uses!!? well it sad to be this biased.
As for the topic here, AMD is doing a booming business in today's world, producing APUs for both next gen consoles, mobile phones, tablets... It was AMD which provided Intel with x64 architecture, hadn't AMD done so, Intel could be vaporized by now, these guys might not remember those days, because they were not born, any how...as for now AMD doesn't need to go overboard, when you produce there should be a market for it, how many people will buy a 1000$ cpu!? the most demanding systems are usually for pc gamers, and yet can you tell me what you can't do with their fx 9370 or fx 8350!? what 190fps looks better than 165 fps!? and yet in crysis 3, battlefield 3, call of duty AMD beats Intel, Amd is not dumb no...it's buying itself shares, and is doing that cunningly...


Err? Please reread the thread and don't jump the gun.
November 2, 2013 6:36:23 PM

Samuel25 said:
Gaidax said:
Mate, the problem with your suggestions is simple - it requires more R&D and that requires more money also new technologies and stuff means lower yields, success rates and higher costs now. So of course everyone wants to play it safe meanwhile.

It does not take a genius to figure out that multiple CPU motherboards won't be popular (there are some already and they are like super rare and almost none uses them anyway), since they will be more expensive and I am sure it will be a software support nightmare.

AMD is not dumb, you can be sure that the route they take now is the best for them. Things like this are very popular, because it is awesome for all the grannies/noobs/people who just need cheap mail & office station/budget and it is the bulk of AMD CPU market, since it's also very popular with OEMs' (cheaper costs by ridding of extra GPU crap and also lower TDP allows to stick even crappier power supplies to save more cash).

AMD have no reason whatsoever to jump over their heads now - they got a very nice niche with their budget-friendly, casual use orientation and that's their focus.

Oh guy, you really make me laugh...I mean i didn't think a person would be so off the mark, AMD cpus are for casual every day uses!!? well it sad to be this biased.
As for the topic here, AMD is doing a booming business in today's world, producing APUs for both next gen consoles, mobile phones, tablets... It was AMD which provided Intel with x64 architecture, hadn't AMD done so, Intel could be vaporized by now, these guys might not remember those days, because they were not born, any how...as for now AMD doesn't need to go overboard, when you produce there should be a market for it, how many people will buy a 1000$ cpu!? the most demanding systems are usually for pc gamers, and yet can you tell me what you can't do with their fx 9370 or fx 8350!? what 190fps looks better than 165 fps!? and yet in crysis 3, battlefield 3, call of duty AMD beats Intel, Amd is not dumb no...it's buying itself shares, and is doing that cunningly...


what does that mean for pc users in general. will the wave of sales, from the ps4/xbone, keep the company afloat? will intel ever be challenged?
November 3, 2013 4:31:27 AM

youcanDUit said:
Samuel25 said:
Gaidax said:
Mate, the problem with your suggestions is simple - it requires more R&D and that requires more money also new technologies and stuff means lower yields, success rates and higher costs now. So of course everyone wants to play it safe meanwhile.

It does not take a genius to figure out that multiple CPU motherboards won't be popular (there are some already and they are like super rare and almost none uses them anyway), since they will be more expensive and I am sure it will be a software support nightmare.

AMD is not dumb, you can be sure that the route they take now is the best for them. Things like this are very popular, because it is awesome for all the grannies/noobs/people who just need cheap mail & office station/budget and it is the bulk of AMD CPU market, since it's also very popular with OEMs' (cheaper costs by ridding of extra GPU crap and also lower TDP allows to stick even crappier power supplies to save more cash).

AMD have no reason whatsoever to jump over their heads now - they got a very nice niche with their budget-friendly, casual use orientation and that's their focus.

Oh guy, you really make me laugh...I mean i didn't think a person would be so off the mark, AMD cpus are for casual every day uses!!? well it sad to be this biased.
As for the topic here, AMD is doing a booming business in today's world, producing APUs for both next gen consoles, mobile phones, tablets... It was AMD which provided Intel with x64 architecture, hadn't AMD done so, Intel could be vaporized by now, these guys might not remember those days, because they were not born, any how...as for now AMD doesn't need to go overboard, when you produce there should be a market for it, how many people will buy a 1000$ cpu!? the most demanding systems are usually for pc gamers, and yet can you tell me what you can't do with their fx 9370 or fx 8350!? what 190fps looks better than 165 fps!? and yet in crysis 3, battlefield 3, call of duty AMD beats Intel, Amd is not dumb no...it's buying itself shares, and is doing that cunningly...


what does that mean for pc users in general. will the wave of sales, from the ps4/xbone, keep the company afloat? will intel ever be challenged?

yap!! when enough market shares are bought by AMD, they define their own rules, you can see even now that AMD CPUS are in consoles, AMD is selling more, developers are making game engines based on AMD's architecture, codes etc...my opinion, this year is AMD's, just wait to see how they will sabotage intel by releasing reckless console ports to PCs, alot of users will shift to AMD
a b à CPUs
November 3, 2013 4:59:21 AM

Truth of the matter is simple, AMD is desperate for money. Their clear aim is a low end OEM and mobile market now, because that's where most of the cash is.

Claiming that a company with 40 mil dollars profit which was forced to sell it's own headquarters to pay the bills is going to to threaten a company with a 3 billion dollars profit is laughable at best.

Intel could probably slaughter AMD if it wished for it, I think they just let them live at the moment so that they won't have to deal with all the monopoly crap.
November 3, 2013 6:13:34 AM

Gaidax said:
Truth of the matter is simple, AMD is desperate for money. Their clear aim is a low end OEM and mobile market now, because that's where most of the cash is.

Claiming that a company with 40 mil dollars profit which was forced to sell it's own headquarters to pay the bills is going to to threaten a company with a 3 billion dollars profit is laughable at best.

Intel could probably slaughter AMD if it wished for it, I think they just let them live at the moment so that they won't have to deal with all the monopoly crap.

where did you get those numbers from!? the only thing intel is capable of is slaughtering its consumers ass...:lol: 
November 3, 2013 6:18:02 AM

sorry these guys are hilarious
a b à CPUs
November 3, 2013 6:31:22 AM

Samuel25 said:
Gaidax said:
Truth of the matter is simple, AMD is desperate for money. Their clear aim is a low end OEM and mobile market now, because that's where most of the cash is.

Claiming that a company with 40 mil dollars profit which was forced to sell it's own headquarters to pay the bills is going to to threaten a company with a 3 billion dollars profit is laughable at best.

Intel could probably slaughter AMD if it wished for it, I think they just let them live at the moment so that they won't have to deal with all the monopoly crap.

where did you get those numbers from!? the only thing intel is capable of is slaughtering its consumers ass...:lol: 


Press releases with Q3 revenue numbers.

http://business.time.com/2013/10/15/intel-3q-profit-unc...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amd-swing-to-profit-sh...


With all the respect, AMD is a bit out of Intel's league business-wise.

I think AMD is on the good track, though. Their decision to focus on mobile and OEMs' is a good one, especially since they are non-existent in the notebook business right now, they need to get some new grounds to get those profits up.

Unfortunately it also means that AMD is not going to focus on us for a time being.
a b à CPUs
November 3, 2013 6:39:14 AM

Honestly, AMD kicking Intel's ass would be like a dream come true. Intel are really getting too comfortable lately - they just don't try hard enough.

Back in the days of first Athlons and P3 it was much better when AMD kicked Intel's asses to get back to work.
November 3, 2013 8:58:57 AM

goes to show you...
a b à CPUs
November 3, 2013 9:02:20 AM

Which is precisely what I am saying if you bothered reading that article...

AMD's answer is APUs', that's about it and the target audience is mobile and low power desktop PCs'.


Edit: Is it me or he deleted that comment that so nicely proves my point?

Well here is the link in any case: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2040763/amd-fires-back-a...

Yeah, you showed me all right...
November 3, 2013 9:13:55 AM

Intel did indeed get the performance crown back with core 2s. In fact it reminds me of now, everyone was saying how much Phenom competition for the core2s blahblah AMD go out of business blah blah.
Did it happen? No I don't think so.
Its not delusional its being realistic and being able to see past mere synthetic benchies....and you can troll while AMD is silent...AMD has got new plans for the market...just wait to see
November 3, 2013 12:39:20 PM

what's the real reason the 8350 falls short of a 4 core i5? i never understood that. are single core computings done differently? why not just use intel's process of computing and add more cores? also, is cache important in a cpu?
!