AMD FX or Intel Core i7?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jt00

Honorable
Nov 30, 2013
14
0
10,510
Ok, I know everyone's tired of the countless AMD vs. Intel debates that spring up here every few weeks or so, but here's one based solely on performance.
Now, before anyone says, "use the search bar" or "AMD's better for being on a budget, Intel's better for performance," please know that I would like a little more in-depth explanation. I have read in many places that Intel is better in the performance category than AMD, but everything I'm reading about the FX-9590 seems better than Intel's highest offering, the Extreme Edition Core i7-4960X.

A quick comparison:

  • price: AMD $349.99, Intel $1049.99
    base frequency: AMD 4.7 GHz, Intel 3.6 GHz
    turbo frequency: AMD 5 GHz, Intel 4 GHz
    cores: AMD 8, Intel 6
    cache: AMD 16 MB, Intel 15 MB
    wattage: AMD 220W, Intel 130W

It looks like the only category Intel wins in is wattage. This series of benchmark tests shows that the FX-9590 does not perform as well as similar Intel processors in categories like single core performance and cinebench tests, however. But for a $700 price gap, the FX CPU does pretty well against the i7. Is there any reason for me not to choose the FX-9590 if I'm going to build a PC?
 
You can't compare frequency between processor families since it's completely different. Intel has stronger cores so they can get away with lower clock speeds.

The Intel also has hyperthreading I believe, so it 'technically' has 12 cores.

The FX will also produce more heat.

What are you planning to use the PC for? The intel is way overkill for most tasks. And that FX is just an overclocked FX 8350, which is an overclocked FX 8320.

Fore pure performance, currently, intel is the victor. The FX 83xx can trade blows with the i5s/i7s. I believe that the 9xxx FX series are a total waste of money though.
 

Darksin

Honorable
Nov 10, 2013
205
0
10,710
What i've heard & read so far about the 9590 its has close to zero headroom for OC. the wattage is at its highest, and is basicly a VERY high OC'd 8350(correct me if i'm wrong) And intel wins by quite a margin @ Single-threaded task, Amd is better at multi-threaded tasks due to more cores>threads.

It all comes down to what do you want? I my self am gonna buy a I7-4770k because i'm rendering which the I7 is pretty good at but at the same time i'm gonna do some things that are single or duo threaded. So the I7 will beat it by a long shot, and just because its a little worse(and i mean just a little) at multi-threaded tasks doesn't bother me to much because most things are still not using over 2-4 cores.


Just my thoughts.
 

Jt00

Honorable
Nov 30, 2013
14
0
10,510
Well, the main reason I'm going to eventually build a PC is because in college I'll have a $1000 technology stipend as a part of the college's scholarship program. I would like to build as good of a PC as I can for ~$1000, so the extreme edition processors are out of the question, but regular i7's are not necessarily. I figured the 9590 might be overclocked already, but 5 GHz is 5 GHz, OC'd or not.
As for my use of the PC, since I'd like to get as much performance as I can, I was planning on using it for gaming. However, I'm going to be an engineering student, so there is a good possibility that I will need to use AutoCAD and render different projects.
 
Fair enough 5Ghz is 5GHz. I was just saying that the intel's have higher Instructions per Second (IPC) than the AMD. To reach similar IPC the AMD has to have higher clock speed. So theoretically you could have terrible IPC but be at 7 GHz and still be worse than an old Athlon, hence why I said that clock speeds aren't comparable between processor families/brands.

Take for example my FX 8320 and an i5 4670k. My FX has 8 cores (I don't want to get into the argument of whether they're 'real' or not so please no-one mention that) an an i5 has 5 cores. Each of the 8 cores of the FX has lower IPC than the 4 cores of the i5. Due to that fact, the i5 can run at lower clock speeds, resulting in lower temperatures and lower power draw. It's also the 22nm manufacturing process. The i5 basically has great architecture whereas the FX's isn't quite up there - this accounts for the price difference. Also, the i5's 4 cores still perform better than the FX's 8 in most games - why? Most games don't utilise more than 2-4 cores so some of the FX's go to waste, hence the i5 will get more performance out of its 4 high-IPC beefy cores compared to the left-over 4 weaker-IPC FX cores. However, some games are moving towards using more cores such as Crysis 3 and battlefield 4, and the FX is really starting to shine. When you introduce multitasking such as streaming into the mix, the FX also pulls ahead since it has those extra cores left over that would have previously been sitting idle. Regardless, most of the difference in gaming is made up of the GPU, most modern CPUs are capable of gaming. The FX performs great for me.

Oh, and for rendering programs that utilise lots of cores, the more cores the better so the FX 83xx and the i7 could be on closer to equal terms.

I blabbered a bit. :lol:
 

Alpha3031

Honorable

Suggestion: forget the i7 and get the i5 4670k, and it will be more or less possible for you to be below budget and get great performance with overclocking, if you don't want to overclock get the more expensive i7 (a non k one)
 

spartaman64

Honorable
Apr 6, 2014
8
0
10,510
if this is a gaming build the 1000 dollar i7 4960x has 5% better game performance than the 100 dollar fx 6300 sooo yeah
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator


Maybe with a lower end GPU. :lol: Pair them up with a high end card, and the difference is farther than 5%. That said, anyone that buys a $1000 CPU, for gaming, probably needs their head examined. I will take a 1231v3 and an H97 pro 4 for much less, and still beat an FX 9590. :lol:
 
6e5d08f7_ThreadNecromancy4.jpeg


;) :lol:
 

Alpha3031

Honorable
well an nice intel 4690k + MB + cooler is around 400-500 and a nice gpu for 400, that leaves you with 100 for the rest of the system.

ad you'd get wayy more performance than a FX and less heat problems
 


this.

compare the FX 8320 to a 4690k for gaming, and for rendering and physics based operations (3d?) the FX trades blows with the i7 4770k. for no gaming at all, get i7 and use the integrated graphics. if you have a GPU get the xeon e3 1231 its an i7 without built in gpu.

the 9XXX series FX chips are 220W TDP which is NOT worth it. the FX 8350 is very good (at 125W), but consider price to performance ratio highly. i got mine for 99.99 brand new at microcenter and it does trade blows with the i7. i do 3d rendering, blender, photoshop, illustrator etc and gaming. no problems anywhere. But the xeon can do all this at better efficiency and higher single core like you said you wanted. honestly i havent felt my single core limit on the FX either, with two rigs side by side i might notice the difference but its not even close enough a gap to say the FX has a problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.