AMD VS Intel

[hoofhearted4]

The new a10 processors are very good the igp's of AMD are far superior to the intel ones. AMD has made every gpu under 100 dollar/euro obsolete.

 

The Fusion processors are the only choice for a HTPC

 

AMD is always first to implement new features on their motherboards, they where first with both sata3 and usb3.0. Intel is very slow to implement new chipsets, not to mention the huge blunder with the 6-series.

 

For high-end they have given up hope the first bulldozers weren't any better than the phenom II X6's

 

Now the new processors are finally on par with the Intel but they have a high power-draw, they are basically making the mistake Intel made with the pentium 4's

 

So the question is not as simple as it looks, the best answer I can give is: Low to mid-end AMD, Mid to high-end Intel.

I think this is the best and most honest answer anyone could give. Especially the last part where you differentiate the necessity of the different chips. My only question is, what blunder are you talking about with Intel and the 6 series? What is the 6 series? GTX cards? Those are Nvidia and I own one, would hardly call it a blunder especially seeing as how I'm about to fork over another $530 for a second one.

 

PS: Yeah price is a blunder on Nvidia, but there are suckers like me who will still buy em, so jokes on me I guess.

i agree with him. in another thread about amd and intel another user posted, i said AMD is great for lower budget builds and HTPC builds, where Intel is better for the higher budget and gaming builds.

 

also Dan, im assuming hes talking about the H67 boards. i had just just gotten into PC hardware when all that happened, idr what exactly it was, a BIOS thing i think, but i remember them being revised and recalled and people saying beware with them and whatnot.

[Dan3345]

Yeah I didn't have anything Intel at the time. I'm still using my first Intel board :dance:

[FMod]

Come on, this is begging for a spanking.

The new Piledriver is better than I had expected, it's even a good CPU - but still, Intel has 3930K, it has IB-EP to come, no point really, and Haswell will come before IB-EP. Simply put, AMD CPU are playing niches today while Intel has the mainstream. Except for the midrange. In the low range, dual core celerons, Intel can still hold their own. Midrange is the biggest segment, but still.

[Thor.]

Here is something that might interest you, an actual benchmark using exactly the same hardware except chip.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0RoYcl0j2ME

Edited November 18, 2012 by Thor.

[Dan3345]

Here is something that might interest you, an actual benchmark using exactly the same hardware except chip.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0RoYcl0j2ME

I am not sure what language they are speaking in the video is in. I could not understand what was being said.

 

3770k wins

 

3770k wins again

 

and again...

 

you guessed it..again

 

This one here is a bit biased because the intel core is overclocked to 4.8ghz but still. You can see the jump you would get with Intel. 4.8ghz on AMD does not mean the same speed or performance as 4.8ghz on the 3770k. Similar to how on IB overclocking to 4.8ghz is the same as overclocking to 4.4ghz on SB.

 

This one is comparing an overclocked 8350 to a stock 3770k. And the 8350 still loses a few rounds and barely beats the 3770k when it does.

 

The only things, I repeat the only thing AMD has going for them now, is the lower price. They are running on an older architecture which is no where as efficient to Intel's; they are running on a much higher TDP than Intel's, their wattage draw is much higher than Intel's, and they lack the development structure of Intel (which is what has doomed every single AMD CPU for a while now).

 

Thor you said this is "the poll that will officially end the argument on what is better..." Well its now 8-1 for Intel. Is the argument over, or are we all just biased?

[Thor.]

I wasn't listening, more like watching the spec sheets on bios read outs. What was being said didn't mean much????

 

i couldn't tell you what was being said anyways.

 

Still looking for some more compelling benchmarks.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Thor.

[Dan3345]

See heres where it gets difficult. In terms of multithreaded performance the 3770k and the 8350 are so close its hard to call a winner. Its like watching two olympic athletes win a race within a second of each other. You get to a point where you ask, does it even matter? For multithreaded things I would say no. In fact if all you or I were doing was multithreaded applications I would go AMD if I was on a budget.

 

Now here is a random bit that really bothers me. Everyone is referring to the 8 series as the first octocores. THEY ARE NOT. The 8 series all of them, are quadcores which have had each processor split down the middle. Intel does the same thing with the i7's its called hyperthreading. The difference is Intel is a bit more honest about it and doesn't tell customers they are getting something they are not. If you have an i7 and you run the windows 7 CPU monitor gadget it will show you 8 cores. 0-7. But you and I both know the CPU physically only has four. AMD has done the same thing Intel has but they don't allow you to turn it off, and they don't admit it. Nobody cares though I guess...

 

Believe me, the day a real eight core CPU hits the general market is coming, but its not here yet.

[Thor.]

I have to do some research on the subject, but i can't find anything revolving around the hyper threading being only 4 cores split into 8??? sneaky they are.

 

How Honest do you think the amd guy on the right seem??

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6smx6S2G-D0

you be the judge http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/confused.gif

Edited November 18, 2012 by Thor.

[Dan3345]

I have to do some research on the subject, but i can't find anything revolving around the hyper threading being only 4 cores split into 8??? sneaky they are.

 

How Honest do you think the amd guy on the right seem??

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6smx6S2G-D0

you be the judge http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/confused.gif

 

He is honest right up until he says its the worlds only eight core. its not, Intel has an 8 core for servers with hyperthreading that makes it 16! And on a dual socket motherboard you can put two of em in and have a computer with a combined 32 cores! But that is for servers.

 

Anyways AMD has what they call modules. Each module is two integer cores that share a floating point core. For reference, a module is one CPU. Or one core. But in the case of AMD they refer to integer cores as one CPU. Note: This is how they justify calling a quad core an eight core. In reality, if you were to remove the heatsink on the piledriver CPU and look closely under an electron microscope you would only see four physical cores, or four physical CPU's.

 

Again, this is the same technology Intel has been using for years called hyperthreading. I believe AMD called their CPU's eight cores and changed their opinion of what constituted a "core" simply to drum up hype and awareness for themselves. Which for business is not bad, but for us consumers can be a bit irritating especially when you realize its not really an eight core.

 

I hope this makes sense, its hard to explain..

 

EDIT: I thought of another way to explain it. My 680 (and any GTX card) has CUDA Processors. 1536 of them in fact. Yet my GPU does not have 1536 processors. Because those do not constitute a processor on their own. They make up a processor all together.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Dan3345

[Thor.]

Amd also has a 16 core cpu, but i bet ya its hyper threaded, so in fact its only 8. So if you want to look at it that way any or above 4 cores is a lie. Edited November 18, 2012 by Thor.