Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: AMD vs Intel

  1. #1
    Joined
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    36

    AMD vs Intel

    I Only have experience with Intel Processors, and was wondering if there is some kind of equivalency chart between AMD and Intel Processor Power. Is there?

  2. #2
    Joined
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Vvardenfell
    Age
    56
    Posts
    10,836

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    Not easily. For a start, you'd need to take into account not just speed and design, but cost. AMD compete at least as much on price as performance. I'm sure there's a "bang-per-buck" table out there somewhere, but I'm not sure where.

  3. #3
    Joined
    Jun 2001
    Location
    San Fran EX NYC
    Age
    46
    Posts
    4,278

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    Stick with intel and get atleast i7 4 core
    ASUS Sabertoothz77 T.U.F Series
    Intel i7 3770K 3.5@4.2 4/8 8mb
    32GB DDR 1600 Overclocked Corsair Vengence
    2 Superclocked EVGA GTX 680s instead stock 1008/6008 @1088/6200 befoe I oc it
    2 raid 0 120x2 SSD Corsair Force GT and 60x2 SSD OCZ A III 1 x SSD to speed up external 2TB
    24in 19by12 32in & 65in 1900by1080P
    Logitech Z5500 5.1 505 watt all optical on SB X-fi 5.1 external

  4. #4
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    Location
    daytona , florida
    Age
    50
    Posts
    259

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    Used to be AMD was the fastest chip, but intel has flew past amd. But bang for buck AMD is still in the lead and plenty fast, I just prefer AMD but to be honest if I had the extra money I would go with what Fle@B@gL@ne said.
    Give me yesterday, you can have tomorrow !!!

  5. #5
    Joined
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Southern Tier of NY
    Age
    50
    Posts
    21,688

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    Quote Originally Posted by Brightside View Post
    I Only have experience with Intel Processors, and was wondering if there is some kind of equivalency chart between AMD and Intel Processor Power. Is there?
    Something like this? (scroll down for the chart)
    If you enjoy gaming click here to learn about the Fragging Frogs.



    [Proudly using only AMD desktop CPUs since 1996 and now also GPUs in 2014 - Thanks AMD!!]
    My Rigs - My Upgrade History - My Games

  6. #6
    Joined
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    15

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    AMD forgot how to make cpus. They only know how to make GPUs.

  7. #7
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    10,610

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    "AMD forgot how to make cpus. They only know how to make GPUs. "

    It is true that amds APU's graphics are superior to Intels. Intel top CPU's are faster than AMD's but lower down the experience is the same. If you don't have specific needs, lower class cpu's and apu's give as good experience as the top end ( .ooo3 is the same as ooo2 to us )

    Ps I have always gone AMD since A64.


    "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
    - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

  8. #8
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    5,357

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    Quote Originally Posted by 4960X View Post
    AMD forgot how to make cpus. They only know how to make GPUs.
    Oh, I think AMD knows and remembers perfectly well how to make CPUs. The problem is Intel is generations ahead in smaller manufacturing processes and has its own plants to actually build its chips. While AMD is actually getting there catching Intel in instructions per cycle, Intel has an innate advantage in both power consumption and clock speeds making a totally unbalanced field of play.
    It's like Intel and AMD are competing trying to get to places around the globe, Intel using its own jet that gets constantly upgraded and replaced, while AMD is flying coach.

  9. #9
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    11,092

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    Quote Originally Posted by Pehu View Post
    While AMD is actually getting there catching Intel in instructions per cycle, Intel has an innate advantage in both power consumption and clock speeds making a totally unbalanced field of play.
    Actually IPC is AMD's biggest weakness by far. Intel's chips run slower (3.5ghz base for 4770k vs 4.0 base for FX8350) with less power but significantly outperform AMD's at pretty much every single level except in cases where the higher thread count makes a really big difference (and even then its still close). Intel's process technology is a lot of what helps keep ahead in power consumption, but its really their large IPC margin that keeps them so far ahead in terms of performance. On an equal process it seems clear that a 4770k would still outperform an FX8350, but AMD would at least be more able to throw additional die area to compensate. Right now AMD is using more die area for less performance due to their lagging process tech.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pehu View Post
    It's like Intel and AMD are competing trying to get to places around the globe, Intel using its own jet that gets constantly upgraded and replaced, while AMD is flying coach.
    Its kind of depressing, I was a big AMD CPU guy, but since sandy bridge came out and made a mockery of all the bulldozer core variants, I just can't recommend them at any point in their product stack until they do some major catching up. Even their APU's are a tough sell.


    Trust me, I do science
    My Hardware, Past and Present

  10. #10
    Joined
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    50

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    Quote Originally Posted by Activate: AMD View Post
    Actually IPC is AMD's biggest weakness by far. Intel's chips run slower (3.5ghz base for 4770k vs 4.0 base for FX8350) with less power but significantly outperform AMD's at pretty much every single level except in cases where the higher thread count makes a really big difference (and even then its still close). Intel's process technology is a lot of what helps keep ahead in power consumption, but its really their large IPC margin that keeps them so far ahead in terms of performance. On an equal process it seems clear that a 4770k would still outperform an FX8350, but AMD would at least be more able to throw additional die area to compensate. Right now AMD is using more die area for less performance due to their lagging process tech.
    Well fx8350 is on level of 3770k in terms of performance, that is also assuming the program uses all 8 cores of the amd cpu which most programs at this day doesn't. You need to jump to the FX9590 before you get to what 4770k is for performance but then you are looking at 5ghz(220 watt TDP) vs 3.5ghz (84 watt TDP) chips. People say "AMD is best bang for buck", that depends on how long you plan to keep that setup, yea intel cpu's tend to cost little more but performance and $ saved on your electric bill over say 2+ years even's it out and eventually puts intel part in the lead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Activate: AMD View Post
    Its kind of depressing, I was a big AMD CPU guy, but since sandy bridge came out and made a mockery of all the bulldozer core variants, I just can't recommend them at any point in their product stack until they do some major catching up. Even their APU's are a tough sell.
    As josh had in one news posts recent, APU's less you are keeping super cheap can be. Since you kinda gotta spend the saved $ on faster ram as to keep the bottle necking to a minimum.

    http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Memory/...Memory-Scaling
    Last edited by arbiter1; 04-26-2014 at 02:41 PM.

  11. #11
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    11,092

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    Quote Originally Posted by arbiter1 View Post
    Well fx8350 is on level of 3770k in terms of performance, that is also assuming the program uses all 8 cores of the amd cpu which most programs at this day doesn't. You need to jump to the FX9590 before you get to what 4770k is for performance but then you are looking at 5ghz(220 watt TDP) vs 3.5ghz (84 watt TDP) chips. People say "AMD is best bang for buck", that depends on how long you plan to keep that setup, yea intel cpu's tend to cost little more but performance and $ saved on your electric bill over say 2+ years even's it out and eventually puts intel part in the lead.
    Actually, even in multi-threaded content creation benchmarks the 3770k seems to come out ahead as often as not against the FX8350, so its core advantage struggles to compensate even in benchmarks that should favor it. That really speaks to the IPC differences between Ivy Bridge and Piledriver cores. Even at the more fair comparison of roughly equivalent price point (i5-3570k/4670k) the FX doesn't come out looking very good.


    Quote Originally Posted by arbiter1 View Post
    As josh had in one news posts recent, APU's less you are keeping super cheap can be. Since you kinda gotta spend the saved $ on faster ram as to keep the bottle necking to a minimum.

    http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Memory/...Memory-Scaling
    Very true. The only way I would recommend an APU is in a situation where you either absolutely can't fit or can't afford any kind of discrete GPU, in which case the APU's IGPs are better than the roughly cost-equivalent Intels. Those would also likely be the cases where you're not going to be putting in expensive 2133mhz ram


    Trust me, I do science
    My Hardware, Past and Present

  12. #12
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    9

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    just buy what suits you the best, it's all about money.

  13. #13
    Joined
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    50

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    At the moment general rule of thumb for intel vs amd is takes 2 AMD cpu cores to match performance of 1 intel core. That does give small bit of benefit to AMD as current intel cpu's are little more then 2x per for performance over AMD side.

  14. #14
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    553

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    I can't believe folks are still discussing AMD vs intel in the CPU world.

    A. AMD has admitted they can't compete with intel, and abandoned the performance CPU market.

    B. When AMD pulled out all the stops and released a factory OCd 5GHz ($999. launch price) CPU, it mostly lost to the 2500K, a chip intel launched two years earlier for $216..

    http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...iver-5ghz.html

    That is the state of the "CPU war": intel has a monopoly everywhere except ultra low end or portable where a video card isn't practical or affordable.

    Comments like "an 8350 is the equivalent of a 3770" do nothing but spread disinformation that might mislead buyers. Buyers should read independent reviews of the parts they're considering. Basically intel has comparably priced parts to anything AMD makes that perform better, throw off less heat, and are cheaper to run. All widely documented facts, anything you read on forums to the contrary was likely posted by an AMD employee or person receiving their parts for free.
    Last edited by jethro; 06-29-2014 at 10:51 PM.

  15. #15
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    553

    Re: AMD vs Intel

    Quote Originally Posted by arbiter1 View Post
    At the moment general rule of thumb for intel vs amd is takes 2 AMD cpu cores to match performance of 1 intel core. That does give small bit of benefit to AMD as current intel cpu's are little more then 2x per for performance over AMD side.
    More cores only helps when apps are threaded and can benefit. Mutlithreading is far from ubiquitous, and where it exists, is almost always 2-4 core because that is what 95%+ of the installed user base owns.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •