AMD vs Intel

[Brightside]

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?

[Meridian]

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.

[Fle@B@gL@ne]

Stick with intel and get atleast i7 4 core

[ZipSnipe]

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.

[Lenny]

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)

[4960X]

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

[TheGlasMan]

"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.

[Pehu]

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.

[Activate: AMD]

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.

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.

[arbiter1]

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.

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

[Activate: AMD]

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.

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

[63jax]

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

[arbiter1]

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.

[jethro]

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.

[jethro]

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.