Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Am I really seeing this correctly? AMD vs. Intel?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 stebbinsd

stebbinsd

  • Members
  • 208 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:18 AM

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:52 PM

Ok, so I'm looking at which CPUs would give me the most bang for my buck.

 

Specifically, I've been comparing eight-core CPUs.

 

I've noticed that I could get this CPU from AMD:

 

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113347&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-PC&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-PC-_-pla-_-Processors+-+Desktops-_-N82E16819113347&gclid=CKzPzuyVtc0CFRRgfgodqG4M4Q&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

It's eight-core. it's 4.7GHz. And it's only two hundred bucks.

 

Or, I could get either of these eight-core processors from Intel:

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007671%20600005851%20600005862%20600005864%20600095610%20600436886%20600535697%20600565702%20600213784

 

Neither of these eight-core CPUs advertise frequencies of 4.7GHz, and yet ... they're both over a thousand bucks.

 

I kept looking back and forth between these two pages, thinking I must be high off my arse! I mean ... there's just no way! Intel shouldn't even be in business for more than a year if they're charging five times as much for a product I could get an even better model of from a competitor!

 

Ok, I'll grant you: Sometimes, motherboards force you to use a specific socket type.  But even still ... for the extra eight hundred bucks I'm saving going with the AMD chip, I could get a totally new motherboard that takes AM3+ processors ...

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138372

 

... and still have SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS to buy ...

 

... enough memory that I won't need to expand for another five to seven years ...

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5753ZU3983

 

... and a graphics card that will play every AAA video game release from now until 2020!

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.2981321
 

This is the sort of ripoff I'd expect to see from a late night infomercial that will probably be bankupt before the item you buy even arrives in the mail ... not a globally-renowned industry leader of computer parts with more than a billion dollars net equity.

 

Is this for real? Is Intel really this much of a ripoff?


My current build:

 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P
Processor: AMD FX-8350
RAM: 12GB (2x2GB+8GB)
Video Card: Geforce GTX 750ti

OS: Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 stebbinsd

stebbinsd
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 208 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:18 AM

Posted 19 June 2016 - 07:22 PM

Actually, forget what I said earlier about getting "a" graphics card that will last until 2020. I decided to investigate further to see if AMD's graphics cards blow their competitors out of the water just as much as they do their CPUs.

Turns out, the AMD Radeon R9 390X performs slightly better than the Nvidia Geforce GTX 1080.

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=2263&gid2=1701&compare=radeon-r9-390x-vs-geforce-gtx-1080

It's only by a small margin, and the Nvidia card does trump the AMD one in some remote areas, but the biggest difference is that I can get an R9 390X for LESS THAN HALF THE PRICE ofthe Nvidia card I provided a link to earlier!

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125792&cm_re=amd_radeon_r9_390-_-14-125-792-_-Product

So, I could actually get two of these bad boys for the same price as the Nvidia, and have twice the stopping power of the Nvidia card! Then it should blow the Nvidia card out of the water and sent it into orbit at Mach 10!
 


Edited by stebbinsd, 19 June 2016 - 07:33 PM.

My current build:

 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P
Processor: AMD FX-8350
RAM: 12GB (2x2GB+8GB)
Video Card: Geforce GTX 750ti

OS: Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate


#3 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,723 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:04:18 AM

Posted 19 June 2016 - 07:23 PM

The relative merits of choosing an AMD processor versus an Intel processor...is old news, been going on for years by those who want to be argumentative and prove that whichever choice was made...was the correct one.

 

I find that users buy whatever...not because it is "the best" or something that's going to last forever...people buy based on their preconceiptions of what are the most important factors in any purchase decision.

 

There's a ton of data which professes the provide the "value" of any CPU which has been made/purchased during the last ten years.  The idea of "value" does not appeal to everyone.

 

In any case, Google will help you churn through the reams of data that are put forth as "evidence" either pro or con...for each CPU manufacturer.  I keep it simple, I see no reason to purchase an alternate brand of CPU which costs me substantially more and which is not going to provide me with an overwhelming cost/benefit ratio.  Others do not employ that line of thought/consideration and...they have the right to decide which manufacturer serves their needs/wants (for whatever those may be), just as I do.

 

I don't think that the performance characteristics of the various product lines put forth by AMD and Intel...mean very much in the practical world of computing, unless you are a gamer or an enthusiast...and neither of those categories plays by the same rules that everyday users who are NOT gamers/enthusiasts use to justify their choices.

 

One thing that many users choose to forget...time changes the capabilities which are available for any product.  IMO, the hype attending the promotion of any CPU by any manufacturer today...is akin to the hype used by auto manufacturers everywhere.  "If there are no differences of consequence...we will just focus on the small differences and set the price bar at what traffic allows :)."

 

Louis



#4 stebbinsd

stebbinsd
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 208 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:18 AM

Posted 19 June 2016 - 07:28 PM

Well, I'm a gamer/enthusiast. I want the best performance.

 

Does AMD really give me the best bang for my buck by a landslide, or am I not paying attention to a spec that I should be paying attention to?

 

For example, in Intel's defense, I've noticed that their $1k processors have about 200MB of cache memory, while the AMD processor only has about 8MB. If I'm a gamer, does that make a difference? More importantly: Does it make eight hundred dollars worth off difference?


My current build:

 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P
Processor: AMD FX-8350
RAM: 12GB (2x2GB+8GB)
Video Card: Geforce GTX 750ti

OS: Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate


#5 Zone_86

Zone_86

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:18 AM

Posted 19 June 2016 - 09:31 PM

I think Louis stated it very eloquently. Look like you have done your own research get whatever appeals to you the most with your working budget. Both AMD and Intel have good processors for both gaming, and general use.


Edited by Zone_86, 19 June 2016 - 09:32 PM.


#6 Platypus

Platypus

  • Moderator
  • 14,411 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:07:18 PM

Posted 20 June 2016 - 12:59 AM

best performance... best bang for my buck... am I not paying attention to a spec that I should be paying attention to?


I think there are probably factors you're not taking into account.

Best performance and best bang for the buck are not going to end up in the same place.

You are also not going to be able to directly compare very different CPUs simply on the basis of cores and clock speed. One example of how this works is that the Intels are 8 core 16 thread (hyperthreading), whereas the AMD is 8 core 8 thread, but will be viewed as 4 core by some parties, as the AMD architecture pairs physical cores which then share some resources. It's Piledriver, which is an incremental development of Bulldozer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitecture%29

So the AMD is an old architecture with some efficiency problems. It can achieve high performance for the price, simply by being sold cheaper as it moves toward end-of-life (it started at over $800) and by running very fast. But this means it will only work in a limited number of specific mainboards, and has high cooling and power (220W) requirements. It needs liquid cooling and >1000W PSU, and can be outperformed by Intel CPUs that cost less than the ones you are comparing with. They will still be more than the AMD, but the other costs that add to the support costs for the AMD offset this to some degree.

There's a discussion here with some benchmark comparisons of various AMD & Intel CPUs:

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2561755/amd-9590-good-cpu.html

Edited by Platypus, 20 June 2016 - 01:08 AM.

Top 5 things that never get done:

1.


#7 DavisMcCarn

DavisMcCarn

  • Members
  • 786 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:18 AM

Posted 20 June 2016 - 11:33 AM

Don't blame Newegg for their pricing, They're in a highly competitive market which demands they sell what people want to buy.  That AMD is a two year old product while the Intel is brand new.  Part of the Intel price is developing the new CPU.

 

I started using Passmark's benchmark numbers many years ago and have found it to be a valuable resource to see what's being offered and what to expect.  Its also nice for finding the sweet spot when making budget-conscious decisions.

Here's that AMD:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core&id=2014

Its 220 watt power need scares the heck out of me!  If you don't clean the fans every month, I wouldn't touch it.

Here's that Intel:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-5960X+%40+3.00GHz&id=2332

Its 140 watt requirement is still too high for my liking; but, its also a brand new 2016 part with much higher performance numbers.


Computer dinosaur, servicing PC's since 1976

#8 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,764 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:18 AM

Posted 20 June 2016 - 12:27 PM

Many gives and takes in the specs and performance between the two CPUs you picked but that alone begins the limitations of what will work together.  MOBO options play a huge part of the final decision, more than the CPU or GPU choice.  Huge cache can make for some superior  frame rates regardless of GPU choice and on-board would be the option to look for their.  Those on board options would run far faster than any plugin card.  Comparing prices of new chips to two year old chips is not a fair comparison.



#9 Zone_86

Zone_86

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:18 AM

Posted 20 June 2016 - 11:33 PM

Basically the OP is trying to compare something vastly beyond the performance of the FX 8350 AMD 8 core to Intel's current very high end offers. The FX 8350 directly competes with the Intel quad I7 series. The AMD FX 8350 is not a true 8 core chip either it's a 4 core chip with 4 virtual. Even though it competes with the Intel I7 the gaming performance is well below that of Intel's I5 of 4 yeas ago, although the multitasking is very good on it, and gaming is acceptable, but there is no comparison of the FX 8350 to an Intel "true" 8 core chip, and where again every core is vastly stronger than the AMD FX 8350. So the comparison isn't even a valid one. The OP should be trying to compare the FX 8350 to a 5 year old Intel I7 2600k, where still the Intel handily takes over.

 

Mentioning an FX 9590 @ 220w+ is also not valid you will need one of 4-5 motherboards, 4 of which can run the chip stable and correctly and each one being very expensive, where you can compare to (the real comparison) a 4790k or 6700k on a $57.00 B85/B150 motherboard. By the time you buy the processors and motherboards the cost somewhat evens out between the two, but with the 4790k @ 84W TDP and the 6700K @ 91W and running cool - very cool on the stock air cooler with around 35%+ better gaming performance with higher end GPU's, and 10-15% better performance with multitasking well you have your answer. Both are good. One runs cooler and stronger overall and consumes less power. Both AMD and intel have their place in both general usage and gaming. However the comparison that the OP tried to make was not valid from the start. The mandated comparison industry wise is FX 8350 vs. I7 quads - starting circa 2011 with gen 2 but you could actually go back to gen 1 with the I7-950 Bloomfield in 2009 for a better direct performance comparison. Moreover, the real world today's comparison is actually the FX 8350 vs. I3 and I5. In most cases the I5 wins. Sometimes the I3 wins.


Edited by Zone_86, 21 June 2016 - 12:28 AM.


#10 Ram4x4

Ram4x4

  • Members
  • 228 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania
  • Local time:05:18 AM

Posted 21 June 2016 - 06:41 AM

You can't compare AMD and Intel based on clock speed. They are two completely different architectures. Google gaming performance for each of the CPU's and go read the reviews.

Also keep in mind that very few games will make use of all those cores. Some games are starting to become multi threaded, but in general, most aren't. This is why the Intel i7 4790K and the new 6700K quad cores have been so popular for gamers.

Clock speed is relevant within the same family of CPUs (comparing Intel to Intel, for example), but is not the sole deciding factor by any means.

As mentioned, TDP (thermal design power) is an important factor to consider as well. A 220 watt CPU is going to run very hot and will require good cooling. Possibly liquid cooling, which done right is pretty expensive.

#11 DavisMcCarn

DavisMcCarn

  • Members
  • 786 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:18 AM

Posted 21 June 2016 - 07:29 AM

I have yet to really test this on Windows 10; but, Windows 7 only uses two cores most of the time and I have seen HWMonitor report that the extra cores in an Intel 4 core processor were using 0KB of memory and were being used 0% while I cruised the web and ran Microsoft Office. Based on that fact, I look closely at the Single thread rating of CPU's at Passmark when making decisions about what to buy or recommend to clients.
What is truly ironic is that the way to kick a PC's performance way up is to add more hard disk drives and I have never found a benchmarking utility that reflects this. If you have a partition on a second drive reserved for temporary files and set as such in Windows and/or Adobe products, performance goes through the roof! Why; because you opened up a new data channel (adding another 150 to 200MBps to your storage subsystem) AND you eliminate all of the seek operations while creating temp files (one millisecond to switch drives versus 12+ to seek)
This technique took a mailing list program sort job from 9 1/2 hours to 31 minutes 18 years ago!
This, too is software specific and would be dependent on how each game handles its temp files.
Computer dinosaur, servicing PC's since 1976

#12 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,379 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:12:18 PM

Posted 21 June 2016 - 08:16 AM

Basically the OP is trying to compare something vastly beyond the performance of the FX 8350 AMD 8 core to Intel's current very high end offers. The FX 8350 directly competes with the Intel quad I7 series. The AMD FX 8350 is not a true 8 core chip either it's a 4 core chip with 4 virtual. Even though it competes with the Intel I7 the gaming performance is well below that of Intel's I5 of 4 yeas ago, although the multitasking is very good on it, and gaming is acceptable, but there is no comparison of the FX 8350 to an Intel "true" 8 core chip, and where again every core is vastly stronger than the AMD FX 8350. So the comparison isn't even a valid one. The OP should be trying to compare the FX 8350 to a 5 year old Intel I7 2600k, where still the Intel handily takes over.

 

That's totally wrong. Intel Quad i7 series has 4 cores and 4 virtual cores via SMT (or hyper threading). FX-8350 has "8 integer cores" and "4 FPU cores". As generally about 90% on software code is integer code, FX-8350 can be considered as octa core. If not, then we have seen many "zero core" CPU's (that is, without FPU unit).

 

I make very simple illustration of this: on Windows you cannot assign any process on single logical core (=any SMT "core") because logical core is useless without physical core. But you can assign any process to any of FX-8350's eight cores as any of those cores can actually run software where SMT "virtual core" cannot.



#13 Ram4x4

Ram4x4

  • Members
  • 228 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania
  • Local time:05:18 AM

Posted 21 June 2016 - 08:18 AM

Forget multiple drives and partitions, just get an SSD. The radically increased throughput alone will make your PC feel new and responsive (the swap file will read and write so much faster). If you really want the most bang from your storage, then run SSD's in a RAID, but be prepared to deal with the headaches of trying to retrieve your data when/if the RAID crashes (that's the downside). If you do decide to set up a striped array, make sure you have a really good back-up solution and use it religiously.

The OS and office, etc are not good measures of multi-core usage. The programs themselves will be.

Unless you have a specific game that does use more than 1 or 2 cores, most games benefit from higher clock rates (within the same CPU brand/family), but other programs that are multi threaded, like CAD, photoshop, video editing or running virtual machines will benefit the most from more cores.

#14 stebbinsd

stebbinsd
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 208 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:18 AM

Posted 21 June 2016 - 01:15 PM

Also keep in mind that very few games will make use of all those cores. Some games are starting to become multi threaded, but in general, most aren't. This is why the Intel i7 4790K and the new 6700K quad cores have been so popular for gamers.

What about future games? Games that are going to come out in, say, 2025? Will the i7-4790k play those games?


Edited by stebbinsd, 21 June 2016 - 01:16 PM.

My current build:

 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P
Processor: AMD FX-8350
RAM: 12GB (2x2GB+8GB)
Video Card: Geforce GTX 750ti

OS: Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate


#15 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,379 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:12:18 PM

Posted 21 June 2016 - 02:01 PM

 

Also keep in mind that very few games will make use of all those cores. Some games are starting to become multi threaded, but in general, most aren't. This is why the Intel i7 4790K and the new 6700K quad cores have been so popular for gamers.

What about future games? Games that are going to come out in, say, 2025? Will the i7-4790k play those games?

 

 

Everything depends on how well future games use cores. DX12, Vulcan etc have huge role in this.


Edited by Drillingmachine, 21 June 2016 - 02:01 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users