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

Intel VS. AMD Processors


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
35 replies to this topic

#16 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,090 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:03:51 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 09:48 AM

Well...there are advantages or selling points to each manufacturer...but those selling points do not necessarily equate in the minds of purchasers/users.

 

For me...I don't see any sense in paying more money for anything that performs in a satisfactory manner when compared to a stated dissimilar item.  I get beyond the hype that Intel stands for (lots of advertising, cute commercials, etc.) and just look at the prices and performance capabilities when I purchase a CPU.  For a user like me, it's easy to determine what CPU fills my needs.  Others, who may not want to look at the presented facts, well...those are the customers who keep all manufacfturing enterprises making money without necessarily earning it, IMO.

 

If someone provided accurate price/performance data for these bevies of CPUs that we are now blessed to have the benefit of...the choices would be much simpler for anyone to interpret and decide.

 

Louis



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#17 Mike_Soda

Mike_Soda

  • Members
  • 155 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States
  • Local time:01:51 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 12:52 PM

So- there is no equivalent to an I7 processor in the AMD line of products?

 

 

 

Although AMD currently still is the best performance per dollar, buying into any of their current product lines now is a dead end. At least that's what I've been told, since it's rumored that Athlon X4, A10 APU's & FX won't be compatible with AM4 Motherboards. Likewise I don't think they'll be making anymore new CPU's for those past generations. If you need to build something right now I'd say go with an i3-6100, they're about $120.00 & can pick up a decent LGA 1151 motherboard for $50.00 or less. That 2 core, 4 thread CPU by the way is significantly better than an Athlon 880k & even an FX 6-core.


Every socket right now except AM4 is dead end. Current DDR3 supporting CPU's are not compatible with AM4, it's well known fact, no need for rumour. Also AM3/FM2+ will not receive new CPU's as Zen will supersede them.

i3-6100 is only dual core and paying over $100 for dual core is no if you ask me. It has no match for AMD six core if all cores are used. Even quad core i7 has no match for AMD octa core on medium to heavy use (like virtual machines).

So- there is no equivalent to an I7 processor in the AMD line of products?


Depends on what i7. i7 may be dual core or 10-core.

In any case, Zen matches Intel's offerings clock to clock on "most applications". Clock speed will probably be lower but so is power consumption also. Zen also will not match Intel CPU's when using AVX-512, but that feature is mostly useless anyway and power consumption is huge. Putting full scale AVX-512 support for 95W octa core would mean very low clock speed. Best Intel can do at 140 watts is 3.2 GHz.

 

There are AMD equivalent's to i7 but you won't be able to use a Zen CPU in the older sockets I don't think. However it's said that you will be able to use Kaby Lake CPU's in LGA 1151 motherboards with the Z170 Chipset. These two videos should clear things up a bit as well, hope it helps.

 

 


Ryzen 5 1500X @ 3.9GHz On 1.3625V | MSI B350M Gaming Pro | 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4 3200MHz | 3GB MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X 2063MHz Core 9408MHz Mem | EVGA G2 550W | 250GB Samsung 850 EVO | Windows 10 Home 64-bit Version 1803 (OS Build 17134.112) | MasterCase Pro 3


#18 paul88ks

paul88ks
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,323 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas,Texas
  • Local time:03:51 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 12:55 PM

Well - I have compared the prices of a New I7 at 720.00 vs. AMD top of the line at about 280.00 That is a substantial price difference. I am not a gamer,so an AMD may suit me just fine. I have an I7 machine that I upgraded myself- it's an HP,but I am thinking about another build I am going to do from the ground up!



#19 Mike_Soda

Mike_Soda

  • Members
  • 155 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States
  • Local time:01:51 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 12:59 PM

Well - I have compared the prices of a New I7 at 720.00 vs. AMD top of the line at about 280.00 That is a substantial price difference. I am not a gamer,so an AMD may suit me just fine. I have an I7 machine that I upgraded myself- it's an HP,but I am thinking about another build I am going to do from the ground up!

From what I've read although AMD can out perform Intel in some applications where it suffers in is (as much as I hate to say it) architecture. I used to hate that word but I've realized there's some truth in it. In the most basic way I can describe, imagine each CPU as a drainage system for water. AMD tends to have a bottleneck effect, where more comes in than can exit at one time. Intel on the other hand at the moment anyway, doesn't have this restriction. If I recall correctly it has to do with the limited shared cache especially on FX CPU's as well.


Ryzen 5 1500X @ 3.9GHz On 1.3625V | MSI B350M Gaming Pro | 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4 3200MHz | 3GB MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X 2063MHz Core 9408MHz Mem | EVGA G2 550W | 250GB Samsung 850 EVO | Windows 10 Home 64-bit Version 1803 (OS Build 17134.112) | MasterCase Pro 3


#20 Gorbulan

Gorbulan

  • Members
  • 832 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:51 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 01:05 PM

 

Well - I have compared the prices of a New I7 at 720.00 vs. AMD top of the line at about 280.00 That is a substantial price difference. I am not a gamer,so an AMD may suit me just fine. I have an I7 machine that I upgraded myself- it's an HP,but I am thinking about another build I am going to do from the ground up!

From what I've read although AMD can out perform Intel in some applications where it suffers in is (as much as I hate to say it) architecture. I used to hate that word but I've realized there's some truth in it. In the most basic way I can describe, imagine each CPU as a drainage system for water. AMD tends to have a bottleneck effect, where more comes in than can exit at one time. Intel on the other hand at the moment anyway, doesn't have this restriction. If I recall correctly it has to do with the limited shared cache especially on FX CPU's as well.

 

 

For gaming AMD's tend to be better for the price. Games just aren't optimized for multi core, so a high speed is more important than the number of processors.



#21 Mike_Soda

Mike_Soda

  • Members
  • 155 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States
  • Local time:01:51 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 02:02 PM

 

 

Well - I have compared the prices of a New I7 at 720.00 vs. AMD top of the line at about 280.00 That is a substantial price difference. I am not a gamer,so an AMD may suit me just fine. I have an I7 machine that I upgraded myself- it's an HP,but I am thinking about another build I am going to do from the ground up!

From what I've read although AMD can out perform Intel in some applications where it suffers in is (as much as I hate to say it) architecture. I used to hate that word but I've realized there's some truth in it. In the most basic way I can describe, imagine each CPU as a drainage system for water. AMD tends to have a bottleneck effect, where more comes in than can exit at one time. Intel on the other hand at the moment anyway, doesn't have this restriction. If I recall correctly it has to do with the limited shared cache especially on FX CPU's as well.

 

 

For gaming AMD's tend to be better for the price. Games just aren't optimized for multi core, so a high speed is more important than the number of processors.

 

Newer games made in the past couple years & even now usually are optimized for multiple threads but older ones such as RuneScape don't yet. Although GTA 5 for example will still benefit from more actual cores, i5-6500 3.2GHz vs an i3-6100 3.7GHz. I just wish AMD CPU's didn't have that bottleneck effect on themselves. A first hand example of this is my Athlon II X2 260, if the way it handled data was more like an i3-6100 minus the extra threads I wouldn't be having as severe lag that I do when simply browsing Newegg.


Ryzen 5 1500X @ 3.9GHz On 1.3625V | MSI B350M Gaming Pro | 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4 3200MHz | 3GB MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X 2063MHz Core 9408MHz Mem | EVGA G2 550W | 250GB Samsung 850 EVO | Windows 10 Home 64-bit Version 1803 (OS Build 17134.112) | MasterCase Pro 3


#22 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,438 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:51 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 02:11 PM

There are AMD equivalent's to i7 but you won't be able to use a Zen CPU in the older sockets I don't think. However it's said that you will be able to use Kaby Lake CPU's in LGA 1151 motherboards with the Z170 Chipset. These two videos should clear things up a bit as well, hope it helps.
 

 


Zen needs AM4 socket, not compatible with anythng previous. However AM4 socket is already launched with Bristol Ridge APU's, those motherboards also support Zen.

Kaby lake is very small (not worthwhile) update from Skylake.

Those benchmarks are for low core usage, low load scenarios.
 

From what I've read although AMD can out perform Intel in some applications where it suffers in is (as much as I hate to say it) architecture. I used to hate that word but I've realized there's some truth in it. In the most basic way I can describe, imagine each CPU as a drainage system for water. AMD tends to have a bottleneck effect, where more comes in than can exit at one time. Intel on the other hand at the moment anyway, doesn't have this restriction. If I recall correctly it has to do with the limited shared cache especially on FX CPU's as well.


Bulldozer was not designed to give good single thread performance, rather to offer big amount of cores. However architechture has some flaws AMD really didn't bother to fix, they decided to develop Zen instead. Perhaps AMD knew they would not get "competitive" manufacturing process to replace 32nm SOI until somewhere 2016 (they now have 14nm LPP) and so it made sense to design new architecture to be ready around time new process is available (Zen is some months late from that schedule but not much). AMD did not completly abandon Bulldozer architecture development so that they would have something in case Zen fails. It seems Zen is not failing and so it's unlike we ever see "fixed" Bulldozer design. That is, successor of Excavator architecture that MIGHT have been named Drillingmachine :)
 
Edit:
 

Newer games made in the past couple years & even now usually are optimized for multiple threads but older ones such as RuneScape don't yet. Although GTA 5 for example will still benefit from more actual cores, i5-6500 3.2GHz vs an i3-6100 3.7GHz. I just wish AMD CPU's didn't have that bottleneck effect on themselves. A first hand example of this is my Athlon II X2 260, if the way it handled data was more like an i3-6100 minus the extra threads I wouldn't be having as severe lag that I do when simply browsing Newegg.


Actually those games are not properly optimized for multiple cores. Use of DirectX 11 means one thread is heavily limiting performance. AMD Mantle and technologies based on it (DirectX 12 and Vulkan) solve this problem but are not much used yet.

Athlon II X2 260 is K10 based CPU and K10 was introduced 2007. So you are comparing 2007 architecture agains 2015 one.

Edited by Drillingmachine, 27 September 2016 - 02:17 PM.


#23 Gorbulan

Gorbulan

  • Members
  • 832 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:51 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 02:23 PM

 

 

 

Well - I have compared the prices of a New I7 at 720.00 vs. AMD top of the line at about 280.00 That is a substantial price difference. I am not a gamer,so an AMD may suit me just fine. I have an I7 machine that I upgraded myself- it's an HP,but I am thinking about another build I am going to do from the ground up!

From what I've read although AMD can out perform Intel in some applications where it suffers in is (as much as I hate to say it) architecture. I used to hate that word but I've realized there's some truth in it. In the most basic way I can describe, imagine each CPU as a drainage system for water. AMD tends to have a bottleneck effect, where more comes in than can exit at one time. Intel on the other hand at the moment anyway, doesn't have this restriction. If I recall correctly it has to do with the limited shared cache especially on FX CPU's as well.

 

 

For gaming AMD's tend to be better for the price. Games just aren't optimized for multi core, so a high speed is more important than the number of processors.

 

Newer games made in the past couple years & even now usually are optimized for multiple threads but older ones such as RuneScape don't yet. Although GTA 5 for example will still benefit from more actual cores, i5-6500 3.2GHz vs an i3-6100 3.7GHz. I just wish AMD CPU's didn't have that bottleneck effect on themselves. A first hand example of this is my Athlon II X2 260, if the way it handled data was more like an i3-6100 minus the extra threads I wouldn't be having as severe lag that I do when simply browsing Newegg.

 

 

Not quite. There games that are optimized for multi core but it is still limited by DirectX 11. Games made on DirectX11 can't have the more than 1 CPU talk to a GPU. They are completely bottlenecked. Only games built for DirectX 12 can make use of multi cores in CPU's and GPU's. 



#24 Mike_Soda

Mike_Soda

  • Members
  • 155 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States
  • Local time:01:51 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 05:44 PM

 

There are AMD equivalent's to i7 but you won't be able to use a Zen CPU in the older sockets I don't think. However it's said that you will be able to use Kaby Lake CPU's in LGA 1151 motherboards with the Z170 Chipset. These two videos should clear things up a bit as well, hope it helps.
 

 


Zen needs AM4 socket, not compatible with anythng previous. However AM4 socket is already launched with Bristol Ridge APU's, those motherboards also support Zen.

Kaby lake is very small (not worthwhile) update from Skylake.

Those benchmarks are for low core usage, low load scenarios.
 

From what I've read although AMD can out perform Intel in some applications where it suffers in is (as much as I hate to say it) architecture. I used to hate that word but I've realized there's some truth in it. In the most basic way I can describe, imagine each CPU as a drainage system for water. AMD tends to have a bottleneck effect, where more comes in than can exit at one time. Intel on the other hand at the moment anyway, doesn't have this restriction. If I recall correctly it has to do with the limited shared cache especially on FX CPU's as well.


Bulldozer was not designed to give good single thread performance, rather to offer big amount of cores. However architechture has some flaws AMD really didn't bother to fix, they decided to develop Zen instead. Perhaps AMD knew they would not get "competitive" manufacturing process to replace 32nm SOI until somewhere 2016 (they now have 14nm LPP) and so it made sense to design new architecture to be ready around time new process is available (Zen is some months late from that schedule but not much). AMD did not completly abandon Bulldozer architecture development so that they would have something in case Zen fails. It seems Zen is not failing and so it's unlike we ever see "fixed" Bulldozer design. That is, successor of Excavator architecture that MIGHT have been named Drillingmachine :)
 
Edit:
 

Newer games made in the past couple years & even now usually are optimized for multiple threads but older ones such as RuneScape don't yet. Although GTA 5 for example will still benefit from more actual cores, i5-6500 3.2GHz vs an i3-6100 3.7GHz. I just wish AMD CPU's didn't have that bottleneck effect on themselves. A first hand example of this is my Athlon II X2 260, if the way it handled data was more like an i3-6100 minus the extra threads I wouldn't be having as severe lag that I do when simply browsing Newegg.


Actually those games are not properly optimized for multiple cores. Use of DirectX 11 means one thread is heavily limiting performance. AMD Mantle and technologies based on it (DirectX 12 and Vulkan) solve this problem but are not much used yet.

Athlon II X2 260 is K10 based CPU and K10 was introduced 2007. So you are comparing 2007 architecture agains 2015 one.

 

I know but even an FX dual core if it exists can't compare to a more modern variant.


Ryzen 5 1500X @ 3.9GHz On 1.3625V | MSI B350M Gaming Pro | 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4 3200MHz | 3GB MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X 2063MHz Core 9408MHz Mem | EVGA G2 550W | 250GB Samsung 850 EVO | Windows 10 Home 64-bit Version 1803 (OS Build 17134.112) | MasterCase Pro 3


#25 Mike_Soda

Mike_Soda

  • Members
  • 155 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States
  • Local time:01:51 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 05:47 PM

 


 

 

Not quite. There games that are optimized for multi core but it is still limited by DirectX 11. Games made on DirectX11 can't have the more than 1 CPU talk to a GPU. They are completely bottlenecked. Only games built for DirectX 12 can make use of multi cores in CPU's and GPU's. 

 

If that's true then why am I told over & over that an i3-6100 is miles better than an Athlon II X2 260? With all the research I've done & questions I've asked elsewhere. It gets really frustrating when opinions start to conflict each other.


Ryzen 5 1500X @ 3.9GHz On 1.3625V | MSI B350M Gaming Pro | 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4 3200MHz | 3GB MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X 2063MHz Core 9408MHz Mem | EVGA G2 550W | 250GB Samsung 850 EVO | Windows 10 Home 64-bit Version 1803 (OS Build 17134.112) | MasterCase Pro 3


#26 Gorbulan

Gorbulan

  • Members
  • 832 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:51 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 06:09 PM

 

 

 


 

 

Not quite. There games that are optimized for multi core but it is still limited by DirectX 11. Games made on DirectX11 can't have the more than 1 CPU talk to a GPU. They are completely bottlenecked. Only games built for DirectX 12 can make use of multi cores in CPU's and GPU's. 

 

If that's true then why am I told over & over that an i3-6100 is miles better than an Athlon II X2 260? With all the research I've done & questions I've asked elsewhere. It gets really frustrating when opinions start to conflict each other.

 

 

Because the Athlon is much older than the i3-6100. Athlon II X2 260 came out in 2010, the i3 came out in 2015. Who's benchmarking CPU's five years apart?

 

Athlon might beat the i3 if it is over clocked by quite a bit.



#27 paul88ks

paul88ks
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,323 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas,Texas
  • Local time:03:51 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 07:10 PM

Well - now I'm confused more than ever-HA!



#28 jonuk76

jonuk76

  • Members
  • 2,178 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, UK
  • Local time:09:51 PM

Posted 27 September 2016 - 08:15 PM

 

If someone provided accurate price/performance data for these bevies of CPUs that we are now blessed to have the benefit of...the choices would be much simpler for anyone to interpret and decide.

 

Louis

 

Can be done, but then you have to define performance.  For example, take a i5-6600 vs an FX 8350.  The i5 comfortably wins in many of the tests, massively so in single threaded tests, but loses comfortably in some highly multi-threaded tests (e.g. 7zip compression).  Any attempt to distill all of the possible ways of testing performance into one number, to give a definitive "price/performance" value will always be open to criticism.  It would need to in some way take account of what a "typical" workload would be, and carry a disclaimer that if you are doing something atypical, then it wouldn't necessarily be helpful.


7sbvuf-6.png


#29 Mike_Soda

Mike_Soda

  • Members
  • 155 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States
  • Local time:01:51 PM

Posted 28 September 2016 - 01:12 AM

 

 

 

 


 

 

Not quite. There games that are optimized for multi core but it is still limited by DirectX 11. Games made on DirectX11 can't have the more than 1 CPU talk to a GPU. They are completely bottlenecked. Only games built for DirectX 12 can make use of multi cores in CPU's and GPU's. 

 

If that's true then why am I told over & over that an i3-6100 is miles better than an Athlon II X2 260? With all the research I've done & questions I've asked elsewhere. It gets really frustrating when opinions start to conflict each other.

 

 

Because the Athlon is much older than the i3-6100. Athlon II X2 260 came out in 2010, the i3 came out in 2015. Who's benchmarking CPU's five years apart?

 

Athlon might beat the i3 if it is over clocked by quite a bit.

 

That would be interesting E.G: "How much of an overclock does it take for a much older CPU to beat a newer one at stock?". Kinda surprised no ones made a video series on that yet.


Ryzen 5 1500X @ 3.9GHz On 1.3625V | MSI B350M Gaming Pro | 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4 3200MHz | 3GB MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X 2063MHz Core 9408MHz Mem | EVGA G2 550W | 250GB Samsung 850 EVO | Windows 10 Home 64-bit Version 1803 (OS Build 17134.112) | MasterCase Pro 3


#30 paul88ks

paul88ks
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,323 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas,Texas
  • Local time:03:51 PM

Posted 28 September 2016 - 03:32 AM

AMD's tend to be the choice of overclockers since they run at a higher speed compared with their Intel counterparts. Intel is still the standard for high performance, it's just costlier. As mentioned before, AMD's tend to run hotter than Intel.

 

If you don't know what you want specifically, but want high performance, go with Intel. Otherwise, AMD is perfectly fine cheap option for "everyday" computing.

This is the answer I was looking for- Thanks!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users