Topic Intel VS AMD
I read in a buying guide here that Intel beats AMD by a long shot.. But what are the exact details?
I ask because i have a motherboard that supports AM3+. I have a chance to upgrade from a Phenom x3 455 to an FX-4170.
cpubenchmark.net says average CPU mark for:
FX-4170 = 4,608
Phenom x3 455 = 2,918
i5 760 = 4,590
I listed the i5 because it's cheap where i buy stuff. I can probably get the i5 and a new motherboard for the same price as the FX-4170.
My question: The 4170 is bench-marked better than the i5. I am hesitant to get the intel setup because I don't know/haven't seen much detail as to why intel is better.
CPUmark is worthless indication of CPU's actual performance in games
Intel has a much better IPC (instructions per cycle) than AMD FX series CPU right now, which has a big relation to how well CPU-bound games run on your PC
You are also comparing first generation i5, not current generation i5
CPUmark is worthless indication of CPU's actual performance in games
So what would be the better upgrade? The 4170 or the first gen i5?
Based on your guide, i am getting the impression i will see an upgrade in-game if i upgrade my 455. I just want to make sure I make the right decision. So far, so good. I am using the 6870 ever since we discussed in my GPU thread.
It shows as available on frys.
Would the 4170 beat the i3 2nd gens?
I hate to make you do my research but can you swing over to frys.com and tell me if i should upgrade to an amd am3/am3+ or find me the cheapest possible setup for intel that will beat out my amd or any other amds?
Motherboard must have at least 2 sata 3gb ports as i have 2 sata II ssds.
8 Night Elf Druid
Dude, without question get a Core i7-3770k processors. I have this thing overclocked to 4GHZ, it runs cool very cool. That added with a Geforce GTX 690, 36 Gigs of RAM and a Solid State Drive and windows 7 loads from off to 100% on in 6 seconds. Solid State drives speed comps just as much as any other piece so if you are upgrading at least get a hybrid (60 GiGs SSD and the rest normal).
Lots of Intel lemmings on here.
The IPC doesn't effect anything... especially if you are comparing a quad core to an eight core, or even a six core processor. And at half the cost which includes a decent heatsink.
I've been a fan of Intel since childhood but I know what it looks like when a company starts to take advantage of its customers because of its popularity.
Ten more FPS with an i3 over an FX 4100 2nd gen? Are you high?
If you get your information from anywhere other than the manufacturer's/company website, it will be biased.
Big box companies and high end benchmarking youtube video's mostly use intel... why? because intel sponsors them to talk about how goo the processor is.
Top of the line i7 processor: $1000+
Top of the line AMD eight core: $200
The i7 improvement over AMD? about 4-6%. Worth 800 dollars?.....
I think you don't seem to understand how much of an impact IPC makes on a CPU performance.
Ever used Pentium 4? That's basically Intel's AMD FX Bulldozer -- sacrificing IPC to gain massive GHz. The result? Pentium 4 got utterly destroyed by lower GHz AMD XP CPUs, which were much more efficient with processing instructions, and far less penalty for branch misprediction since there aren't as many pipelines as the Pentium 4 had.
Yep, those 3 GHz Pentium 4s got destroyed by 2 GHz something AMD XP CPUs -- also happened to be the heyday of AMD.
Core numbers don't matter when most games barely take advantage of quad-core, let alone 6 or 8 core CPUs.
FX 4100 is not the 2nd gen. Piledriver CPUs are not even out yet.
Who buys top of the line i7 CPUs for gaming anyway, unless they are misinformed or just want to show off that they got $$$.
By the way, AMD FX's "8 core CPU" is not really a true 8 core as their design is radically different from what constitutes a "core". Namely, the "core" AMD refers to is just the integer unit in the CPU. Each modules have two cores, but one FPU, and shared cache.
So in effect, while it can be seen as a 8 core if a program only uses integer unit, if you use FPU-based programs, the AMD FX 8000 series will perform like a quad core as there are only 4 FPU in the CPU.
running i7core/invidia rig. sandy bridge, solid state drive, etc. upgraded from phenom II 4 or 6 core/radeon or whatever it was. no real noticeable difference in terms of speed or performance. computers are so fast nowadays that i think the bargain brand makes sense.
OP - What is your motherboard model #?
I would approach this from a cost/benefit angle. Sure an Intel i3 is going to beat a 4170 in games, but they don't cost the same if you also have to buy a board for the i3. Anyway, I want to look at your board's cpu support list...if they release a bios update for Piledriver Vishera-core cpus, it may be worth grabbing the FX-4320 when it comes out.
Of course you're comparing a really old i5 and the current best CPU that AMD has out (4170) - and the terribly-clocked 4100 always has to come up. It's also hard to compare something that was really never intended to not be overclocked.
But whatever, it really matters most what motherboard you have, whether it "supports AM3+" or if it actually is a real AM3+-specified board with ongoing updates - in which case it could support the upcoming CPUs, which should come out this month. FX-4300 has a pre-order price of $131.62, as much as that means. It sucks if they will release them in such an order again, but from the info that's out there, it doesn't look like the 4300 will be as far behind the rest of the lineup as 4100 is now. 6300 might not be stuck in the same position as 6100 either.... but of course all of that is based on the stock speeds of processors that are heavily marketed as being "unlocked" and are really not at all intended to be left alone.
There really isn't that much difference between the performance of the specific models you're talking about... it's just that the upcoming AMD chips will not be better than the current or upcoming Intel chips and that will be the case for the entire foreseeable future (meaning there will always be a better Intel option) - so notwithstanding actual viability, that fact makes it a difficult topic to accurately discuss in a place like this.
The way I see it, Bulldozer was rushed to release and ended up being crappier than expected - and Piledriver is the extra step required by that.
Vishera (Piledriver) will be as good as Zambezi (Bulldozer 1.0) should have been, Steamroller is the platform evolving and gaining potential - which is what seems like should be happening now.
But I think it's acceptable. AMD is a relatively new and small company, while Intel really has enough money to purchase middle-size nations. I personally just kinda like the idea of AMD and I'll probably buy their gear until it becomes downright not viable at all.
Edited by Kalganized on 10/4/12 1:55 PM (PDT)
AMD isn't really new though. They've been making x86 chips all the way back in the 80s. Have always been playing a second fiddle to superior (and much more expensive) Intel products until Athlon era, and ending with Core 2 era.
AMD is pretty big; it's just that Intel is monstrous -- and doing so with practically one product they are good at (CPU business). All other similarly monstrous tech companies has multiple branches into different products.
Yeah, I also like the 'idea' of AMD. They were founded in 1969 believe it or not, and have made cpus since their first 8080 clone in 1975. Their first original design was the K5 in 1996. It wasn't so great. lol. K6 was also lacking, though the K7 held its own with the Pentium 3.
AMD actually took the performance lead in 2000 with the K7 Thunderbird cpu. Intel's Coppermine core P3 couldn't scale past 1ghz (they actually had to recall the 1.13ghz part). The final P3 core, Tualatin, which topped out at 1.4ghz, was solid, but by then Intel was shipping the first P4 "netburst" architecture cpu - Willamette core, socket 423. It sucked.
The Athlon XP was released in Oct. 2001 and basically handed Intel its !@# for awhile.
In early 2002 Intel countered with the Northwood core P4, socket 478, which introduced the hyperthreading feature, though not all models had it enabled at first. Intel played around with Rambus ram on it's i850 chipset but Rambus was cost-prohibitive. Northwood was enough of a gain that AMD had to adjust their Athlon XP naming scheme. Each model number was 66mhz faster than the previous: XP1500 1.33ghz, XP1600 1.4ghz, XP1700 1.47ghz, etc. It scaled that way until XP2200 @1.8ghz. There was no XP2300, and the XP2400 was clocked at 2ghz. AMD also released a Barton core with more cache to compete as Intel scaled the P4 to the 3.2ghz mark.
Intel didn't really gain an advantage until the i865 chipset was released in May 2003, which featured the first dual channel memory controller. This was a major advantage, but...
In the second half of 2003, AMD's K8 chips were released, introducing the 64-bit instruction set and an on-die memory controller. P4 was decimated. The world rejoiced. This design was headed up by Jim Keller, who AMD recently re-hired. Hopefully he will get a new monster cpu in the pipeline.
In May of 2005, AMD released the A64 X2 - the first dual core cpu. Intel released their Pentium D around the same time, but it failed miserably in comparison.
In August of 2006, Intel's Core2 desktop cpu was released. The Core2 actually traced its roots back to the Pentium Pro through Pentium 3. Intel had released the "Core" cpu as a laptop part because the P4 Netburst used way too much power. The development of this architecture was re-adopted for the desktop for Core2, and AMD has been playing catch-up ever since.
Basically, from the K7 Thunderbird cpu @ 1ghz+ in 2000 until the release of Core2 in 2006, AMD was either in the lead or competitive. God only knows why they imitated Intel's failed Netburst architecture with Bulldozer - lower IPC but higher clock. Meh.
AMD fans will have to hope Jim Keller is Obi-wan Kenobi.
But it seems so many people look forward to the day that the two companies have equal-performing product lines, but that's not what I look forward to. I look forward to the day when AMD's product provides just the right amount of power for what I need, while its Intel counterpart is very overpowered and/or overpriced. That outcome seems more probable, in fact it really doesn't seem too far off at this time.
I don't really think the anomaly that was Athlon XP can be thought of as much more than that. Just well-timed good luck.
(maybe not the best benchmark having so much ram on nforce2, but meh =p)