Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Narcotic

AMD Chips vs Intel Chips

Recommended Posts

-cchalogamer

 

I remember X2's, had a couple, I was at the time excited to get a AMD-FX cpu..

 

Once I got into overclocking, the limitations of AMD was more than enough to discourage me. Didn't help every single damn benchmark program I would use, had Intel's stomping on AMD's on performance left and right.

(Unless you count some of the memory tests, IDK why but they had great results for some AMD rigs)

 

It was amazing when I was younger, I Had no money to put into my computers, so AMD solutions were much easier to attain.

Once I had to start shelling out my hard earned cash, I was never going to put money into something I could push.. at least a little bit.

 

Didn't take much for me to see what people were already doing to P4's with sweet cooling systems, the possibility of getting a monster OC became #1 on my list.

Same reason I was so disappointed by the 4770k I purchased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's little more I can add in terms of desktop chips that nobody here hasn't already said. Intel remains the leading choice for performance computing due to their advantage over AMD clock for clock. 

 

Talking purely about x86 CPU's, though, I would like to give an honorable mention to AMD's APU CPU's in laptops. They have impressive gaming performance given the price range. Beyond that, they're an extremely affordable way to get 4 actual cores into your laptop. If I was on a tight budget, I'd pick an APU over an i3 because the APU will be fast enough in Windows but will game much better thanks to the integrated graphics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just recently went thru a rebuild on my PC. I decided this time around to use AMD instead of Intel. I have a i7-2600k and a i5-2500k but I decided to build a 990fx AMD system using an 8320 FX. I am over all pretty happy with the machine I used all AMD based components on the build and even did one of the R9 280X graphics cards. The AMD system seems to have a lot less issues even at stock speeds then my Intel rigs were giving me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a fanboy of any of those two chipmakers, but I really am deceived by how low the IPC from AMD is compared to Intel core for core. I have a I7 980 with a 7970GHz, a a8-3850 HTPC and a notebook with a8-5557M with switchable 8670G. For their purpose, I have no complaints about speed or functionality. Maybe the notebook annoys me a bit when using finger scrolling because of a slight delay (Windows 8 behavior?).

 

The most troublesome to install was the 3850 because I used my old XP CD, which was SP1, so it could not run the AMD as is. I had to install it on my intel machine, patched to SP3, put the HDD into my 3850 machine and it worked, after a cleansing of drivers. Also, I could never get a temperature reading, whether Realtemp, HWMonitor, Gigabyte ET6. I would have a reading between 0 and 3 degrees C on idle, while being in a 20 degrees C room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In real world terms it takes an overclocked Phenom II X4 or FX-6300/6350 to compete/beat an Intel 13 dual core with hyper threading that does not overclock.

For gaming the I5 (2500K, 3570K, 4670K) outperforms AMD

4670K is 22nm 84 watt (with HD4600 graphics) 1.4/1.6 Billion transistors depending on count metodology

Phenom II X4 965 is 125/140 watt, no graphics, 45nm, 748 million transistors

FX-8350 125+ watt, no graphics, 32 nm, 1.2 Billion transistors

 

Anyway the Phenom II x4 is 4 cores, the FX-8350 is 4 module/8 core, some programs can use all 8 core, some only 4, some one or two.

Most games give the 4670K/3570K 35 TO 70% advantage to Intel, 4670K $240, FX-8350 $180-200.

Generally, with a few specific game exceptions, real world gamers do not notice a performance difference. Overclockers like the FX ability to reach 4.4-5+ GHz given adequate cooling, motherboard and RAM. Intel absolute overclocks have decreased with each die shrink, but so has power consumption (though Haswell VRM control on die and increased graphic performance sort of minimizes Ivy Bridge to Haswell "jump."

Intel also has enough market share software is taking advantage of hyperthreading more than AMDs 1 module/ 2 core design.

 

Phenom II x4 overclocked remains a good gaming chip, though 6 core are preferred. FX Chips are one die with functions removed, ie 8350>8320>6350>4350. Mostly? 8320 can overclock to 8350 levels. 63xx and 43xx are 95 watt, there are 83xx 95 watt variants.

Um where did you get this information? Have you ever looked at a gaming benchmark for cpus? Even the 4960X isn't 70% faster in gaming than the AMD FX 4300.

This is how I look at it, if you are using your computer to browse the internet listen to music get on facebook or even gaming, the performance of the Intel chips over an AMD chip is not worth the price difference. Now if you are doing video/music/photo editing Intel is hands your best bet, the price difference of the cpu will pay for itself over time. For gaming you need to compare the cpus dollar for dollar and you have to ask yourself is spending an extra $20 worth getting 10 more fps in a game that is already running at over 150 fps? Bottom line unless you just want to have the biggest e peen or actually use your pc to do work an Intel cpu is overkill for the vast majority of users.

Edited by slick2500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In older games that are not optimized for multi cores maybe, but even in games like Battlefield 4 your not even going to see a 10 fps difference between the 4960X and a FX 8350.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In older games that are not optimized for multi cores maybe, but even in games like Battlefield 4 your not even going to see a 10 fps difference between the 4960X and a FX 8350.

 

 

I'll find out in the next week as I look at a 9590 and 4960x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battlefield 4 seems to be more GPU-dependant than CPU dependant tho. Bit-tech and Techspot did processor comparisons (where bit-tech only used 3770k, disabling cores or overclocking).

 

The result are not comparable between sites though, where they have different resolutions.

 

The result, for each test, is that CPU doesn't matter much in BF4, giving a very similar result for each benchmark. 

 

Toms did only test 8350 and 4770K in Thief, with or without Mantle, and it seems that the 8350 has a huge gain going Mantle(or Mental for the lulz)

 

So having a good comparison in between a 9590 and 4960X on OCC would be nice. Would you kindly take note of the average FPS as well as minimum? Keep normal gaming settings (no one games at 720p with low details while buying a 4960x, unless their latest GPU has blown). Just 2 years ago, going from a Core 2 Quad to a i7 helped my min. framerate with the same 6950 in some games.

 

See ya gents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In older games that are not optimized for multi cores maybe, but even in games like Battlefield 4 your not even going to see a 10 fps difference between the 4960X and a FX 8350.

 

Try playing an mmorpg / RTS instead of a shooter, then we'll talk lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In older games that are not optimized for multi cores maybe, but even in games like Battlefield 4 your not even going to see a 10 fps difference between the 4960X and a FX 8350.

 

Try playing an mmorpg / RTS instead of a shooter, then we'll talk lol.

 

Found a comparison of cpus running Wow AMD FX 8350 @ 1920x1080 max settings average of 82.3 fps Intel i7 3770k 94.7 fps, again $100 more for 12 fps no thanks. 

Starcraft II looks to like Intel more than AMD, AMD FX 8350 @ 1920x1080 max settings average of 37.2 fps, which is the same performance as the 6300 in the test i found  :erm:  , they only tested up to the 2500k and the 3550 51.4 and 50.4 fps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In older games that are not optimized for multi cores maybe, but even in games like Battlefield 4 your not even going to see a 10 fps difference between the 4960X and a FX 8350.

 

Try playing an mmorpg / RTS instead of a shooter, then we'll talk lol.

 

Found a comparison of cpus running Wow AMD FX 8350 @ 1920x1080 max settings average of 82.3 fps Intel i7 3770k 94.7 fps, again $100 more for 12 fps no thanks. 

Starcraft II looks to like Intel more than AMD, AMD FX 8350 @ 1920x1080 max settings average of 37.2 fps, which is the same performance as the 6300 in the test i found  :erm:  , they only tested up to the 2500k and the 3550 51.4 and 50.4 fps

 

 

Wow is WAY outdated, starcraft II is a better example because that is made in the years 2011 and above and it shows that Intel is the superior chip.

If you want to compare an mmorpg, try FF XIV ARR or Guildwars 2.

 

You don't compare an i7 with an 8350, you can compare an i5 because of the price difference, plus HT isn't used in many games so it is only logical to compare it with an i5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×