Search
Search
Sign on Options
Theme: [Light Selected] To Dark»

The Computer Hardware forum is the place to discuss hardware. Important! Asking for Windows keys or circumventing the copy-protect to accommodate multiple installs can lead to a moderation with revoked community permissions.

AMD Yes/No

Forum Actions
New Message
  • suetracy
     
    Level 30
    Wicked Sick!
    Posts: 940
    Oct 4, 2012 1:42 pm GMT

    Can someone give me some real world examples of where AMD processors fall behind Intels'? THnkas

    Can someone give me some real world examples of where AMD processors fall behind Intels'? THnkas

    Report Abuse
  • 04dcarraher
     
    Level 64
    Easter Egg
    Posts: 17069
    User is Online
    Oct 4, 2012 1:55 pm GMT
    The question at hand is all dependent on program and game. However 9 times out of ten intel cpu's perform faster then AMD's. This does not mean that AMD cpu's cant do the jobs nor cant provide a good experience. As for real world examples would be like say one game with an Intel cpu you see 70 fps while with an AMD cpu you might only see 60 fps. Or say your encoding a video an AMD cpu may do it in 3 minutes while an intel cpu may get it done in 2 minutes and change. Now when you get into programs and apps that support six or eight cores then AMD cpu's can get a lead over intel quad cores.

    loosingENDS Wisdom:

    My PC is not a gaming PC in the sense that does not have a GPU that will run games in playable frame rates, other than that is a DX11 GPU that will run any game in any setting

    Was xbox 360 based on a 9800 pro of 2003 ?

    No, it was based on a 8800GTX of 2006

    The question at hand is all dependent on program and game. However 9 times out of ten intel cpu's perform faster then AMD's. This does not mean that AMD cpu's cant do the jobs nor cant provide a good experience. As for real world examples would be like say one game with an Intel cpu you see 70 fps while with an AMD cpu you might only see 60 fps. Or say your encoding a video an AMD cpu may do it in 3 minutes while an intel cpu may get it done in 2 minutes and change. Now when you get into programs and apps that support six or eight cores then AMD cpu's can get a lead over intel quad cores.
    Report Abuse
  • nilzg
     
    Level 36
    Radical Ninja
    Posts: 691
    Oct 4, 2012 2:03 pm GMT
    AMD or Intel both are great. They are quite close to each other as of performance and such. A difference is that a 6 core AMD processer equals to a 4 core Intel processor (because AMD doesn't use threads along with their cores, Intel does) but that doesn't mean any of them perform better or worse (yes maybe a bit but not noticeable). And AMD is usually cheaper than Intel so you trade a bit performance for $$..
    My 50 favorite PC games ever
    AMD or Intel both are great. They are quite close to each other as of performance and such. A difference is that a 6 core AMD processer equals to a 4 core Intel processor (because AMD doesn't use threads along with their cores, Intel does) but that doesn't mean any of them perform better or worse (yes maybe a bit but not noticeable). And AMD is usually cheaper than Intel so you trade a bit performance for $$..
    Report Abuse
  • 04dcarraher
     
    Level 64
    Easter Egg
    Posts: 17069
    User is Online
    Oct 4, 2012 2:20 pm GMT
    nilzg wrote:
    AMD or Intel both are great. They are quite close to each other as of performance and such. A difference is that a 6 core AMD processer equals to a 4 core Intel processor (because AMD doesn't use threads along with their cores, Intel does) but that doesn't mean any of them perform better or worse (yes maybe a bit but not noticeable). And AMD is usually cheaper than Intel so you trade a bit performance for $$..

    huh? AMD cpu's have a thread on each core with the hexacores 6 cores 6 threads like Phenom 2 X6's. Intel cpu's that have Hyperthreading the 2nd thread on each core are virtual cores that only use the "left overs" of whats left of the cpu cycles (resources). Which is why in 98% of software dont see any real difference.

    loosingENDS Wisdom:

    My PC is not a gaming PC in the sense that does not have a GPU that will run games in playable frame rates, other than that is a DX11 GPU that will run any game in any setting

    Was xbox 360 based on a 9800 pro of 2003 ?

    No, it was based on a 8800GTX of 2006

    [QUOTE="nilzg"]AMD or Intel both are great. They are quite close to each other as of performance and such. A difference is that a 6 core AMD processer equals to a 4 core Intel processor (because AMD doesn't use threads along with their cores, Intel does) but that doesn't mean any of them perform better or worse (yes maybe a bit but not noticeable). And AMD is usually cheaper than Intel so you trade a bit performance for $$..[/QUOTE] huh? AMD cpu's have a thread on each core with the hexacores 6 cores 6 threads like Phenom 2 X6's. Intel cpu's that have Hyperthreading the 2nd thread on each core are virtual cores that only use the "left overs" of whats left of the cpu cycles (resources). Which is why in 98% of software dont see any real difference.
    Report Abuse
  • General_X
     
    Level 57
    Karateka
    Posts: 8931
    Oct 4, 2012 2:24 pm GMT
    suetracy wrote:

    Can someone give me some real world examples of where AMD processors fall behind Intels'? THnkas

    Intel excels at programs that are coded to only utilize one or two cores (e.g. Older games, certain compression programs, etc.). When programs are heavily threaded to take advantage of 4 or more cores, AMD's offering become very very competitive for their price.

    I should also clarify that Intel's quad cores do infact spank AMD's quad cores when all cores are being used, but the trade-off is that Intel's quad cores also tend to be about twice as expensive.
    Edited on Oct 4, 2012 2:26 pm GMT


    My complete picture guide to computer building and hardware installation.

    Capitan_Kid wrote:

    Im not saying those arent great games. Im saying they just didnt have the impact on gaming like console games in comparison. Halo pretty much kickstarted the FPS genre.

    [QUOTE="suetracy"]

    Can someone give me some real world examples of where AMD processors fall behind Intels'? THnkas

    [/QUOTE]Intel excels at programs that are coded to only utilize one or two cores (e.g. Older games, certain compression programs, etc.). When programs are heavily threaded to take advantage of 4 or more cores, AMD's offering become very very competitive for their price. I should also clarify that Intel's quad cores do infact spank AMD's quad cores when all cores are being used, but the trade-off is that Intel's quad cores also tend to be about twice as expensive.
    Report Abuse
  • Slow_Show
     
    Level 34
    Paramecium
    Posts: 2166
    Oct 4, 2012 2:57 pm GMT

    It's easier to just list the scenarios where AMD is actually competitive with Intel: if you're building a productivity/workstation-type rig on a tight budget and need the extra threads an FX-series CPU offers over i3/i5; or if you're building an ultra-budget gaming rig or gaming HTPC that'll run off the on-board GPU, in which case an A10 or A8 is going to be a significantly better choice than anything in Intel land.

    Other than that, you're all-but-certainly going to be better off with Intel's core-for-core performance advantage. There just aren't enough highly-threaded consumer-type workloads (including the vast majority of games) to justify going AMD over Intel (and buying based on the idea of futureproofing is generally a terrible, terrible idea), and if you really do need that top-end performance for a workstation you might as well spend up i7 and get the best of both worlds.

    It's easier to just list the scenarios where AMD is actually competitive with Intel: if you're building a productivity/workstation-type rig on a tight budget and need the extra threads an FX-series CPU offers over i3/i5; or if you're building an ultra-budget gaming rig or gaming HTPC that'll run off the on-board GPU, in which case an A10 or A8 is going to be a significantly better choice than anything in Intel land.

    Other than that, you're all-but-certainly going to be better off with Intel's core-for-core performance advantage. There just aren't enough highly-threaded consumer-type workloads (including the vast majority of games) to justify going AMD over Intel (and buying based on the idea of futureproofing is generally a terrible, terrible idea), and if you really do need that top-end performance for a workstation you might as well spend up i7 and get the best of both worlds.

    Report Abuse
  • suetracy
     
    Level 30
    Wicked Sick!
    Posts: 940
    Oct 4, 2012 3:26 pm GMT

    Slow_Show wrote:

    if you're building an ultra-budget gaming rig or gaming HTPC that'll run off the on-board GPU, in which case an A10 or A8 is going to be a significantly better choice than anything in Intel land.

    I'm going with the A10 since I am on an "ultra budget" even though the rig will come to about $850 in the end. But that's including mouse, keyboard, OS, monitor too. The A10's integrated graphics is ideal for me considering I'm not buying a discrete graphics card until I can afford it.

    [QUOTE="Slow_Show"]

    if you're building an ultra-budget gaming rig or gaming HTPC that'll run off the on-board GPU, in which case an A10 or A8 is going to be a significantly better choice than anything in Intel land.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm going with the A10 since I am on an "ultra budget" even though the rig will come to about $850 in the end. But that's including mouse, keyboard, OS, monitor too. The A10's integrated graphics is ideal for me considering I'm not buying a discrete graphics card until I can afford it.

    Report Abuse
  • GummiRaccoon
     
    Level 35
    Stitches
    Posts: 12763
    User is Online
    Oct 4, 2012 4:38 pm GMT

    suetracy wrote:

    Can someone give me some real world examples of where AMD processors fall behind Intels'? THnkas

    Wait until the 8350 is released later this month and revisit this question

    [QUOTE="suetracy"]

    Can someone give me some real world examples of where AMD processors fall behind Intels'? THnkas

    [/QUOTE]

    Wait until the 8350 is released later this month and revisit this question

    Report Abuse
  • Bikouchu35
     
    Level 63
    Big Smoke
    Posts: 6599
    Oct 4, 2012 9:30 pm GMT

    AMD can bulldoze and do a piledriver on Intel for lunch - ionusx

    Steam id: Biko is L1nsani7y Rig: i5 2500k 4.1ghz + 9700cnps Nvidia ed. l GTX 570 Evga (960/1920/2400~max) l 2x4gb PNY Optima l Corsair HX520 l e7dac/e9amplifier > Ultrasone Dj1 l Alienware M11x r1

    AMD can bulldoze and do a piledriver on Intel for lunch - ionusx

    ;)

    Report Abuse
  • blaznwiipspman1
     
    Level 37
    Heiankyo Alien
    Posts: 5691
    User is Online
    Oct 4, 2012 9:43 pm GMT

    for my own purposes i wouldn't go AMD cpu's. It has nothing to do with my preference for one over the other, in fact I always get the better value cpu, I don't care about brand names and such. With that said, Intel cpu's are approximately twice as fast as AMD cpus clock for clock, which is why I go intel. That doesn't mean that performance in games for pcs with intel cpu's is twice as good as AMD cpu's, because majority of games are gpu bottlenecked. But for games that are cpu bottlenecked like RTS games is where you see intel really shine over AMD. That aside, AMD's gpu performance is amazing, they're ahead of nvidia or on par with them in every category. Id say that even their value is much better than nvidias.

    RIG

    Core i7 3770k//AMD Radeon 7970 3gb//4GB DDR3 1600 Corsair XMS3// Antec HCG 620 watt PSU// CoolerMaster HAF 922 Midtower Case// Acer 23 inch 1080p LCD monitor// 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 rpm//60 GB OCZ Vertex II SSD

    Now Playing: Sleeping Dogs, Farcry 3, Hitman Absolution, Starcraft 2

    for my own purposes i wouldn't go AMD cpu's. It has nothing to do with my preference for one over the other, in fact I always get the better value cpu, I don't care about brand names and such. With that said, Intel cpu's are approximately twice as fast as AMD cpus clock for clock, which is why I go intel. That doesn't mean that performance in games for pcs with intel cpu's is twice as good as AMD cpu's, because majority of games are gpu bottlenecked. But for games that are cpu bottlenecked like RTS games is where you see intel really shine over AMD. That aside, AMD's gpu performance is amazing, they're ahead of nvidia or on par with them in every category. Id say that even their value is much better than nvidias.

    Report Abuse
  • GummiRaccoon
     
    Level 35
    Stitches
    Posts: 12763
    User is Online
    Oct 4, 2012 9:55 pm GMT

    blaznwiipspman1 wrote:

    for my own purposes i wouldn't go AMD cpu's. It has nothing to do with my preference for one over the other, in fact I always get the better value cpu, I don't care about brand names and such. With that said, Intel cpu's are approximately twice as fast as AMD cpus clock for clock, which is why I go intel. That doesn't mean that performance in games for pcs with intel cpu's is twice as good as AMD cpu's, because majority of games are gpu bottlenecked. But for games that are cpu bottlenecked like RTS games is where you see intel really shine over AMD. That aside, AMD's gpu performance is amazing, they're ahead of nvidia or on par with them in every category. Id say that even their value is much better than nvidias.

    Didn't you go from like a 2500k to a 2700k?

    [QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

    for my own purposes i wouldn't go AMD cpu's. It has nothing to do with my preference for one over the other, in fact I always get the better value cpu, I don't care about brand names and such. With that said, Intel cpu's are approximately twice as fast as AMD cpus clock for clock, which is why I go intel. That doesn't mean that performance in games for pcs with intel cpu's is twice as good as AMD cpu's, because majority of games are gpu bottlenecked. But for games that are cpu bottlenecked like RTS games is where you see intel really shine over AMD. That aside, AMD's gpu performance is amazing, they're ahead of nvidia or on par with them in every category. Id say that even their value is much better than nvidias.

    [/QUOTE]

    Didn't you go from like a 2500k to a 2700k?

    Report Abuse
  • kraken2109
     
    Level 47
    Jaquio
    Posts: 11186
    User is Online
    Oct 5, 2012 3:35 am GMT
    GummiRaccoon wrote:

    blaznwiipspman1 wrote:

    for my own purposes i wouldn't go AMD cpu's. It has nothing to do with my preference for one over the other, in fact I always get the better value cpu, I don't care about brand names and such. With that said, Intel cpu's are approximately twice as fast as AMD cpus clock for clock, which is why I go intel. That doesn't mean that performance in games for pcs with intel cpu's is twice as good as AMD cpu's, because majority of games are gpu bottlenecked. But for games that are cpu bottlenecked like RTS games is where you see intel really shine over AMD. That aside, AMD's gpu performance is amazing, they're ahead of nvidia or on par with them in every category. Id say that even their value is much better than nvidias.

    Didn't you go from like a 2500k to a 2700k?


    lol yeah
    [QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

    [QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

    for my own purposes i wouldn't go AMD cpu's. It has nothing to do with my preference for one over the other, in fact I always get the better value cpu, I don't care about brand names and such. With that said, Intel cpu's are approximately twice as fast as AMD cpus clock for clock, which is why I go intel. That doesn't mean that performance in games for pcs with intel cpu's is twice as good as AMD cpu's, because majority of games are gpu bottlenecked. But for games that are cpu bottlenecked like RTS games is where you see intel really shine over AMD. That aside, AMD's gpu performance is amazing, they're ahead of nvidia or on par with them in every category. Id say that even their value is much better than nvidias.

    [/QUOTE]

    Didn't you go from like a 2500k to a 2700k?

    [/QUOTE] lol yeah
    Report Abuse
  • godzillavskong
     
    Level 42
    Karnov
    Posts: 7799
    User is Online
    Oct 8, 2012 9:00 pm GMT
    Yes. Why not save some $$? AMD is solid and are very good when it comes to price vs performance ratio. I'm sure intel has some better offerings but nothings wrong with AMD. I actually prefer AMD, mainly because I like to save $$. I'm poh.

    My PC-FX-6100 @ 4ghz / 2 IceQ6870s / Gigabyte 990xa mobo/ 8gb Kingston Hyper X DDR3 @ 1866mhz/ Thermaltake Liquid cooler/ 600 watt power supply/SeaGate 1tb HD(7200rpm)

    Yes. Why not save some $$? AMD is solid and are very good when it comes to price vs performance ratio. I'm sure intel has some better offerings but nothings wrong with AMD. I actually prefer AMD, mainly because I like to save $$. I'm poh.
    Report Abuse
  • mitu123
     
    Level 64
    Easter Egg
    Posts: 160534
    Oct 8, 2012 10:22 pm GMT

    If you want the best just go with Intel, AMD cpus are mainly worth it to save money and put out a decent but not excellent performance.

    If you want the best just go with Intel, AMD cpus are mainly worth it to save money and put out a decent but not excellent performance.

    Report Abuse
  • BattleSpectre
     
    Level 27
    Sheng Long
    Posts: 3479
    Oct 9, 2012 2:48 am GMT

    They are both great and shine in their own ways, depending on what they are used for. Personally i prefer Intel because the general conclusion is that they perform better for gaming.

    i5 2500 @ 3.3GHz l Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD4 l RipjawsX 16GB DDR3 Ram l EVGA Superclocked GTX 460 1GB

    They are both great and shine in their own ways, depending on what they are used for. Personally i prefer Intel because the general conclusion is that they perform better for gaming.

    Report Abuse
  • superclocked
     
    Level 45
    Mishima Zaibatsu
    Posts: 3668
    User is Online
    Oct 9, 2012 3:31 pm GMT
    It depends on your budget. I got a Phenom II X4 (Deneb) and motherboard for $120 total last year for my son, and it runs every game out there just fine. If you have the money to burn, Intel is excellent. But if you don't want to spend that much money, AMD works just fine...



    Microsoft: "Don't have reliable internet? Then we don't want you as a customer!" #DealWithIt



    One of the best shows on tv is.. a cartoon?

    TRON: Uprising - Beck's Beginning



    It depends on your budget. I got a Phenom II X4 (Deneb) and motherboard for $120 total last year for my son, and it runs every game out there just fine. If you have the money to burn, Intel is excellent. But if you don't want to spend that much money, AMD works just fine...
    Report Abuse
Forum Actions
New Message
Forums › Computer Hardware Discussion › AMD Yes/No