why is amd slower than intel?

Ten years back is 1999.

About 5 years ago I bought an AMD CPU, 32 bit, not 64.
At the time, this CPU was faster than average for desktop computers.

So, you're wrong.

 

Im not wrong as demonstrated by the person who posted after you. I also said most not all. There is a difference.

 

On paper AMD and Intel's top offering have the same TDP rating 125W, they are always going to. Performance would tell a different story - certainly Intel manages to run cooler when OC'ed, but there are a lot of myths of AMD always being way too hot. These myths are hanging around from Athlon days. Intel has also made a lot of hot pigs, as well.

But then anyone who is serious about overclocking and dealing with heat goes watercooling.

Is that a good thing? Because I don't think so. AMD competitiveness can only be good for the consumer and bring Intel prices down. I would like to see AMD have a go at kicking Intels arse, on prices they do. AMD is just unable to catch Intel's current top tier model - Intel is always one step ahead, ATM.

 

Good luck finding one that has a 12MB L2 like mine.

 

I don't understand the Athlon Neo. I know it is aimed at the Intel Atoms and ULV offerings, however it has a higher TDP than its Intel counterparts, a bigger architecture, and only one core.

Is AMD giving up?

 

Ok http://hothardware.com/articles/AMD-Phenom-II-965-Black-Edition-CPU-Review/

 

Interesting article. Sadly AMD still comes up short in comparison to Core 2 Extreme QX9770 & Core i7 920 - both lower clocked processors as well - both with lower TDP ratings. The lower TDP ratings should allow them to overclock easier than the Phenom-II-965, theoretically. These are just the last offerings of the 45nm core processors. I won't be buying either!

I will hang onto my Q6600 for another year or so and wait for a newer core to come out. 32nm is in the pipeline!

source

 

I think the "trustworthy" computer shop is as confused about the facts as you are about the source of your information. The primary reason it "appears" AMDs perform better on low-end and entry level systems is simply because AMDs have cuts costs so folks will buy their products. This often means, with all else being equal, a $500 AMD computer has a good chance of besting a $500 Intel computer, simply because the builder's budget allows for the next step up in AMD CPUs.

Did you mean to say that? Those two statements are contradicting. First, it is totally untrue to suggest that serious gamers (as a whole group) prefer AMD. If they do, it is only because of biases, and budgets. A few years ago, maybe that was true, but no longer - and much of that reason is because of the second part of your statement.

Sure, people will nitpick out exceptions and specific examples where AMDs excel, but if you line up all the pros and cons, AMDs lag behind in all areas, except price. And Intel is putting pressure there too by dropping prices.

Intel was embarrassed by AMD years ago when AMD passed them. This is significant not only because they were spanked in their own game, but AMD, the company, was initially created for the SOLE PURPOSE of creating Intel processors for the IBM PC because IBM wanted a second source for CPUs.

They were further embarrassed when it took years to catch up. But when they did catch up with the Core 2 Duos, not only did they catch up, they zoomed passed, vowing to never to be embarrassed like that again.

So this time, instead of sitting on their laurels, they pressed on with more advances with new quads and now the i7s.

That's simple - let's make sure we know the real reason Intels, as a whole product line, are faster than the AMDs - money!!!! Intel has lots of it. AMD does not. And without lots of money, AMD cannot afford near as much to invest in R&D, or to upgrade production facilities.

HOWEVER - that, in no way suggests AMDs are a poor choice, or inferior in quality. AMDs are excellent CPUs, capable of meeting the needs of just about any user.

 

So ... Intel's R&D resulted in what cauing them to make a comeback?

 

That's half of it. Having the know-how is one thing. Having the resources (read: $$$) to build and re-tool factories is another. Note these are very expensive, very high tech, precise, "clean" facilities with highly skilled (again, $$$) work forces, manufacturing CPUs using very expensive raw materials (because they must be as close as humanly possible to impurity free). And while being built and retooled, factories are consuming mass quantities of cash, and not making any money. This apparently is too much of a burden for AMD as has they no longer make their own CPUs - see AMD Outsources CPUs Manufacturing.

This is good and bad. Good because then AMD does not have to worry about running factories, but bad because it removes layers of control over the product. Time will tell if, in this case, it was a good business move.

It does not bother me if AMD is never able to truly compete head to head with Intel. All we (consumers) need is for AMD to stay nipping at Intel's heels. This will keep the drive ($$$) going to stay ahead (and not get embarrassed, or investors angry, again) by investing in more R&D and factories, ever advancing technologies to provide better performance for the money while consuming less power and generating less heat. That's good for AMD. Good for Intel. And good for us and Mother Earth too.

 

Bill_Bright - I have a question, if you don't mind. Where do you see Intel going now they've fallen out with Nvidia, good or bad news for AMD? I wonder if Intel will now just grow into an even stronger position within CPU's - concentrated fully, or do you see a chance for AMD/ATI joint architecture to sneak a win.

 

i totally disagree...amd is way better than intel...i have twin pc. one has amd and the other intel..same amount of ram same date the os was installed, same AV bla bla bla...the one with the amd it`s like speedy gonzalez compared with the intel... at least in my case... amd // intel

 

Well, that's silly. It is you that are wrong as proven over and over again by virtually every "legitimate" test facility since the day the Core 2 Duos came out. And your statement is silly because you have taken two (totally unknown) CPUs and made a blanket statement about entire production lines.

That I'll buy, because I noted above, there are always people who will nitpick out exceptions to falsely make a point.

Again, I am not knocking AMDs. They make excellent products. But across the line, Intels, as a line of CPUs, outperform, consume less power, and generate less heat than AMDs. The ONLY area AMDs can compete with any consistency, is in price.

I think they need each other, and they will work it out. That said, since nVidia's main competition comes from ATI, and ATI has now merged with AMD, I think it is mostly a Wall Street Soap Opera. But as long as all parties don't do something stupid, or illegal, or worse yet, try to cover up something stupid or illegal, I think it will not impact us at all.

 

Two partial quotes by the same poster, different posts:

'I think the "trustworthy" computer shop is as confused about the facts as you are about the source of your information. The primary reason it "appears" AMDs perform better on low-end and entry level systems is simply because AMDs have cuts costs so folks will buy their products. This often means, with all else being equal, a $500 AMD computer has a good chance of besting a $500 Intel computer, simply because the builder's budget allows for the next step up in AMD CPUs.'

'Again, I am not knocking AMDs. They make excellent products. But across the line, Intels, as a line of CPUs, outperform, consume less power, and generate less heat than AMDs. The ONLY area AMDs can compete with any consistency, is in price'

My quote in post #9: 'However, I have read that AMD outperforms Intel on low end systems (cost AND performance).'

Bill Bright, you seem to contradict me, while it seems to me that we don't disagree.
The low-end AMD CPUs compared to low-end Intel CPUs allow for a relatively fast AMD system because of the price/performance ratio.

 

Umm, did you have a purpose for repeating what I said above? Did you mean to add a comment?

 

I was composing a post (see time last edited by Fly), also see the time of your post.

I guess my final version is clear ?

 

Then I recommend you use the quote features of these boards to avoid confusion.

TechOutsider asked when opening this thread,

I don't agree with your comments in the context of this thread because this thread is not about price/performance ratios. Cost was not a factor in his question at all. Nor was cost a factor in my explanations. The question was all about performance, not about how much it costs.

As I noted, the only place AMD can compete is with cost. When it comes to performance, power consumption, and heat generation, Intels generally excel.

But lets put this in perspective too. AMDs CPUs may cost less for the same performance but the motherboards are comparably priced, and RAM, graphics cards, power supplies, and cases are the exact same, and therefore priced the same too. So it is not like you are saving hundreds just by using an AMD CPU over an Intel.

I agree if money is the primary concern, then AMD is the way to go. And certainly, if the primary use of that budget system is to read email, use Google, and create Word docs, just about any budget system will do.

 

Yes I meant to say that. People in general who are uninformed say AMD is better for gaming.

 

Ah, I see. And I agree. But again, that's not to say you cannot make a great gaming machine with AMD. You can. And no doubt there are some games that are tweaked for and may play better on AMD. But since so much depends on other factors, namely the graphics solution, I would still go with Intel for better "overall" computing performance - unless you are addicted to that particular AMD tweaked game, and the machine was built for, and dedicated to playing that game.

 

Well I am a gamer (playing ~8 houres a day) and I prefer AMD/ATI because they work well together (made by the same company). I know, that AMD is about 5% slower than top Intel CPUs, but I do not need server CPU. I have AMD Athlon X2 5000+BE@3210MHz + Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme + NF-P12-1300 and it is quite cool. BTW, my case alone costs more than any other component in PC - Lian Li PC-P60 ArmorSuit Black, so I did not pick AMD because of low budget.

 

First, to clarify - I did not mean to suggest serious gamers as a group are biased or misinformed. I meant people who make claims about serious gamers and their preferences are biased, or misinformed.

It sounds like you chose AMD because it met (or exceeded) your needs. That's the best reason there is and it sounds like you have a fine system. As I noted several times above, AMD makes great CPUs.

I don't accept (yet) that choosing AMD is best if using ATI graphics. It would make poor business sense for AMD to limit compatibility to only their own brand of graphics - not a good move when strapped for cash. Graphics solutions must be compatible with the OS and meet ATX standards to fit inside the case, connect to ATX PSUs, and run programs (including games) designed to run on Windows compatible computers. While I certainly expect AMDs to work with ATIs, I also expect AMD CPUs to work with nVidia, VIA/S3 and Matrox GPUs too. And they do.

A very wise move! While not a fan of fancy facades and flashy lights (I tend to watch my monitors and not the computer case), a case's job is to protect it's contents from accidental kicks and knocks, AND provide plenty of front-to-back airflow, two things this case excels at (plus it has a washable air filter! - an absolute necessity, IMO). I have always been a proponent of building PCs on solid foundations consisting of a quality case, and a quality PSU. You did not mention what PSU you have, but I suspect it too, like your case, is of high quality from a reputable maker and will carry you through several years of service AND upgrades.

 

I wanted Spider platform, but when my quadcore Phenom 9600 BE damaged, I had to use dualcore and it was much much more faster, so I decided to keep it.

My thoughts exactly. Just to let you know, I replaced all LED fans with normal NF-P12-1300, pity Noctua does not have 14 cm, I had to use 12 cm instead.

 

I guess you can't win them all. Maybe ATI's sucess in graphics cards will bring in enough $ for better processors.

 

We are at 45nm die size now according to the road map AMD is going down to 32 nm die size by the 4 Quarter of 2010. A influx of cash will move that date up some.