High End CPU's - Intel vs AMD

Discussion in 'hardware' started by Ocky, Jan 1, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ocky

    Ocky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,677
    Location:
    George, S.Africa
    High End CPU's - Intel vs AMD and prices

    I want this please .. Intel Core i7-3960X @ 3.30GHz ( I heard that Wilders is giving this away
    to posters with more than 2000 posts provided they come from a third world country) :D ;)
     
  2. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    But not for those who repeatedly make OT posts :(
     
  3. DVD+R

    DVD+R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,979
    Location:
    The Antipodes
    I find those results to be extremely exagerated :gack: AMD Phenom II X4 955 isnt even listed, and thats a very quick processor Quad Core 3.20GHz :shifty:
     
  4. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Intel has consistently dominated the high end market. This has been true as long as I've been alive.
     
  5. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    Not in the Pentium 4 Era but before and after that it's always been Intel.
    Personally i consider AMD CPU's best bang for the buck but if you're an enthusiast Intel all the way :D
     
  6. egghead

    egghead Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Posts:
    443
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    AMD gives the best bang for the buck.

    Take these benchmarks with a kilo of salt.

    Here's something you probably don't know but Intel's compiler deliberately and knowingly cripples performance for non-Intel (AMD/VIA) processors.

    From Agner Fog

    Intel's compiler can produce different versions of pieces of code, with each version being optimised for a specific processor and/or instruction set (SSE2, SSE3, etc.). The system detects which CPU it's running on and chooses the optimal code path accordingly; the CPU dispatcher, as it's called.

    "However, the Intel CPU dispatcher does not only check which instruction set is supported by the CPU, it also checks the vendor ID string," Fog details, "If the vendor string says 'GenuineIntel' then it uses the optimal code path. If the CPU is not from Intel then, in most cases, it will run the slowest possible version of the code, even if the CPU is fully compatible with a better version."

    It turns out that while this is known behaviour, few users of the Intel compiler actually seem to know about it. Intel does not advertise the compiler as being Intel-specific, so the company has no excuse for deliberately crippling performance on non-Intel machines.

    "Many software developers think that the compiler is compatible with AMD processors, and in fact it is, but unbeknownst to the programmer it puts in a biased CPU dispatcher that chooses an inferior code path whenever it is running on a non-Intel processor," Fog writes, "If programmers knew this fact they would probably use another compiler. Who wants to sell a piece of software that doesn't work well on AMD processors?"

    Fog points out that even benchmarking programs are affected by this, up to a point where benchmark results can differ greatly depending on how a processor identifies itself. Agner found out that by changing the CPUID of a VIA Nano processor to AuthenticAMD you could increase performance in PCMark 2005's memory subsystem test by 10% - changing it to GenuineIntel yields a 47.4% performance improvement!

    http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
     
  7. nikanthpromod

    nikanthpromod Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,369
    Location:
    India
    good comparision..
    would be helpful for me since im going to buy a pc soon:)
     
  8. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,052
    Location:
    USA
    Were you born in 2006? :D Previous to the C2Ds I remember chips like the Athlon X2 4800+ selling for top dollar because they would spank a P4. I ran Intel from the 486dx4 days until the end of the PIII days. Then I ran AMD until C2D. Been back on Intel since. But the P4 seriously sucked. Never owned one though I have had the displeasure of having to use a couple of machines with them.
     
  9. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,272
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    I agree with xxJackxx. If not in 2006, what planet?

    The HUGE deal with the Intel Core 2 Duo processors was that they finally were the turning point for Intel where, after several years of embarrassment, Intel CPUs [as a whole line] leapfrogged AMD and took the lead once again. Intel vowed from that point to never be spanked again and they have succeeded. And now that AMD has conceded that AMD will no longer attempt to compete with Intel it will remain that way.

    Of course, there are always specific exceptions on both sides but when comparing the entire line of processors, the Intels, starting with the Core 2 Duo, typically offer better performance while consuming less power and generating less heat than AMDs - though they do tend to cost a bit more.

    That said, AMD makes excellent, and extremely reliable CPUs (as does Intel) and a computer with either platform is sure to give the user years of satisfactory service.

    It is important to remember too that a computer, and a computer's performance is based on much MUCH more than just the CPU. The motherboard, RAM and graphics card all play key roles in a computer's performance too, and any one them can bottleneck a CPU (or allow it to shine).

    And I note too while AMDs [as a whole line] tend to be cheaper and that is their notable advantage, when you factor in the costs of the rest of the components, that advantage dwindles.

    While Intel promised to never sit on it laurels again so AMD could never again leapfrog past and embarrass them again, I fear with AMD's decision to stop nipping at the heels of Intel, that may not be good for consumers (in terms of advances in technologies, and in prices). Time will tell.

    FYI - for those that care - Why was it so embarrassing when AMD passed Intel those many year ago? Because the company, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) was chosen specifically to produce Intel CPUs so IBM could have a second source for the IBM PC. But Intel refused to share all the technical information with AMD so AMD set out to, and succeeded in making clones. Then AMD produced the highly successful K5 series (K for Kryptonite - an intentional slap at Intel using Superman's weakness in the name).

    AMD was the first to create 64-bit extensions and why, to this day you will still see dozens of AMD64 folders and files scattered about in Windows 7.
     
  10. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    Woaaah, i didn't know that part, shame on AMD, no wonder current Sandy Bridge CPU's are so expensive even for a mid end one, 200+ o_O
     
  11. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    AMD's FX series is no cheaper. The announcement only means that AMD will not try and introduce flagship CPUs to compete at the high end, instead choosing to concentrate on the mid-range and low-end market, thus hoping to win marketshare in those sections.

    It is not a bad strategy because this is the same strategy that made the Radeon GPUs extremely successful - Radeons today are mostly sold in the low-end and mid-range, not high-end.

    AMD's not out of the game yet - don't worry.

    The deal with the Intel compiler is an old story and recent versions do output much better code for AMD processors. Most applications however use the Microsoft Compiler (Windows) or the GCC (Linux), so it really is not a big issue.
     
  12. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,272
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    There's no shame in it. They gave it a valiant effort to compete against a giant with deep R&D pockets and should be commended for holding out as long as they did. But now, with a duty to protect shareholders' investments, they need to change to survive. And with the world changing, and more and more users doing all their computing chores via smartphones and tablets/pads, AMD may be positioning themselves with the correct strategy.
     
  13. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    IMO that's a good move. Because it only costs money trying to get to a point that's unreachable at this time :)
     
  14. Keatah

    Keatah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    Posts:
    853
    Amd, to me, has always been second-rate. Whether it be because of the CPU or the supporting chipsets or something else. My intel systems have always consistently ran better and faster since the 80286-12 days.
     
  15. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    Well what you guys are saying is totally true, mid end and low end is where the money is but with this in mind my heart as a PC enthusiast is over :D
    It will not be the same as before when i used to wait for new architectures or releases/updates and searched hours and hours for benchmarks :D :D
     
  16. Keatah

    Keatah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    Posts:
    853
    I've become a software enthusiast. Nowadays using the computer as a tool and little else.

    Gone, too, for me, are the days of reading about 2% differences in benchmarks and memory transfer rates. Honestly who gives a ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ if a CPU OR GPU is 50 MHz faster'n its competitor.

    All the days of overclocking and 3D Marks.. What a waste of time and resources. I feel like such an idiot now..

    I even marked the passing of seasons by when new hardware was due out!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2012
  17. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,272
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Yes, but with AMD constantly nipping at the heels of Intel, this forced Intel to keep pouring resources into R&D and it also forced Intel to keep prices fairly competitive.

    If AMD backs off, history has shown when there is no competition, the undisputed leader tends to back off, start coasting, and even raise prices. So I for one, worry what may be best for AMD will not be best for us consumers.

    That is not true and not fair. "Second-rate" denotes "inferior quality" and even though I personally have always preferred Intel, AMD has always produced quality, reliable products too.
     
  18. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    AMD has always given extremely good value for money, and their chipsets and CPUs give Intel a good run for its money when it comes to things other than just CPU performance.

    - For example, AMD onboard graphics is MUCH better than Intel onboard graphics.
    - AMD adopted USB 3.0 and SATA VERY quickly, and has SATA 6gbps as standard on all their recent chipsets while Intel settles for "2 SATA 6gbps, 4 SATA 3Gbps"
    - AMD's HDD, USB, SATA performance is very competitive with Intel and third parties despite their much smaller R&D budget
    - A typical AMD setup will give you much more features for the same price as an equivalent Intel setup.

    For these reasons I still trust and respect AMD, they have been instrumental in moving the industry forward.
     
  19. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,272
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    :( Now there's another blanket statement and like almost all blanket statements, it's wrong.

    AMD vs Intel - Integrated Graphics in Games

    No doubt.
     
  20. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    It is a blanket statement and it is not wrong. The article you posted compares a year old AMD onboard chip with a freshly released Sandy Bridge CPU. Of course Intel would catch up there.

    Let's put up a little more recent competition: Llano (AMD A6/A8 series) vs. Intel

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4448/amd-llano-desktop-performance-preview/4

    Do note that Llano costs much lower than a Sandy Bridge CPU (Core i5), a Llano motherboard also costs less in general than an equivalent Intel motherboard.

    AMD beats Intel even in video quality:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a8-3500m-llano-apu,2959-21.html

    As far as onboard graphics is concerned, AMD beats Intel on virtually every front, be it image quality, performance or compatibility.

    Intel graphics are notorious for issues caused with a number of video authoring/playback applications and games.

    Examples:

    http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=154082
    http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/3...arcraft-problems-worked-fine-framerate-issues
    http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=52426
     
  21. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,272
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    It is wrong because it is a blanket statement. You cannot pick one series out of an entire category of products and declare that the deciding factor for the entire industry. That's just a biased statement. AMD does not excel across the board in integrated graphics performance any more than Intel excels across the board in CPU performance.

    No doubt, AMD is pushing the envelope with integrated graphics and their line of "APU" CPU/GPU processors. But the "APU" does not represent the entire line of AMD/ATI integrated graphics.

    For example, Intel based boards are frequently used in HTPCs integrated in high-end ($50,000+) home theater systems because they provide excellent performance in that capacity.

    Gaming performance does not define the entire integrated graphics industry. The fact of the matter is, most computer users, by far, are NOT gamers. So it is narrow vision to focus on that, or any single application, and declare it the deciding factor for the whole industry.
     
  22. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    To be honest with you guys i never though the Intel HD 3000 Series GPU's were so capable before reading this :eek:
     
  23. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    If we consider the "entire line" of Intel's integrated graphics, you have GPUs going very far back as the older Core lines before Sandy Bridge and the "Intel Extreme Graphics", none of which hold a candle to their respective AMD competitors.

    We always compare competing products (similar price range and released in the same time period), and at any price range, AMD offers better integrated graphics, period (Comparing 890FX to Sandy Bridge is not called competition, you should compare 890FX to an Intel platform before Sandy Bridge).

    I deliberately included the High Quality Video benchmarks because this is one of the most important factors for HTPC usage. And it is clearly seen that AMD does better there as well. I agree that gaming forms a very small part of the market, but gaming is also the most intensive application of graphics technology. This means that every task that uses graphics will be better on AMD if gaming is better on AMD (in general, but not always).

    I repeat, Intel's HD graphics may be good, but AMD does better at every price point, even for HTPCs.

    The AMD 890 integrated graphics performs very well compared to its competition at the time of release (note that P55/H55 platforms are still available for purchase!)

    http://techreport.com/articles.x/18539/6

    I need not be biased here, I am typing this message on an Intel Core i5 platform. But the fact is that I must give credit where credit is due, and AMD gets full credit for their continuous efforts in advancing onboard graphics.

    EDIT: As per the below article, there is one and only one scenario where Intel is much better than AMD in terms of graphics, and that is the ability to encode videos where Intel is much faster. So, full credit to Intel for that :)

    http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=2087&pageID=10750

    Perhaps I should have said that AMD integrated graphics are better at their respective price points compared to their Intel counterparts, but all things considered (including gaming) the conclusion is logical that AMD is better and most graphics related developers will agree with me on this.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2012
  24. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    It's quite capable, and a decent choice for most tasks. It's just that Intel's drivers have quite a few bugs that cause issues with many applications (not necessarily just games).
     
  25. TairikuOkami

    TairikuOkami Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,509
    Location:
    Slovakia
    CPU's benchmarks allways make AMD look bad, but the problem is, most of the users do not need top CPU, better to invest somewhere else.
    Intel is and allways will be the number one choise for editing video, creating graphics and other aplications, which have high demands on CPU.
    For the rest, AMD as good as Intel, sometimes even better, whenever it is gaming, watching videos or just simple browsing. I especially like APU.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.