Intel vs AMD?
- Thread starter AIV
- Start date
simple..because they can. sofar amd hasnt made a chip to compete with raw power of intel chips.AMD has to try for the budget market to compete..believe me if the specs were a little closer both would cost about the same 
this is coming from an AMD fanboy with intel system
this is coming from an AMD fanboy with intel system
Last edited:
I can't believe people are still saying this sort of stuff after years and years of others saying it's not true. Firstly I know AMD's latest chips are weaker, but they do still offer pretty good price to performance just like the previous generation did. I could frankly write pages and pages about which is 'best', Intel or AMD, but at the end of the day it depends on the user and what they want to do their PC. I'm no fanboy of either company, I like them both because they're both good for different things. End of.I think Intel does a lot better job. AMD's 8 cores equals to Intel's 2 cores
SuperDuperMe
New Member
simple..because they can. sofar amd hasnt made a chip to compete with raw power of intel chips.AMD has to try for the budget market to compete..believe me if the specs were a little closer both would cost about the same
Not techincally true, many moons ago AMD actually had the upper hand clock for clock. Not sure what series of chip it was but they were ahead at one point.
I am a fan of AMD, mostly because my first build was an Athlon 64. Back then, AMD offered a little better performance than Intel, and they were actually cheaper as well, giving tremendous overall price/performance.
Since the Athlon 64 days, AMD has not held the edge in raw performance, but they have done very well for themselves when it comes to price/performance. In my opinion (and many others), this ended when Intel released Sandy Bridge and AMD failed to deliver on Bulldozer. The price/performance is no longer there, and Intel is currently the king of this, as well as currently holding the raw performance crown by a LOT. From top to bottom, there is virtually no reason to go AMD whatsoever.
I'm no expert, but I see two VERY select niches in which going AMD would be viable. The first is with an 8-"core" Bulldozer, for someone who actually needs all 8 of those threads at a cheaper price, but also doesn't care for or can afford a server-type cpu. The second niche is for people who want a cheap htpc or a very cheap desktop period, and in that case the APUs become viable. Other than that...nada. The only other possible outside shot is someone who can find a Phenom 2 (or just goes with a 1060T) because it is enough per-core power for them, they want more than a dual-core, and it would be cheaper than going Intel when counting in the price of the motherboard.
In my opinion, AMD has great potential in the mobile market going forward, but their current desktop offerings get absolutely destroyed in every single conceivable way by Intel, for the vast majority of users. It is what it is.
From an AMD fan that had high hopes for Bulldozer, anyone who's still saying AMD is viable in the desktop market is simply trying to make themselves feel better.
Since the Athlon 64 days, AMD has not held the edge in raw performance, but they have done very well for themselves when it comes to price/performance. In my opinion (and many others), this ended when Intel released Sandy Bridge and AMD failed to deliver on Bulldozer. The price/performance is no longer there, and Intel is currently the king of this, as well as currently holding the raw performance crown by a LOT. From top to bottom, there is virtually no reason to go AMD whatsoever.
I'm no expert, but I see two VERY select niches in which going AMD would be viable. The first is with an 8-"core" Bulldozer, for someone who actually needs all 8 of those threads at a cheaper price, but also doesn't care for or can afford a server-type cpu. The second niche is for people who want a cheap htpc or a very cheap desktop period, and in that case the APUs become viable. Other than that...nada. The only other possible outside shot is someone who can find a Phenom 2 (or just goes with a 1060T) because it is enough per-core power for them, they want more than a dual-core, and it would be cheaper than going Intel when counting in the price of the motherboard.
In my opinion, AMD has great potential in the mobile market going forward, but their current desktop offerings get absolutely destroyed in every single conceivable way by Intel, for the vast majority of users. It is what it is.
From an AMD fan that had high hopes for Bulldozer, anyone who's still saying AMD is viable in the desktop market is simply trying to make themselves feel better.
Other then a couple of posts. This thread is full of alot of BS.
FuryRosewood
Active Member
i agree...its sorta just stirring the pot...
spynoodle
Active Member
If you want real raw power, go PowerPC
^Lol.
The truth of the matter is, AMD has fallen way behind in the past couple years, and is now starting to even lose the budget sector. AMD has a way of recovering, though. Eventually Intel will get lazy, and hopefully AMD will have their turn as king.
TrainTrackHack
VIP Member
Intel has no competition in the high end so they are pretty much just price gouging their fastest chips simply because there are people who are always willing to pay ridiculous premium to buy the absolute best. The ~$1000 Intel chips aren't close to even twice as fast as the $300 i7 just to put things in perspective.
As for the cores of the FX chips, the performance of those things is, well, it could be charitably described as unpredictable. With the module design of these chips, the cores essentially come in pairs and share the front end and L2 cache which imposes slight performance penalties on top of the fact that the individual cores were weaker than Intel's to begin with. In most single/lightly threaded benchmarks the FX chips get dominated, and even in heavily threaded applications they sometimes only just barely manage to keep up with similarly priced intel offerings with less cores. Then there are few situations where the FX chips easily win similarly priced Intel chips and in a few benchmarks the FX-8120, for example, is right up there with the $100 more expensive i7s. The fact is, though, in general people want good performance across all applications, not mediocre performance across most applications and exceptionally good performance in a handful, especially when it's sometimes left to chance as to how well it's going to run, so people haven't been too eager to take up the FX chips. I'm still considering getting one, though, mainly because I'm a Linux user which I hear is really good with BD, and I really want to see for myself how much compile-time optimisations can affect BD performance and how much I can squeeze out with code-level optimisations. But they aren't as great as the core count would suggest.
As for the cores of the FX chips, the performance of those things is, well, it could be charitably described as unpredictable. With the module design of these chips, the cores essentially come in pairs and share the front end and L2 cache which imposes slight performance penalties on top of the fact that the individual cores were weaker than Intel's to begin with. In most single/lightly threaded benchmarks the FX chips get dominated, and even in heavily threaded applications they sometimes only just barely manage to keep up with similarly priced intel offerings with less cores. Then there are few situations where the FX chips easily win similarly priced Intel chips and in a few benchmarks the FX-8120, for example, is right up there with the $100 more expensive i7s. The fact is, though, in general people want good performance across all applications, not mediocre performance across most applications and exceptionally good performance in a handful, especially when it's sometimes left to chance as to how well it's going to run, so people haven't been too eager to take up the FX chips. I'm still considering getting one, though, mainly because I'm a Linux user which I hear is really good with BD, and I really want to see for myself how much compile-time optimisations can affect BD performance and how much I can squeeze out with code-level optimisations. But they aren't as great as the core count would suggest.
2048Megabytes
Active Member
I think some of Advanced Micro Device's best central processing units are the following right now:
Phenom II 960T Quad-Core
Phenom II 975 Quad-Core
Phenom II 980 Quad-Core
Phenom II 960T Quad-Core
Phenom II 975 Quad-Core
Phenom II 980 Quad-Core
claptonman
New Member
This argument happens every month or so, and no good ever comes of it.
But to answer your question, its because the architecture is different. The intel chips are faster, technically speaking. I thought the same thing when I was just getting into computers.
But to answer your question, its because the architecture is different. The intel chips are faster, technically speaking. I thought the same thing when I was just getting into computers.