CPU Qn: AMD vs Intel

[xsoldix]

This probably is the "noobest" qns u all seen.

but why so many people recommend build with Intel CPU+MB
in stead of using AMD ? Any reason i should know about?





My current few years old rig is also AMD system. I like it, still running good.
I am now targeting the AMD FX 8350.
not a hardcore gamer but just for "future proofing" and speed.

 

[Jian19]

Becos most amd CPU can OC well..if u wan to OC then I will recommend the amd built

Also they have limited option in mobo in SLS

 

[yewtee7]

Probably due to Intel's better marketing and popularity ba? I've been switching back and forth between them, and my next upgrade might be back to AMD.

 

[xsoldix]

But in terms of bang for bucks...
is AMD better in this way?

like i see i7 processors+MB is so much higher than the FX series.

 

[Entry Level PC]

Cos AMD CPU really sibei chui now.
1) Eat too much power
2) Performance really chui when we compare price performance and wattage
3) Can OC gao gao but Wattage Usage more GAO.

 

[royfrosty]

1. Very limited mobos available in sls.
2. Price over performance for mid tier chips like 6100 6300 is almost the same price as an i5. But 8350 seems more worth it.
3. Not much marketing for amd products done by convergent.

 

[coyote]

AMD came off as the closest contender to the mighty Intel. Others have tried & perish like Cyrix... if you were born years earlier. AMD has even once challenged Intel for a run for the money with their Phenom & Phenom II series of processors. But all that is gone now, with Intel pulling ahead with their 22nm waferfab technology while AMD still stuck at their 32nm. While these meant nothing to the people in the street, you can imagine the kind of performance difference the user observed. 22nm is definitely faster, lower power & packing more transistors translating to performance.

I still have 2 AMD Phenom II X2 550 & 555 & a X3 720... but the newer PCs are running Sandy & Ivy bridge I3... simply they run cool & stable being 2 if not 3 generations of wafer technology ahead of the Phenom II... and not to mentioned, Intel's linux drivers support on hardware acceleration on their HD2000, HD2500 built-in graphic card made it viable & economical for my Ubuntu rigs(mostly)... AMD while supporting linux drivers, maintainance is still a pain with their proprietary drivers.

So... it's not noob to ask. It's our pleasures to share... Sad thing though... there are lesser & lesser reasons to go AMD... at least for a linux users... Windows users still has motivation to AMD with the windows graphic drivers for the powerful onchip HD7000 & HD 8000 ATI onchip graphic... but these are likely still a tad short for those playing graphic intensive games... not to mention, at the 32nm & packing that much of CPU & GPU power within a chip, power consumption & heat is a tad challenge though not unsolvable...

But for the joe in the street... Intel is simply a no brainer even at the same price point... sad... I would have prefer to support AMD the underdog...

This probably is the "noobest" qns u all seen.

but why so many people recommend build with Intel CPU+MB
in stead of using AMD ? Any reason i should know about?





My current few years old rig is also AMD system. I like it, still running good.
I am now targeting the AMD FX 8350.
not a hardcore gamer but just for "future proofing" and speed.

 

[coyote]

Last but not least... FX8350 is cool... but looking for a solid motherboard to support the power hungry chip is a tough & likely cost you a bomb. And... after a expensive chip & a expensive motherboard, one still has to get a expensive graphic card... so the overall price point is expensive beyond justification... except only for those who are looking for multicores gaming with insane graphic experiences...

I don't play games nowadays... hardware acceleration is only needed for 1080p movies & that cannot justify the heavy investment into the FX series...

 

[MoneyFace =p]

AMD came off as the closest contender to the mighty Intel. Others have tried & perish like Cyrix... if you were born years earlier. AMD has even once challenged Intel for a run for the money with their Phenom & Phenom II series of processors. But all that is gone now, with Intel pulling ahead with their 22nm waferfab technology while AMD still stuck at their 32nm. While these meant nothing to the people in the street, you can imagine the kind of performance difference the user observed. 22nm is definitely faster, lower power & packing more transistors translating to performance.

I still have 2 AMD Phenom II X2 550 & 555 & a X3 720... but the newer PCs are running Sandy & Ivy bridge I3... simply they run cool & stable being 2 if not 3 generations of wafer technology ahead of the Phenom II... and not to mentioned, Intel's linux drivers support on hardware acceleration on their HD2000, HD2500 built-in graphic card made it viable & economical for my Ubuntu rigs(mostly)... AMD while supporting linux drivers, maintainance is still a pain with their proprietary drivers.

So... it's not noob to ask. It's our pleasures to share... Sad thing though... there are lesser & lesser reasons to go AMD... at least for a linux users... Windows users still has motivation to AMD with the windows graphic drivers for the powerful onchip HD7000 & HD 8000 ATI onchip graphic... but these are likely still a tad short for those playing graphic intensive games... not to mention, at the 32nm & packing that much of CPU & GPU power within a chip, power consumption & heat is a tad challenge though not unsolvable...

But for the joe in the street... Intel is simply a no brainer even at the same price point... sad... I would have prefer to support AMD the underdog...

Not just wafer fab tech difference but mainly on IPC itself, AMD's Piledriver architecture stills loses out to Intel's 2009-era Nehalem looking at their sole core performance.. They are just concealing the absolute performance disparity by adding more integer cores.

 

[NVDefender]

Last but not least... FX8350 is cool... but looking for a solid motherboard to support the power hungry chip is a tough & likely cost you a bomb. And... after a expensive chip & a expensive motherboard, one still has to get a expensive graphic card... so the overall price point is expensive beyond justification... except only for those who are looking for multicores gaming with insane graphic experiences...

I don't play games nowadays... hardware acceleration is only needed for 1080p movies & that cannot justify the heavy investment into the FX series...

Not necessarily true, I got my 8350+mobo for around 400 from SLS, that's around common i5 setup nowadays.

The FX line has two weak points: weak single thread performance and high power consumption; and one strong point: strong multi thread performance. For well threads application, FX8350 can match the i7 easily, for much cheaper; in other words, FX scales much better than intel cpu. The problem now is that not all application can utilise the power of 8 threads, especially games, but that is set to change. We've already had 2 games that are very well threaded (Crysis 3 and the upcoming BF4); and when next gen consoles come out, more and more games will be optimised for 8 threads.

If AMD can solve the power issue, they can be competitive again, since the software evolution will help them with their weak per core performance.

 

[MoneyFace =p]

Not necessarily true, I got my 8350+mobo for around 400 from SLS, that's around common i5 setup nowadays.

The FX line has two weak points: weak single thread performance and high power consumption; and one strong point: strong multi thread performance. For well threads application, FX8350 can match the i7 easily, for much cheaper; in other words, FX scales much better than intel cpu. The problem now is that not all application can utilise the power of 8 threads, especially games, but that is set to change. We've already had 2 games that are very well threaded (Crysis 3 and the upcoming BF4); and when next gen consoles come out, more and more games will be optimised for 8 threads.

If AMD can solve the power issue, they can be competitive again, since the software evolution will help them with their weak per core performance.

Hopefully by then it would drive Intel to release hexa cores models on mainstream market to battle AMD's FX (assuming they not pulling out of it).

 

[royfrosty]

Hopefully by then it would drive Intel to release hexa cores models on mainstream market to battle AMD's FX (assuming they not pulling out of it).

Intel already has a 6 cores cpu. Under i7 extreme they do have 6 cores. With 12 threads of cause.

Even the simpler fx 6300 already can be almost equivalent in multi thread applications than an i5 probably an ivy setup. With a 6 core 6 threads IF only games or applications utilizes more threads.

But like what most people say, AMD loss out in single thread performance. But in multi thread that is where AMD shines like what NVDefender has mentioned with $400 it can really shine like an i7. Whats more it is highly OC capable.

 

[MoneyFace =p]

Intel already has a 6 cores cpu. Under i7 extreme they do have 6 cores.

Even the simpler fx 6300 already can be almost equivalent in multi thread applications than an i5 probably an ivy setup. With a 6 core 6 threads IF only games or applications utilizes more threads.

But like what most people say, AMD loss out in single thread performance. But in multi thread that is where AMD shines like what NVDefender has mentioned with $400 it can really shine like an i7. Whats more it is highly OC capable.

I meant mainstream as in mainstream Core i5/i7 platform, not the extreme platform they are currently hovering on (and with such a crazy price tag )

 

[NVDefender]

Hopefully by then it would drive Intel to release hexa cores models on mainstream market to battle AMD's FX (assuming they not pulling out of it).

Too bad they've already started pulling out by the look of it

 

[86technie]

For now, Intel worth the $. AMD is cheap but slow and consume lots of
power.
Even for me, now I have switch to Intel.

 

[Entry Level PC]

AMD only saving grace now are their APU.
But still too power hungry and overpriced in our local market.

 

[MacClipper]

For most end users, they can't tell the difference in daily usage.

Well, if no one stands up for AMD, who will stand up for you when Intel becomes a even bigger bully...

 

[Entry Level PC]

For most end users, they can't tell the difference in daily usage.

Well, if no one stands up for AMD, who will stand up for you when Intel becomes a even bigger bully...

Sue them for anti competition monopoly when that time comes.

 

[Ysatis]

For most end users, they can't tell the difference in daily usage.

Well, if no one stands up for AMD, who will stand up for you when Intel becomes a even bigger bully...

stand up for AMD !

 

[MacClipper]

Sue them for anti competition monopoly when that time comes.

Well, that's one possible route but in reality, last man standing is the one with the deepest pockets so that rules out most of us...

Easier to vote with your pocket while AMD is still around.