This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by suetracy (939 posts) -

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

#2 Posted by 04dcarraher (19214 posts) -
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.
#3 Posted by nilzg (753 posts) -
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 $$..
#4 Posted by 04dcarraher (19214 posts) -
AMD or Intel both are great. They are quite close to each other as of performance and such. A difference is that a 6 core AMD processer equals to a 4 core Intel processor (because AMD doesn't use threads along with their cores, Intel does) but that doesn't mean any of them perform better or worse (yes maybe a bit but not noticeable). And AMD is usually cheaper than Intel so you trade a bit performance for $$..nilzg
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.
#5 Posted by General_X (9027 posts) -

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

suetracy
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.
#6 Posted by Slow_Show (2153 posts) -

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.

#7 Posted by suetracy (939 posts) -

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.

Slow_Show

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.

#8 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13597 posts) -

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

suetracy

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

#9 Posted by Bikouchu35 (7338 posts) -

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

;)

#10 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6028 posts) -

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.

#11 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13597 posts) -

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.

blaznwiipspman1

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

#12 Posted by kraken2109 (13005 posts) -

[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.

GummiRaccoon

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

lol yeah
#13 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -
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.
#14 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

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.

#15 Posted by BattleSpectre (5963 posts) -

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.

#16 Posted by superclocked (5823 posts) -
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...