AMD cores vs Intel cores

[ActiveTroll]

This may be a stupid question, I do not know.

I've been researching for a future build, particularly for live streaming and gaming.

I've been researching the

Intel Core i7-4790K Devil’s Canyon Quad-Core 4.0GHz

and the

AMD FX-9590 Vishera 8-Core

I've been looking at benchmarks and the i7 beats the AMD in pretty much everything.

My question is, if the i7 barely beats the AMD in single core benchmarks, how does it still beat the AMD in ALL core benchmarks?

if it is 4 slightly stronger cores, as seems to be suggested by the single core benchmarks, vs 8 slightly weaker cores, shouldn't the AMD win when all 8 cores are a factor?

The reason this is concerning to me is that I have read that games are moving more toward utilizing more cores, which only seems logical as technology advances, and considering this would be a streaming machine, it will have many processes going at once.

[Deleted]

Most games use 1-2 cores and even if they move to more cores it definately won't be more than 4 any time in the next decade. Thats what history has shown at least, its been over 10years we've been hearing for multicore and not single core gaming. The i7 4790k atm is the best gaming and not only chip out there. Even at 100 bucks more expensive than the FX, well that thing has a 220w tdp you can cook on it, you will save up the price difference from your ele.bill in a year...

[Deleted]

Tbh it has just gotten to a point where AMD cant keep up with intel and Nvidia anymore in producing hardware.

If you can afford Intel/nvidia it will always be the better choice, and earn itself in in powerusage / performance.

[tielknight]

This thread is not going to end well if your name is any indicator >_>

Yes games are slowly moving towards utilizing more cores, but they are also better utilizing the cores that are already available, making it better for both intel and amd chips.

And I have a hard time believing the i7 is only "barely" beating the 9590 in anything single-core related, where are you seeing this?

Even at 100 bucks more expensive than the FX, well that thing has a 220w tdp you can cook on it, you will save up the price difference from your ele.bill in a year...

Not to mention that it needs a rather beefy motherboard to be able to run it without things getting all melty

[yurano]

My question is, if the i7 barely beats the AMD in single core benchmarks, how does it still beat the AMD in ALL core benchmarks?

What benchmarks are those? Intel stomps AMD in single core benchmarks.

[Kagthul]

My question is, if the i7 barely beats the AMD in single core benchmarks, how does it still beat the AMD in ALL core benchmarks?

if it is 4 slightly stronger cores, as seems to be suggested by the single core benchmarks, vs 8 slightly weaker cores, shouldn't the AMD win when all 8 cores are a factor?

First... The i7 'barely' beats the FX9590 in single core? Uhhh...

Core i7 4790K Single Core - 2533 (passmark)
FX9590 Single Core - 1719 (passmark)

The i7 crushes the FX9590 in single core... Its 30% faster out the gate. (At stock clocks, no less. Clock that i7 up to the same 4.7Ghz and itll be mkre like 38-41%)

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Also, the i7 line is Hyperthreaded, meaning it has four physical cores and four 'virtual' cores. While the virtual cores dont deliver 100% of the performance of a 'real' core, they are quite useful/powerful (effectively making the i7 a faux 8 core chip).... And on AMDs 8-core chips, each pair of cores shares a memory controller, which actually hampers their performance, making each pair of AMD cores about as efficient as a 'real' core + a 'virtual' core on the intel side... And given Intels MUCH higher IPC... Thats why the i7 faster than the 9590 even on multithreaded applications.

FX-9590 (Multithreaded) - 10277
Core i7 4790K - 11245

Still about 10% faster, and thats at stock clocks (4.0Ghz for the i7, 4.7Ghz for the 9590); if you clock the i7 up to 4.7Ghz (which you can easily do even on a simple air cooler) and the gap will be even wider....

And the i7 uses about 60% less power (88W vs 220W).

The i7 is a better CPU all around; AMDs current lineup isnt terribly viable below the bottom-end budget system (and even then, IMO, youre still better off with a fast i3 or even the Pentium Anniversary).

[ActiveTroll]

Sorry, when I said "barely" beats it, I didn't actually mean barely, I just didn't know what word to put, what I meant was that it doesn't beat it by double, anything less than double, than the AMD should win in an all core battle. That was my limited thinking on it.

Speaking to Kagthul. You mention hyperthreading, but even though this allows the intel to act like it has 8 cores, each core could not exceed the maximum of the individual core no?

From my laymans understanding, this is how I imagined it. 4 intel cores, operating at 150% better than each AMD core. 8 AMD cores at 100% strength. So 600% vs 800% or something like that for total overall cpu power. Imagining a scenario where something or multiple somethings are maxing out your entire cpu.

Thanks kagthul and Kostattoo

[Latin]

Most games use 1-2 cores and even if they move to more cores it definately won't be more than 4 any time in the next decade. Thats what history has shown at least, its been over 10years we've been hearing for multicore and not single core gaming. The i7 4790k atm is the best gaming and not only chip out there. Even at 100 bucks more expensive than the FX, well that thing has a 220w tdp you can cook on it, you will save up the price difference from your ele.bill in a year...

DirectX 11 vs. DirectX 12 Oversimplified



I suggest you folks read up on DirectX12.

[Kagthul]

Sorry, when I said "barely" beats it, I didn't actually mean barely, I just didn't know what word to put, what I meant was that it doesn't beat it by double, anything less than double, than the AMD should win in an all core battle. That was my limited thinking on it.

Speaking to Kagthul. You mention hyperthreading, but even though this allows the intel to act like it has 8 cores, each core could not exceed the maximum of the individual core no?

No. Im not up on the science of it, but you can max out the core and they hyperthreading will still work.

From my laymans understanding, this is how I imagined it. 4 intel cores, operating at 150% better than each AMD core. 8 AMD cores at 100% strength. So 600% vs 800% or something like that for total overall cpu power. Imagining a scenario where something or multiple somethings are maxing out your entire cpu.

Except sharing a memory controller between two cores on the AMD chips artificially limits their performance; and with the hyperthreading, what you're looking at is more like:

4 Intel Cores at 140%
4 Intel Virtual cores at 70% (they are about ~60% as powerful as a "real" core, in laymans terms, depending on the program being used. Some take to hyperthreading very well, others are actually hampered by it a bit)

8 AMD cores at 90% (since, once you get past using a single core of each pair, they have to share a memory interface, slowing both cores down slightly)

Leaves you with something like 840% Intel and AMD 720% (which actually plays out the benchmark from Passmark pretty closely, as the "720%" number is roughly ~13% slower than the "840%" number - about the actual difference in their multithreaded passmark scores)

That's all SUPER rudimentary, back-of-the-napkin style math and very simplistic views of how the tech works.. but it helps get the brain around it. Another big factor is IPC, or instructions-per-clock - basically, the number of instructions a given CPU can calculate per clock cycle. Intel's IPC is quite a bit higher than AMD (and has been for several years, and the gap is growing) - so even at the same clock speeds, the intel CPU can process more instructions per cycle, making them more efficient. That's why the AMD CPU (Clocked at 4.7Ghz) is STILL beaten by the Intel CPU even though the Intel's stock clock is 4 Ghz (well, one of the many reasons).

And, as i pointed out, you could easily increase the performance lead by overclocking the 4790K to 4.5Ghz (jsut about any shipping 4790K will hit 4.5Ghz without tampering with the voltage or anything wonky, on a simple air cooler) or even match the 4.7Ghz of the 9590 if you get a good sample (and the air cooler will still do you). My 4790K hits a stable 4.7Ghz on air no problem. It starts to have issues with voltage much above that, but i got an average to below average sample of the Devils Canyon chips.

Also, as someone else pointed out, while the 4790K might be more expensive (by about 100 bucks, MSRP, but if you have a Micro Center nearby, in-store they are 90$ off - almost the entire difference in cost) - you can overclock it easily in just about any good Z97 Motherboard from a reputable manufacturer. Those FX-9590s are notorious for melting midrange and lower motherboards - that tend not to have good heatsinks on the VRMs and other motherboard components which the 9590 really puts stress on and cooks. Youll end up spending half the money youd save going AMD on having to buy a relatively high-end motherboard just to use the thing without being in danger of melting it... and might have to use a liquid cooling solution.

Stick with the i7. It's a better chip all around. If you can put it off a few months - itll be even better, as Skylake (the next Intel CPU series upgrade) is due out mid/late summer and will have even lower power parts that are around 5-10% faster at the same clocks as the current Haswell chips.

- - - Updated - - -

DirectX 11 vs. DirectX 12 Oversimplified



I suggest you folks read up on DirectX12.

Draw Calls are not the only thing limiting game performance, and that's the only real benefit to DirectX 12. DX12 wont make the sound thread run any better over multiple cores, or the AI thread, or the core engine and physics thread(s), etc.

Will it increase performance on machines with lots of cores? Yes. (Provided your GPU is currently sitting waiting on draw calls under DX11 - if you're already saturating your GPU's ability to handle draw calls now, then you will see precisely zero gain) Will it magically make all games max out all your cores and give you 10,000% more performance?

No.

Edit: its primarily a big benefit to people running midrange cards and up with multi-core systems. Considering how low-end a lot of the PCs people game on are (Steam's stats on average hardware statistics are sobering) a LOT of people wont see a giant benefit.

I will, and people like me will (with a fast i7 and a GTX 970, which is almost ALWAYS sitting waiting on draw calls) see significant benefit. The average "mid-range" consumer will see benefits, but not as massive as people like me with cards that sit idle a lot.. and the "average" consumer gamer, playing on some HP box ... he's not likely to see much.

Im not saying its not a great step forward. It is. But its not going to magically make games 1000% faster.

[fixx]

Intel Core i7-4790K Devil’s Canyon Quad-Core 4.0GHz

and the

AMD FX-9590 Vishera 8-Core

if it is 4 slightly stronger cores, as seems to be suggested by the single core benchmarks, vs 8 slightly weaker cores, shouldn't the AMD win when all 8 cores are a factor?

Very short answer is both AMD FX processors and Intel i7's have half real cores and half fake cores. On Intel side the fake cores are worth about 15% of a real core each, while on AMD side maybe 30% of real core.

You can simple math that as AMD FX-9590 having approximately 5.2 "cores" and i7 4.6 "cores". But... Then you factor in Intel having twice as high IPC as AMD (single core performance), so the end result is 5.2 vs 9.2 "cores" of performance if both processors are running at same speed.

Most people are also curious about the little detail that FX-9590 uses about four times more electricity than i7-4790k.

[Afrospinach]

I suggest you folks read up on DirectX12.

Personally I would wait to see how this actually manifests itself in games before jumping to conclusions, like Kostattoo said we have been hearing this multicore stuff for years and it's application for gaming has been resoundingly disappointing.

[chazus]

Also keep in mind...

Intel i7 = 4 Floating Point + 4 Integer + 4 Virtual Floating Point + 4 Virtual Integer processors. 4 modules, 4 cores, 8 Threads through virtualization.

AMD = 4 Floating Point + 8 Integer. 4 Modules, 8 cores, 8 threads.

What's the difference? Integer Units do the majority of work in most cases, and are being bottlenecked by the FP units. So it runs sort of like 4 FP/4 Int. This is a vast oversimplification, because it ignores things like IPC and architecture, but it also points out that it's not as simple as "4 Cores + HT vs 8 cores"

Intel doesn't have a bottleneck with hyperthreading, even though logical cores are not 'as powerful' as physical ones

[Vash The Stampede]

The AMD FX-9590 is crap. You stop at the 8350 or 8370 when it comes to AMD, mainly because of motherbaord VRMs melting down. You will need a $200 motherboard to effectively use a AMD FX-9590 without throttling. The FX-9590 is barely faster than the 8350 anyway.

As for AMD vs Intel the answer is AMD sucks at games. You buy an AMD for price not for sheer performance. And while an AMD machine is not bad but lately the prices of their CPUs for their performance is kinda ignorant on AMD's end. The 8350 is still $180 and I got that thing 2 years ago for $150. WTF AMD? Those prices should have been much lower by now, and the 8350 is like 3 years old.

[Arbiter]

As for AMD vs Intel the answer is AMD sucks at games. You buy an AMD for price not for sheer performance. And while an AMD machine is not bad but lately the prices of their CPUs for their performance is kinda ignorant on AMD's end. The 8350 is still $180 and I got that thing 2 years ago for $150. WTF AMD? Those prices should have been much lower by now, and the 8350 is like 3 years old.

I don't mean to go offtopic (the OP's question has been answered pretty clearly anyways), but seeing as I don't frequent here near as much am I reading the right username for this statement to be coming from you? o.0 seems odd

[Deleted]

Very short answer is both AMD FX processors and Intel i7's have half real cores and half fake cores. On Intel side the fake cores are worth about 15% of a real core each, while on AMD side maybe 30% of real core.

I thought hyperthreading was 15% to 30% depending on how good the software running is to utilize it?

[fixx]

I thought hyperthreading was 15% to 30% depending on how good the software running is to utilize it?

5-25% is the number I remember when it originally came out, could be improved over the years. Just threw in 15% as an average to avoid promising too much.

[ActiveTroll]

Thanks for the information. I'll stick with intel for this build. Now the question begs to be asked.

Is it worth the price difference between the quad core i7 4ghz and the 6 core i7 3.3 ghz ?

Intel Core i7-4790K Devil’s Canyon Quad-Core 4.0GHz

Intel Core i7-5820K Haswell-E 6-Core 3.3GHz

[fixx]

Is it worth the price difference between the quad core i7 4ghz and the 6 core i7 3.3 ghz ?

For mostly gaming, no. i7-5820k requires significantly more expensive motherboard and RAM.

[Cyanotical]

Is it worth the price difference between the quad core i7 4ghz and the 6 core i7 3.3 ghz ?

the really awesome thing about the 4790k is that its so good it settles debates like this, if your computer is for gaming, there is no better CPU. end of story.

the only time the 5820k would be considered is if you are doing a workstation build, and i mean a real workstation build, not a "i render game videos on the side" build

[Vash The Stampede]

I don't mean to go offtopic (the OP's question has been answered pretty clearly anyways), but seeing as I don't frequent here near as much am I reading the right username for this statement to be coming from you? o.0 seems odd

Because the price of the 8350 should have dropped, as well as many other AMD chips. If not by competition from Intel then at least its age. It was also something AMD was going to do with the introduction of the 8370's and 8320E. Except now the 8370 is $200. At least the A10-7850K dropped to $150 but I could get a 760k and a 750Ti for that price. The Core i5-4430 is $5 more and that makes the 8350 junk.

And I know you're thinking I'm a AMD fanboy but no. AMD was better in that price range but that couldn't last forever without new CPUs.