AMD cores vs Intel cores

[glo]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Not any more they aren't. And unless AMD can come out strong with their next line up of cards this year and actually beat Nvidia hands down, then I doubt you'll ever see them on top ever again. AMD as a whole is slowly dying and their hardware performance is really starting to show this. If the next line of AMD cards come out and then Nvidia immediately releases another card that can beat them (like they've been doing recently), then AMD is screwed. And I've heard that this is what Nvidia is planning on doing with the supposed GTX 980ti or whatever they choose to call it. I've already got plans on getting the "980ti" when it comes out, because I know it'll perform just as well if not better than the AMD counterpart, and probably run cooler and use less power in the process.

See, people like this cause constructive discussion to fail. Be it because they just got into PC gaming recently, only started researching recently or flat out choosing to ignore history.

Zephyr, are you seemingly forgetting the HD 7xxx series beating Nvidia in both performance and price? Are you forgetting the proverbial curb stomping of the HD 5xxx vs 4xx era? I fail to see how the idea of each company trading blows every other generation somehow lends itself to "AMD as a whole slowly dying".

Let's also not forget how just this LAST GENERATION the 290x was all but tied with the 780 Ti: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1438?vs=1441

Hell, if you really want to get down to it, the only clear win Nvidia has had in the last 5 or 6 years was 5xx. AMD had more wins in said time period with 5xxx and 7xxx, and pretty much pulled off a tie in this last generation of 7xx vs 2xx.

[apepi]

Like the people who still cling to AMD CPUs? It's almost sad really.

I got a buddy at work who thinks that AMD CPUs are actually better for gaming than Intel CPUs. Like, he straight up believes that any AMD CPU will blow Intel out of the water for gaming. I've tried showing him actual facts and data to prove how wrong he really is, but he will literally ignore all of it and swear by his AMD processor. So sad....

It has more cores, it must be better!

[Zephyr Storm]

It has more cores, it must be better!

That is his exact argument. MOAR CORES!

- - - Updated - - -

See, people like this cause constructive discussion to fail. Be it because they just got into PC gaming recently, only started researching recently or flat out choosing to ignore history.

Zephyr, are you seemingly forgetting the HD 7xxx series beating Nvidia in both performance and price? Are you forgetting the proverbial curb stomping of the HD 5xxx vs 4xx era? I fail to see how the idea of each company trading blows every other generation somehow lends itself to "AMD as a whole slowly dying".

Let's also not forget how just this LAST GENERATION the 290x was all but tied with the 780 Ti: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1438?vs=1441

Hell, if you really want to get down to it, the only clear win Nvidia has had in the last 5 or 6 years was 5xx. AMD had more wins in said time period with 5xxx and 7xxx, and pretty much pulled off a tie in this last generation of 7xx vs 2xx.

Well, part of it is my own personal experience and the experiences of several other people I know personally. Anecdotal evidence it may be, but sometimes word of mouth is all that's needed to show how bad a product can actually be. I've had AMD cards fail on me and their drivers consistently crash. A buddy of mine actually had one of his AMD cards almost catch on fire....it was smoking and almost burnt his hand when he was trying to get it off the MB before it damaged it. Another buddy of mine has received several DoA AMD cards when building several different rigs....he got 3 in a row at one point and swore AMD off forever. He's changed to Team Green and hasn't had an issue yet. And last but not least, my coworker who I was referring to in an earlier post, had nothing but issues with his last AMD card.....stuttering, crashing, overheating, you name it. He did every troubleshooting trick in the book and nothing worked. He sent the card back in and got an Nvidia card (which surprised me considering he thinks AMD CPUs are the greatest thing since sliced bread).


Go ahead and say it....anecdotal I know. But I've had, seen, or heard enough bad experiences with AMD cards to never give them a try again. Unless they somehow manage to come out with a card that completely BLOWS away Nvidia's offerings and can actually hold up under stress, but probably not even then. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

And it's been nothing but smooth, buttery sailing on the last two Nvidia cards I've owned (GTX 670 and GTX 780 ti). You can talk to me about Team Red till you're blue in the face, but I ain't getting on that sinking ship ever again. I'm more than happy to pay the "Nvidia Premium" because for me personally, it's given me the best gaming experiences ever.

[anb]

Intel did a massive break-through with Sandy bridge but after that 4 years passed with no significant improvements for gamers.
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smart...id=1158&page=4

if you have, like myself, 2500k - there is actually no room for upgrade - i5-4670K is just not good enough to spend 400 bucks on compared to Sandy. The only real option is to go 6 cores but that's a whole different price category - not to mention most games don't care for 6 cores. Funny though even after 4 years of intel doing nothing, AMD still can't keep up - this is just sad. It breaks competition and innovation.

[Noctifer616]

Funny though even after 4 years of intel doing nothing, AMD still can't keep up - this is just sad. It breaks competition and innovation.

How could they when they had no new releases? All their desktop CPU's are based on Piledrive which released in 2012 and it's all still on 32nm. They had no new CPU releases for desktop outside of APU's which are not meant to compete in high end machines. This isn't going to change till late 2016 or maybe early 2017 when Zen hits the desktop consumer market. They aren't even trying to compete. There focus has been for a while now GPU's, APU's and custom chips like the ones in the PS4/XBONE.

[Vash The Stampede]

Intel did a massive break-through with Sandy bridge but after that 4 years passed with no significant improvements for gamers.
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smart...id=1158&page=4

This is mostly because Intel shifted focus from performance to power efficiency. It makes sense since a CPU like the 2500 is more than fast enough for people today. But with things like tablets their efforts are better spent on power efficiency. Why you think Intel is so invested in their manufacturing technology? AMD's 8350 is stuck using 32nm while Intel is enjoying 22nm and Bay Trail is enjoying 14nm.

Also it doesn't help that most games were Xbox 360 ports brought over to PC. The only time you really needed a powerful machine was for MMO's or a really bad port. Why you think DX10 and DX11 were rarely used in PCs?

if you have, like myself, 2500k - there is actually no room for upgrade - i5-4670K is just not good enough to spend 400 bucks on compared to Sandy. The only real option is to go 6 cores but that's a whole different price category - not to mention most games don't care for 6 cores. Funny though even after 4 years of intel doing nothing, AMD still can't keep up - this is just sad. It breaks competition and innovation.

A lot of the reason Intel's CPU performance has been slowly going up since Sandy is because of AMD. AMD wasn't about to throw away the bulldozer architecture just because. Like Intel with the Pentium 4, they were hoping to make it work. They invested too much money into to not have it last for at least 5 years. So AMD shifted focus from CPU performance to GPU performance. Not a bad idea except so did Intel.

Put an AMD APU against Intel without a discrete GPU and AMD wins, but that's only useful on laptops. On desktops though we can install graphic cards. The laptop market is bigger than the desktop market, so it makes sense for AMD to not care about desktops. As gamers laptops aren't taken very serious when it comes to gaming.

[theWocky]

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

Intel has a tech called "QuickSync"

When tied into decent streaming software, it works like a dedicated video capture card. For rendering videos, it is 10~20x faster than without this tech. It is also darn close to perfect quality whenever I've used it.

For QuickSync alone, tied with OBS (Open BroadCaster Software), for streaming/gaming, there is no debate, go for Intel.

You don't need 6 cores. 4 are fine. My haswell i5 handles any game I throw at it with my 780ti - while streaming. Obviously, if you can get a card that supports DX12 and uses less power, go for it.

Also, for compatibility, go for nVidia. Whenever you visit gaming forums, it's usually the poor suckers with Radeon and AMD that are complaining. Fact is, regardless of new games coming, the current games that require high end single core performance are going to be relevant for years to come and Intel / nVidia run them best.

[fixx]

How could they when they had no new releases? All their desktop CPU's are based on Piledrive which released in 2012 and it's all still on 32nm.

Only thing AMD has added to their cores in 8 years since K10 architecture Phenoms is turbo boost, bigger L2/L3 caches and managed to shrink it from 65nm to 32nm. Both IPC and TDP are still the same for PhenomII and FX-8350 running at the same clock speed within few percent.

Piledriver side path to increase number of fake cores for consumer desktops is an abject failure.

[Deleted]

See, people like this cause constructive discussion to fail. Be it because they just got into PC gaming recently, only started researching recently or flat out choosing to ignore history.

Zephyr, are you seemingly forgetting the HD 7xxx series beating Nvidia in both performance and price? Are you forgetting the proverbial curb stomping of the HD 5xxx vs 4xx era? I fail to see how the idea of each company trading blows every other generation somehow lends itself to "AMD as a whole slowly dying".

Let's also not forget how just this LAST GENERATION the 290x was all but tied with the 780 Ti: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1438?vs=1441

Hell, if you really want to get down to it, the only clear win Nvidia has had in the last 5 or 6 years was 5xx. AMD had more wins in said time period with 5xxx and 7xxx, and pretty much pulled off a tie in this last generation of 7xx vs 2xx.

AMD has always been miles behind when it comes to power consumption though.

[Asmekiel]

AMD has always been miles behind when it comes to power consumption though.

Does that really matter though? The 780Ti was $699 on launch and the 290X was $549. The power consumption difference is ~25W during gaming/benchmarks.
That's an insane amount of time you have to game to break even on the price. If the rumours so far are true, the power consumption difference between the Titan X and the 390X is roughly the same for an even greater price difference (but to have a fair comparison, we would need to know the price for the 980Ti)

[Pengekaer]

Intel did a massive break-through with Sandy bridge but after that 4 years passed with no significant improvements for gamers.
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smart...id=1158&page=4

if you have, like myself, 2500k - there is actually no room for upgrade - i5-4670K is just not good enough to spend 400 bucks on compared to Sandy. The only real option is to go 6 cores but that's a whole different price category - not to mention most games don't care for 6 cores. Funny though even after 4 years of intel doing nothing, AMD still can't keep up - this is just sad. It breaks competition and innovation.

Agreed. I wonder if we will ever see a competitive medium/high-end CPU lineup from AMD. Aside from power efficiency, AMD has IMO been keeping up nicely on the graphics front. AMDs somewhat lower power efficiency is problematic, but at least my AMD-gpu keeps my room warm in the autumn/winter/early spring xD.

I do hope we will see new GPU/CPU line-ups from AMD that are able to compete on performance and power-efficiency. It would be so sad to have Intel-monopoly.

Anybody knows if AMD plans to release a new medium/high-end CPU series?

[Zenfoldor]

Intel did a massive break-through with Sandy bridge but after that 4 years passed with no significant improvements for gamers.
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smart...id=1158&page=4

if you have, like myself, 2500k - there is actually no room for upgrade - i5-4670K is just not good enough to spend 400 bucks on compared to Sandy. The only real option is to go 6 cores but that's a whole different price category - not to mention most games don't care for 6 cores. Funny though even after 4 years of intel doing nothing, AMD still can't keep up - this is just sad. It breaks competition and innovation.

You can sell your mobo and cpu and upgrade for cheap. That's how high end overclockers stay in the game.

[Shurkuris]

If your going for a budget CPU, go for AMD.


If your a professional looking for best performance regardless of price, go for Intel.

[Pengekaer]

If your going for a budget CPU, go for AMD.


If your a professional looking for best performance regardless of price, go for Intel.

Ye, but honestly. Even on a budget, is Intel Anniversary G3258 not a better option? Easy to OC, too. It yields great performance and has a very low power-consumption level.

AMD FX-6300, for instance, is not as efficient and does not perform too well in single-threaded applications.

[Zenfoldor]

Does that really matter though? The 780Ti was $699 on launch and the 290X was $549. The power consumption difference is ~25W during gaming/benchmarks.
That's an insane amount of time you have to game to break even on the price. If the rumours so far are true, the power consumption difference between the Titan X and the 390X is roughly the same for an even greater price difference (but to have a fair comparison, we would need to know the price for the 980Ti)

If the rumors from the last couple of days are true, the TI could be about 10% more powerful than the titanx with 6gb of ram. However, most people don't believe nvidia will want to cannibalize titanx sales and alienate current owners by releasing that card for, say 699. I think they will gimp the current expected specs of the card to move it under the titan unless the new AMD cards cost compete significantly and have a high end card that can outmatch the titanx.

[fixx]

AMD has always been miles behind when it comes to power consumption though.

Nope. Closest example from history would be Radeon 6970 beating GTX480 with cheaper price, slightly lower power drain, higher framerates and lower temperatures. Even GTX580 was electricity hog. Only in 600 lineup Nvidia got power draw down to reasonable level but still didn't beat Radeon 7970 in framerates.

[Lathais]

If your going for a budget CPU, go for AMD.


If your a professional looking for best performance regardless of price, go for Intel.

Ummm.....no. The G3258 outperforms the top end AMD Chips in single core performance for only $60. You can take 2 otherwise identical systems, one with a G3258 one with a FX-8350 and the G3258 will perform better in WoW, for about $100 less. You want intel, period, especially if you are on a budget.

[Deleted]

Also, for compatibility, go for nVidia. Whenever you visit gaming forums, it's usually the poor suckers with Radeon and AMD that are complaining. Fact is, regardless of new games coming, the current games that require high end single core performance are going to be relevant for years to come and Intel / nVidia run them best.

Have to disagree with this, as a owner of both a 7970 GHZ card and nvidia 780, I have seen more issues with nvidia drivers then AMD, my personal experience with AMD has been better in terms of drivers and of that generation and has better compute bar the titan.

I've seen more smug come from Nvidia users though even though its only been really the 780 series of cards they have been able to act smug in recent times, the 580 was a retweak of the horrid 480 and something like 6 months at least down the line after the release of the 6970, it had the time to get better performance and rightly so.

The main advantage with Nvidia is they really only make GPUS so their entire budget is based around it, AMD sadly has to split this budget with its CPU which by no means bad, just not as good as intel.

Bad by its term means cannot function well, games running AMD CPUs actually run just fine, really depends on the settings you can play at in terms of your budget, intel does allow for higher settings to be tweaked.

Also the 390X is rumoured to surpass titan X and the 980ti is supposed to be the titan X but with 6 GB of ram and maybe clocked higher for speculation, but theres already a thread on this.

Also Nvidia are royally fucked for manufacturing their next GPUS, global foundaries/samsung are already ahead on the new nodes and this gives AMD an advantage.

TMSC are behind and will continue to do so and doesn't help that Apple and maybe even qualcomm will be asking for orders.

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/process...ff-10nm-finfet

For mobile but this tech will see its way trickle down to larger chips and AMD has first dibs on this tech over Nvidia, TMSC which Nvidia rely on are fucked.

Intel will always have something up its sleeve but with this new tech being introduced, it should be interesting.

[Bigvizz]

Ummm.....no. The G3258 outperforms the top end AMD Chips in single core performance for only $60. You can take 2 otherwise identical systems, one with a G3258 one with a FX-8350 and the G3258 will perform better in WoW, for about $100 less. You want intel, period, especially if you are on a budget.

Sure if all you do is play wow the performance if good, but do anything else on the G3258 chip well it's shit. So claiming that the G3258 is better than FX-8350 do to one or two programs is asinine.

[chazus]

Sure if all you do is play wow the performance if good, but do anything else on the G3258 chip well it's shit. So claiming that the G3258 is better than FX-8350 do to one or two programs is asinine.

I think you missed his point. He was saying at the budget level, the G3258 outperforms the FX-8350 on a budget gaming expectation. You won't expect it to do amazing things.. And if you're going to pay for an 8350, thats a different budget, and if you do that, you're looking at a 4790K for $30 more.

There is literally no place anymore in any budget or situation that warrants an AMD CPU.

It IS claiming the G3258 is better than the FX-8350. At that budget.