AMD 6 core vs Intel i5 4 core (4th gen)?

[loik123]

I was curious from what I have heard and seen from reviews to benchmarks why is a 6 CORES | 6 THREADS | 3.5 GHz AMD FX-6300 being overtaken by an i5 4th gen 4 core? being the AMD having a higher core count and higher ghz per core in some i5? (not minding the overclocking) NOOB here. Teach me masters

 

[rolli59]

Because the Intel can handle more instructions per core per clock. This is old but explains it http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/processor-architecture-benchmark,2974.html The FX series if anything has not improved on the Phenom IPC performance.

More reading on the matter http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-overclocking,3584.html

 

[IndyAJD]

Short answer is that Intels 4 cores are individually faster than the FXs 6 cores. The newer i5s overtake the 6300 because their combined faster core performance wins over 6 slower cores.

 

[airborn824]

The real quick answer is Intel is so big and influential that all company's code for them and not AMD. If more systems used multi-thread instructions you would have to spend over $300 to even think about competing with AMD. If you are planning a build go 8 threads or cores at this point. Even tho you only need 4 threads/cores for most games. Reason is that 8 cores will be the standard by Q4 2015 with the consoles being so important to the developers. Company's are not optimizing games for PC and if they are they wants as much Vram and cores as possible. Go AMD 8370 or Core i7 if you are build ing new at this point and don't get a GPU with less than 4gb VRAM if not more like the new 290x 8GB editions launching this month. Good luck and remember real world use is not shown is benchmarks.

 

[Undying89]

i5 will murder any AMD CPU. If gaming is what you care about, Intel is way you want to go.

 

[airborn824]

i5 will murder any AMD CPU. If gaming is what you care about, Intel is way you want to go.

I am not sure why you say that the way you do. if you are buying a AAA title that has been released since Q3 FX 8 series beats i5. Also lets not forget just any i5 can't beat any FX. you cant tell me a i5 3340 (or what ever the middle ive was) can beat any 8 core cpu. now if you are simply comparing the 4690 then yes but lets be real, its brand new and AMD FX is 3 years old. $ for $ AMD wins under $190. all based on what you wanna spend. and to be frank if you do a full AMD build i5s have no chance with AMD having a far superior NBrindge.

 

[AHBman]

Okay :
i5 4690k : 220 $
FX 8350 : 170 $
FX 6300 : 100 $
Is it really reasonnable to compare CPUs with different price range ?
i5 4690k don't equal an FX 6300, this last can be slightly equal than an old i5 2400 in multhreaded apps, only

 

[rolli59]

Okay :
i5 4690k : 220 $
FX 8350 : 170 $
FX 6300 : 100 $
Is it really reasonnable to compare CPUs with different price range ?
i5 4690k don't equal an FX 6300, this last can be slightly equal than an old i5 2400 in multhreaded apps, only

FX6300 is competition to an I3 not an I5 2400 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=363

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

CPU benchmarking, like games, will always favour one processor over another. What you should do is look at benchmark results for the type of usage the processor will get; games, video editing, etc.

Core count and clock speed only tell part of the story when comparing processors. The underlying technology in an Intel and AMD processor is fundamentally different, so comparing clock speed alone is like comparing apples and oranges.

The crux is that Intel processors have much stronger single-threaded performance than AMD processors, which is why some benchmarks will favour it. AMD processors like the FX-8xxx series, which are heavily multi-threaded, will sometimes be favoured over strong single-threads. The results will be different depending on the type of benchmarking software used.

The important thing to do is buy a processor that fits your use and budget.

 

[Undying89]

Faster cores is what counts. Considering 4690k at 3.5ghz is faster than 9590 at 4.7ghz is enough said. Oc'd i5 to 4.5ghz is just to much for any AMD CPU to compete with, i7 is on league on its own.

 

[BaRoMeTrIc]

Not to mention fx 6 and 8 series are not truly 6 and 8 cores they are 3 and 4 core with 2 modules per core each of those modules compute across the same core which reduces efficiency. Better off going with a true 4 core with more instructions per clock and throw in hyperthreading with the i7

 

[port27]

I love AMD and I will be the first one to admit that any of the Core i5 Sandy Bridge or newer is better than any FX CPU. The FX lineup was a disaster.