I would just like to put something out there.
Everyone knows that AMD can achieve higher clock speeds and can work at slightly higher temps than Intel. I am all for both, but people need to realize three things (on a gaming basis, which is what most high end computer buyers are):
1. How many cores are there
2. What the clock is
3. What the Power Consumption is
All the AMD Processors now are standardizing at an eight core chip while Intel is, for the most part, still on the four core basis (on the economical level). Many people think that since the AMD processors have more physical cores, that it is better.
Let me explain something. Hyper threading uses a very small amount of CPU power, and a good amount of thread power to make, however they aren't as powerful as real cores.
Thus being said, taking money out of the equation, an Intel i5-3570k with 4 cores and NO HT is ~on the same level as the FX-8350. The 3570k is at 3.4 and the 8350 is at 4.0, and the AMD produces more heat, and requires more power.
With that being said, per core, the power of the Intel processor is much superior to the 8350 per core, which running at a lower clock, producing less heat since there are less cores, and finally using less power.
In games, there are no games, with the exception of Battlefield, that utilize 4 or more cores, and even then, when you have Hyper Threading (3770k), it utilizes those as well. Even so with Battlefield, the game usually runs no less that 10 frames slower on the Intel than AMD, keeping in mind that the clock is lower and there are Hyper Threaded cores, the power of the Intel compared to the AMD is very close for the major physical differences.
In the end, with money out of the equation, Intel is obviously dominant. The reason that they cost more money is yes, they use bulk wafers, but the power per core is ~ twice as powerful as AMD processors, also while using less power and producing less heat.
(optional reading): A simple way that you can demonstrate it is with porcelain and non-porcelain vases with the parenthesis being the comparison to the CPU. The non-porcelain vase will cost much less money and be much harder to break (physical build "heat"), however the visual quality (performance) of it will not be on par with other fancy things you will have, giving it "less use". However the real porcelain vase will be somewhat easier to break and will be fragile (physical build "heat"), however the visual quality (performance) will be better than the non-porcelain vase, making it more valuable.
This physical aspect is set and done. Now when we bring money into the equation, this is where we get problems. Just to say, and everyone should know this, AMD is more of a budget friendly service, you may say, while Intel requires more since the quality of it is better (demonstrated previously). Usually, for people that are tight on a budget, video edit/render, or heavily use OpenCL applications, they will usually go for AMD, while the people that will game, use 3D operations, and have the money for it, will tend to go for Intel.
This is the true nature of humans, don't get me wrong. However on a realistic basis, I have to say that Intel is better with their performance (with the exception of some video editing and OCL).
Honestly, I would get AMD and like it if I was like I said previously, and I was thinking about making an AMD system for video rendering and editing for my Gaming Videos.
UPDATE: Thus being said, the "clock speed championship" is pointless to the fact that processors need a certain amount of clock to do certain amounts of work. Cool you may have your overclock record AMD, but it proves pointless to this fact, and that so one in the right mind needs to overclock their processor this high and run it with LN.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram