AMD or Intel?

[rahul1]

For high end animation purpose, which is better, AMD or Intel-3rd gen?

 

[Metalrenok]

This dbag of vmN is unselecting all the best answers, get over it

I dont believe something wrong should be an answer, might aswell explain it right.
The answers giving, didn't provide true facts, and gave the wrong image of both manufacturers.

Wrong answers according to you, that doesn't mean its actually wrong
I believe we are all talking about personal experiences and not about reviews and benchmarks read on the web

 

[vmN]

This dbag of vmN is unselecting all the best answers, get over it

I dont believe something wrong should be an answer, might aswell explain it right.
The answers giving, didn't provide true facts, and gave the wrong image of both manufacturers.

Wrong answers according to you, that doesn't mean its actually wrong
I believe we are all talking about personal experiences and not about reviews and benchmarks read on the web

I proved them wrong.
See that kamikaze dude trying to compared CPU's with car engine,
classic example of ignorance.
I talk about architecture itself, how Intel can beat AMD in multithreaded.
I'm not saying Intel will win each and every time, but it's pretty dang close(~90%).
It all depends on which application they are using.
If you read up, I did recommend the 8320, because his budget simply didn't fit a Intel CPU.
And I'm talking about personal experiences as I work with computers (mostly servers).

 

[Nafryti]

explain how HyperThreading isn't emulating more cores, please and before you do consider this, a Thread is meant to be processed by a single Processor Core, when Intel doubles the threads per core they are making up for what they lack in processor cores, AMD makes 8 cores to process 8 threads, when applications like 3DS Max demand for all 8 threads, having 8 actual cores will handle the task efficiently, however when on an Intel 4 pairs of the threads will process identically being as it is being processed on 4 cores with a mask to trick windows into seeing 8, did you know that AMD has hyper threading abilities? If i wanted i could have 16 cores, but i'm a realist and prefer to use what i really have.

When encoding in on an intel, you will have 4 processes running at nearly identical loads, on an AMD you will have different loads per core this is because they are not running the cores at half potential to take on two threads.

Get the most out of a CPU and go with AMD, understandably you may think Intel is superior because of HyperThreading, but it simply is not, forcing a core to split its resources for two threads is not ideal, i'm glad Intel made actual octo cores, but they thread 16 cores out of it, i know you can turn off HyperThreading which would in turn mean those 8 cores are running at full potential as an 8 thread CPU. YES, Intel would be superior if they made ONLY 8 core 8 thread CPU's from the start, and to be honest if they weren't trying to cut corners i would go Intel too, but for them to shove their junk in my face claiming it can do this blah blah and then i see that thousand dollar price tag, its comical.

Flagship to Flagship, thats all that matters, AMD is the only CPU setting clock speed records now-a-days anyways.
Flasgship Intel is the Core i7-4960X for purchase at its recommended box price of $1049 on Newegg

The Flagship AMD is the AMD FX-9590 which is on sale for $399 at Newegg

i noticed something from all these benchmarks, none of them unparked the AMD's cores... guess that means all results are null. However PassMark called the FX 8 cores series quad cores with logical pairs per core, Logical is what Intel does, not AMD, so these benchmarks are inaccurate from PassMark as AMD does not make Logical Cores.

so, vmN what are your 3DMarks?

rather than use your interwebs for facts, let us hear about your facts.

 

[vmN]

explain how HyperThreading isn't emulating more cores, please and before you do consider this, a Thread is meant to be processed by a single Processor Core, when Intel doubles the threads per core they are making up for what they lack in processor cores, AMD makes 8 cores to process 8 threads, when applications like 3DS Max demand for all 8 threads, having 8 actual cores will handle the task efficiently, however when on an Intel 4 pairs of the threads will process identically being as it is being processed on 4 cores with a mask to trick windows into seeing 8, did you know that AMD has hyper threading abilities? If i wanted i could have 16 cores, but i'm a realist and prefer to use what i really have.

Have you even read what anything I said? Hyper-threading allow another thread to run at the same time with the first.
Hyper-threading check which instruction that isn't used, lets say integer isn't used then it let integer instruction run meanwhile, this will noway reduce any performance as it simply use ressource that wouldn't be use anyway.
Most applications like 3DS Max also allow GPU acceleration. Normally those program will also use alot SIMD and floading point instruction, which Intel is much stronger with.
You do also know that FX cores modules share ressources right? Just like hyperthreading... so the realistic you will have 4 piledriver cores..

When encoding in on an intel, you will have 4 processes running at nearly identical loads, on an AMD you will have different loads per core this is because they are not running the cores at half potential to take on two threads.

Get the most out of a CPU and go with AMD, understandably you may think Intel is superior because of HyperThreading, but it simply is not, forcing a core to split its resources for two threads is not ideal, i'm glad Intel made actual octo cores, but they thread 16 cores out of it, i know you can turn off HyperThreading which would in turn mean those 8 cores are running at full potential as an 8 thread CPU. YES, Intel would be superior if they made ONLY 8 core 8 thread CPU's from the start, and to be honest if they weren't trying to cut corners i would go Intel too, but for them to shove their junk in my face claiming it can do this blah blah and then i see that thousand dollar price tag, its comical.

The missing knowledge make you look like a fool.
As I stated, Intels hyper-threading is using ressources that wouldn't be used. It's called been efficient.

Flagship to Flagship, thats all that matters, AMD is the only CPU setting clock speed records now-a-days anyways.
Flasgship Intel is the Core i7-4960X for purchase at its recommended box price of $1049 on Newegg

The Flagship AMD is the AMD FX-9590 which is on sale for $399 at Newegg

i noticed something from all these benchmarks, none of them unparked the AMD's cores... guess that means all results are null. However PassMark called the FX 8 cores series quad cores with logical pairs per core, Logical is what Intel does, not AMD, so these benchmarks are inaccurate from PassMark as AMD does not make Logical Cores.

so, vmN what are your 3DMarks?

rather than use your interwebs for facts, let us hear about your facts.

I never used Interwebs for fact I used knowledge, which also can be found on the internet.
I used experience, I have studied CPU, and have a education with computers and coding.
again fx modules share ressources, so they are "non-virtual"-hyper-threading.
AMD gave up their FX line at 8320. 8350 and the entire 9xxx series is just a overclocked 8320.
Intel charge more because they actually manufacturer their own products, which AMD isn't making enough money to do.
AMD used to manufacturer their own products, and at that time AMD and Intels prices where the same.

 

[Nafryti]

You do also know that FX cores modules share ressources right? Just like hyperthreading... so the realistic you will have 4 piledriver cores..

The missing knowledge make you look like a fool.
As I stated, Intels hyper-threading is using ressources that wouldn't be used. It's called been efficient.

I never used Interwebs for fact I used knowledge, which also can be found on the internet.
I used experience, I have studied CPU, and have a education with computers and coding.
again fx modules share ressources, so they are "non-virtual"-hyper-threading.
AMD gave up their FX line at 8320. 8350 and the entire 9xxx series is just a overclocked 8320.
Intel charge more because they actually manufacturer their own products, which AMD isn't making enough money to do.
AMD used to manufacturer their own products, and at that time AMD and Intels prices where the same.

used to, how long ago? you are slightly correct with AMD multicore technology, however where Intel shares the integer array, AMD has two separate arrays per core,

Hmm, i only see 4 cores in this i7-920 and on the die is a logic que that waits for open integer clusters to engage the process of the secondary thread, imitating a second core.

How that doesn't translate to faking cores i am unsure what is, and to debunk your yammering skull flap, here's the info about AMD Bulldozer architecture.

First the overall image of the Die, looks like a quad core chip, however, it is not, it is four Bulldozer modules, which hold the cores.

It is within the Bulldozer Module that the Cores are, hence why they are called four pairs of cores, NOT Hyper Threaded Cores.

the two cores per module add up to 8 total cores.

The Intel chip only has 4 total cores meaning the logical queue module on the Intel which halts processes until part of a core is available for a secondary thread to emulate extra cores really is the false facts you are intent on defending. I don't understand how it is so hard for you to accept, i have already stated how impressed i am with Intel for simulating octo cores with just quad cores, but admit it, their CPU's would be miles more advanced if they would cut the games and make a full fledged CPU core per thread, imagine the performance you could get out of the CPU using a core per thread, 100% devoted to its respectful thread rather than split 50 50...

yes you can disable Hyper Threading, but then you only have 4 cores, Bulldozer actually has 8 cores, though paired in modules they are still calculated down to a 1 to 1 ratio, where as intel is bogged down to 1 to 2, half the performance of a core per thread,

Enough of your false opinions! SIT DOWN.

 

[vmN]

used to, how long ago? you are slightly correct with AMD multicore technology, however where Intel shares the integer array, AMD has two separate arrays per core,

2009.
AMD's will win in a pure integer battle, as I said before, but that wont happend that often.
It's arranged with eight cores with a duo integer execution unit per core in order to match Intel's amount of integer
AMD have eight cores with duo integer execution per core, Intel have three execution ports AND FPU ports, only time AMD will win if it used all the integer ports(in this case).
But then again there are other ports where AMD piledriver really fall behind.

Hmm, i only see 4 cores in this i7-920 and on the die is a logic que that waits for open integer clusters to engage the process of the secondary thread, imitating a second core.
How that doesn't translate to faking cores i am unsure what is, and to debunk your yammering skull flap, here's the info about AMD Bulldozer architecture.

You googled something? As I dont quite get the first line, I think that simply is the general duty of the fetch if the decoder is busy. This will happend with every CPU.
Really, again you question it when I have answered this.
There is no "fake cores".
Normal core can only use 1 port per execute. Hyperthreading let you use 2, and a thread is nothing to do with the hardware and you cant see it.
See it like this: You have a worker, that can do 2 things at the same time, so he can do the job of 2 workers.
You wont call it having a "fake" worker would you?

First the overall image of the Die, looks like a quad core chip, however, it is not, it is four Bulldozer modules, which hold the cores.

It is within the Bulldozer Module that the Cores are, hence why they are called four pairs of cores, NOT Hyper Threaded Cores.

the two cores per module add up to 8 total cores.

The Intel chip only has 4 total cores meaning the logical queue module on the Intel which halts processes until part of a core is available for a secondary thread to emulate extra cores really is the false facts you are intent on defending. I don't understand how it is so hard for you to accept, i have already stated how impressed i am with Intel for simulating octo cores with just quad cores, but admit it, their CPU's would be miles more advanced if they would cut the games and make a full fledged CPU core per thread, imagine the performance you could get out of the CPU using a core per thread, 100% devoted to its respectful thread rather than split 50 50...

Again since you dont seem to understand what I'm trying to tell you.
AMD have 4 modules, each modules contain 2 cores. These 2 cores SHARE the ressources that are the module have. Just like hyperthreading share the ressource of that 1 core. So you can call it "non-vitual"-hyperthreading.
Intel hyperthreading IS NOT CUTTING IT IN HALF. Listen man, really.
read what I told you already that explain IT ALL. You will not gain the 50% per core if you turn off hyper-threading.

yes you can disable Hyper Threading, but then you only have 4 cores, Bulldozer actually has 8 cores, though paired in modules they are still calculated down to a 1 to 1 ratio, where as intel is bogged down to 1 to 2, half the performance of a core per thread,

Really this one AGAIN, try to open your eyes really.

 

[vmN]

Enough of your false opinions!

What is this?
I actually explain things, you simply dont listen.
You even went into googling stuff you clearly dont understand.
Non of what I told is false.
Do i really need to paint how hyper-threading work, it doesn't cut the core in half, and IS BY NO MEANS MASKING ITSELF.
All a computer can see is threads, it cannot see which one is real cores and cannot see which one is "fake" cores.

Also some common sense would help, but as I said, CPU is by no means easy to understand.

 

[vmN]

seriously what are you trying to get at? are you saying that Intel is bending the laws of physics? you say that intel is NOT emulating 8 cores over 4 physical cores, which would mean you are saying Intel is somehow making 4 more cores out of the only 4 cores on the chip, seriously, who are you kidding? load up the bios of your Motherboard and look at the 8 cores reported by the CPU with HyperThreading enabled. I am losing my patience. You insist that somehow you have painted the picture of Intel when you have done nothing of the sort but insult AMD repeatedly.

i said once already, Enough of your false opinions! How you managed to weasel your way up to CPU Master disgusts me! You claim to know CPU's however you have done nothing but ramble about how Hyper threading is not fake cores, but somehow mystical phantasms of real cores. You see clearly there are only 4 cores in the CPU yet you insist it is actually eight!

I decree you resign your CPUs Master status! As you have yet to understand Intel CPU's! Stating yourself that a "CPU is by no means easy to understand" when they are simple cuts of layered circuitry! Have you even thought to yourself, what you are saying?

okay I get tired of this shit, HOW CAN THE "EMULATE" ANOTHER CORE.
Computeres CANT SEE CORES, they can see threads. How have i insulted AMD? You kept going with false statement. I AM NOT SAYING INTEL CORE I7 4770(K) HAVE 8 CORES. IT HAVE 4 CORES, I NEVER SAID IT HAD 8.

all what you have provided have either been false or taken out of content from google.
I'll paint the function of hyperthreading, so people who clearly dont understand it yet, even so i have explained it, hopefully will understand it.

I got what I have deserved as I actually have proven true statement and have argued for and against both of intel and AMD, but this is getting out of hand.

Think logical, if hyperthreading simply cutted the core in half, how would that change any form of performance, will each core then run at half the clockspeed? no.

 

[vmN]

As seen in the first picture, a core will execute one port at a time, even so it have multiple ports, which then do nothing.

Here we see how hyperthreading works. It let another thread which use another port run at the same time, without interfering with the other port.
It's pretty much like a highway. Instead of having 8 highways it have 4 highways with 2 lanes.

 

[Nafryti]

you have done nothing but prove my point repeatedly, only you insist that i am speaking nonsense, i have told you repeatedly how HyperThreading works, it emulates cores over actual cores, fake cores, but using available overhead on the physical cores, think if the core weren't shared by two threads think if the computer were to have its full potential unleashed onto single threads at higher frequencies by spreading out the load broader on the core.

Rather than unleash their potential for high speed next generation computing. Intel felt it necessary to muzzle the CPU with a trick to emulate cores over physical cores, think about it! how many threads can HyperThreading alow through a single core? you may say just 2... wrong, if a core has enough bandwidth you can do as many as your heart desires, with the potential to thread 8 threads through a single core, THAT is HyperThreading. emulating cores over physical cores. Initially, a Thread was processed by a single core, one thread one core, but now, Intel has changed the rules, making a larger bandwidth core capable of handling two threads, but by doing that they have made one core appear to be two cores to the computer.

I say again, quit pretending to know what you are talking about, and stop your incessant opinionated ramblings.

Turn Hyper Threading off and over clock an Intel, YES that is epic.
However AMD has already managed the clocks with cores.

vmN, i do not condemn you though, as it may not be your fault, you seem like you have little experience with AMD FX CPU's and have been all too influenced by a barrage broken results, AMD suffers heavily from Windows 7. Windows 7 parks cores on Bulldozer based FX CPU's core parking is a wonderful method for saving power however, there is a glitch. Windows 7 is bugged to incorrectly handling this, it is supposedly fixed for Windows 8, but Windows 7 still suffers cores parked permanently. Disable core parking with the program seen HERE and then you pretty much unlock a better AMD FX CPU! My results in 3DMark have doubled thanks to having 4 more cores available to me! RESULTS HERE

Oh, by the way i'm still awaiting your results Admiral Procrastination.

 

[Nafryti]

interesting, just noticed my Turbo Core isn't 4.0Ghz... gimme a moment while i go and fix this...

 

[vmN]

you have done nothing but prove my point repeatedly, only you insist that i am speaking nonsense, i have told you repeatedly how HyperThreading works, it emulates cores over actual cores, fake cores, but using available overhead on the physical cores, think if the core weren't shared by two threads think if the computer were to have its full potential unleashed onto single threads at higher frequencies by spreading out the load broader on the core.

Hyper-threading doesn't effect the clockspeed, by that much.
You will always receive higher clockrate if you disable the other cores, this includes AMD too.

Rather than unleash their potential for high speed next generation computing. Intel felt it necessary to muzzle the CPU with a trick to emulate cores over physical cores, think about it! how many threads can HyperThreading alow through a single core? you may say just 2... wrong, if a core has enough bandwidth you can do as many as your heart desires, with the potential to thread 8 threads through a single core, THAT is HyperThreading. emulating cores over physical cores. Initially, a Thread was processed by a single core, one thread one core, but now, Intel has changed the rules, making a larger bandwidth core capable of handling two threads, but by doing that they have made one core appear to be two cores to the computer.

Hyper-threading is the closet we come to "next generation computing". A computer cannot see the difference between "emulated" cores and physocal cores. Only 2 threads would be stable to run on each core, as you are limited by the PORTS not speed.

You sound like the same people saying the government set up 9/11, and are refusing to listen to any logic what so ever.

I say again, quit pretending to know what you are talking about, and stop your incessant opinionated ramblings.

Turn Hyper Threading off and over clock an Intel, YES that is epic.
However AMD has already managed the clocks with cores.
Oh, by the way i'm still awaiting your results Admiral Procrastination.

Didn't you get the whole drawing thing?
If AMD was so much better, why arent they controlling the workstation market, as you said they do handle multitasking much better, which every server need. I havent seen a Server running with a AMD CPU for over a year now.

ofc you fear what you dont understand, that what every human would.

 

[Nafryti]

If AMD was so much better, why arent they controlling the workstation market,

Titan, case closed.

 

[vmN]

If AMD was so much better, why arent they controlling the workstation market,

Titan, case closed.

Titan as in the nVidia GPU?

 

[Nafryti]

If AMD was so much better, why arent they controlling the workstation market,

Titan, case closed.

Titan as in the nVidia GPU?

really? thats all you know about it? you completely shut out the AMD Opterons it uses?... OMG HE DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT TITAN!!

 

[Nafryti]

http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/titan/

 

[langoman]

you have done nothing but prove my point repeatedly, only you insist that i am speaking nonsense, i have told you repeatedly how HyperThreading works, it emulates cores over actual cores, fake cores, but using available overhead on the physical cores, think if the core weren't shared by two threads think if the computer were to have its full potential unleashed onto single threads at higher frequencies by spreading out the load broader on the core.

Hyper-threading doesn't effect the clockspeed, by that much.
You will always receive higher clockrate if you disable the other cores, this includes AMD too.

Rather than unleash their potential for high speed next generation computing. Intel felt it necessary to muzzle the CPU with a trick to emulate cores over physical cores, think about it! how many threads can HyperThreading alow through a single core? you may say just 2... wrong, if a core has enough bandwidth you can do as many as your heart desires, with the potential to thread 8 threads through a single core, THAT is HyperThreading. emulating cores over physical cores. Initially, a Thread was processed by a single core, one thread one core, but now, Intel has changed the rules, making a larger bandwidth core capable of handling two threads, but by doing that they have made one core appear to be two cores to the computer.

Hyper-threading is the closet we come to "next generation computing". A computer cannot see the difference between "emulated" cores and physocal cores. Only 2 threads would be stable to run on each core, as you are limited by the PORTS not speed.

You sound like the same people saying the government set up 9/11, and are refusing to listen to any logic what so ever.

I say again, quit pretending to know what you are talking about, and stop your incessant opinionated ramblings.

Turn Hyper Threading off and over clock an Intel, YES that is epic.
However AMD has already managed the clocks with cores.
Oh, by the way i'm still awaiting your results Admiral Procrastination.

Didn't you get the whole drawing thing?
If AMD was so much better, why arent they controlling the workstation market, as you said they do handle multitasking much better, which every server need. I havent seen a Server running with a AMD CPU for over a year now.

ofc you fear what you dont understand, that what every human would.

I just upgraded my desktop last December and I'm very happy with the i7-4770K, beside it does not have special instructions for Virtual Machines like others Intel versions have (i.e. 4770 and 4771), but it´s unlocked for overclocking.

My suggestion is to buy a good cooler, because the Intel ones are like gifts, and didn't passed on my stress test using Prime95.
And No, I didn't overclocked it. Now I'm waiting for the Noctua NH-U14S Heatpipe 140mm CPU Cooler to stress the i7-4770k again.

I´m also waiting for the arrival of 16GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-17000 2133MHz RipjawsX Series for test together with i7-4770k at Prime95.

Another suggestions are:
- buy a good DDR3 memory;
- got the best SSD you can;

In my opinion, Samsung 840 PRO is the best one!

My current config is a Intel i7-4770k in a Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD3H. 4x4GB Corsair Ven. DDR3 1600MHz.
For the Graphics card, I bought the best option last year (price/fps): HIS HD7950 3GB DDR5 Boost IceQ.
Running Windows 8.1 at SSD Samsung 840 EVO 250GB and another HD Seagate 3TB for Steam/Libraries.

Good Luck with your system upgrade!

 

[vmN]

I just upgraded my desktop last December and I'm very happy with the i7-4770K, beside it does not have special instructions for Virtual Machines like others Intel versions have (i.e. 4770 and 4771), but it´s unlocked for overclocking.

My suggestion is to buy a good cooler, because the Intel ones are like gifts, and didn't passed on my stress test using Prime95.
And No, I didn't overclocked it. Now I'm waiting for the Noctua NH-U14S Heatpipe 140mm CPU Cooler to stress the i7-4770k again.

I´m also waiting for the arrival of 16GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-17000 2133MHz RipjawsX Series for test together with i7-4770k at Prime95.

Another suggestions are:
- buy a good DDR3 memory;
- got the best SSD you can;

In my opinion, Samsung 840 PRO is the best one!

My current config is a Intel i7-4770k in a Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD3H. 4x4GB Corsair Ven. DDR3 1600MHz.
For the Graphics card, I bought the best option last year (price/fps): HIS HD7950 3GB DDR5 Boost IceQ.
Running Windows 8.1 at SSD Samsung 840 EVO 250GB and another HD Seagate 3TB for Steam/Libraries.

Good Luck with your system upgrade!

Even through not many applications use the TSX extension, it's still annoying its not there.
But I remember awhile back, reading that the TSX extension actually didn't give any real performance increase? Can someone correct me, as I havent followed up on it.

 

[WindowsTechnician]

For high end animation purpose, which is better, AMD or Intel-3rd gen?

Intel, AMD I would say is better for internet. Intel is a lot better. Also consider how much animation you are doing. The intel would be best.


Thanks
Lewis

 

[vmN]

For high end animation purpose, which is better, AMD or Intel-3rd gen?

Intel, AMD I would say is better for internet.
Lewis

you will have to clarify that.

 

[Deleted member 362816]

For the price get a good soild card. I don't think it will matter much for the cpu as long as you get a decent one. I would stick with a 8350 you can get it allot cheaper then intels options.

 

[RobCrezz]

Back on topic : To the op, Check if the software you are using can be GPU accellerated, as if it can than the best performance will come from a powerful GPU, in which case either mid-high AMD or Intel CPU will be fine.

 

[vmN]

I do believe OP has chosen which CPU he went with.
OP budget allowed a 8320 or an i3.
So the 8320 will perform better for those task.

 

[langoman]

About Intel i7-4770K TSX technology comparisson with locked:

http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/456300

Hope it helps to clear any doubt. Everything is connected to the use.

What kind of applications the desktop/workstation will be designed for?

 

[Diwiak]

AMD. can overclocks easily which will get you to same performance as intel, for less money. intel is for gays ;-0