AMD vs Intel?

[LookItsRain]

The 8320 is the best bang for the buck.

 

[Zircoben]

the trinity cores in your a10 are true cores each with their own resources and cache... its a true quad core.

Thank you! I'm glad I have a real quad core.

Intel really is the better choice for 95% percent of instances. The only exceptions might be a dirt-cheap HTPC with an Athlon 5350 APU maybe, and maybe... can't think of anything else. Agree?

After this thread, I really want to dump my brand new AMD build... Thank you for all the input!

A10-7850K has a high performance/price ratio with its current price of $180. GPU wise, it matches R7 250 if you paired it up with a 2133Mhz RAM, especially after the latest driver 14.4 driver. Now if you pair up a i3 4130 ($125) and a r7 250 ($80), it sums up to a $205, which has similar graphics performance but weaker cpu performance. Thus Kaveri APUs is a good option for low budget PC. And it even consume similar or less power than a i3 + discrete GPU. But these only held true for the latest Kaveri line of APUs, not its predecessor. I'll not recommend any older gen of APUs even for low budget build.

Wait... why is A10-7850K so much better than previous generations? The benchmarks aren't far off from my 5800K to the 7850K and I saved $70 by getting the 5800K.

That is a very good point, though, about the prices. At the low end, AMD really does provide very good options because of their significantly superior graphics, that are actually USABLE!

 

[Zircoben]

The 8320 is the best bang for the buck.

Very true, and I think that even the biggest Intel fanboys can't dispute that. For $150 you are getting a processor that does about the same as an i7 ($310) in mutlit-hreaded tasks. At the $150 price point, it destroys Intel in video editing and stuff, but when it comes to gaming and single-threaded tasks, it becomes a bit more iffy. If you can splurge $50 on an i5, that really is a better processor than the FX-8320.

 

[LookItsRain]

The 8320 is the best bang for the buck.

Very true, and I think that even the biggest Intel fanboys can't dispute that. For $150 you are getting a processor that does about the same as an i7 ($310) in mutlit-hreaded tasks. At the $150 price point, it destroys Intel in video editing and stuff, but when it comes to gaming and single-threaded tasks, it becomes a bit more iffy. If you can splurge $50 on an i5, that really is a better processor than the FX-8320.

Even then, you will only see maybe 10 fps diffrence between the two, and if your already above 50 or 60 fps, it does not really matter at that point. The extra cores also allow you to have other programs open without drawing on the cores running the game, plus its overclockable at a lower price point.

 

[Zircoben]

The 8320 is the best bang for the buck.

Very true, and I think that even the biggest Intel fanboys can't dispute that. For $150 you are getting a processor that does about the same as an i7 ($310) in mutlit-hreaded tasks. At the $150 price point, it destroys Intel in video editing and stuff, but when it comes to gaming and single-threaded tasks, it becomes a bit more iffy. If you can splurge $50 on an i5, that really is a better processor than the FX-8320.

Even then, you will only see maybe 10 fps diffrence between the two, and if your already above 50 or 60 fps, it does not really matter at that point. The extra cores also allow you to have other programs open without drawing on the cores running the game, plus its overclockable at a lower price point.

Still in my opinion, AMD CPUs are like big fat sumos that eats a ton and have a huge 8-fingered fist, just to fight a stronger and littler ninja dude (with four fingers on his fist) that in the end beats the sumo. Maybe AMD is better for the price point, and it really is (as long as your electricity is cheap...) but Intel in all respects is better in the end.

 

[LookItsRain]

The 8320 is the best bang for the buck.

Very true, and I think that even the biggest Intel fanboys can't dispute that. For $150 you are getting a processor that does about the same as an i7 ($310) in mutlit-hreaded tasks. At the $150 price point, it destroys Intel in video editing and stuff, but when it comes to gaming and single-threaded tasks, it becomes a bit more iffy. If you can splurge $50 on an i5, that really is a better processor than the FX-8320.

Even then, you will only see maybe 10 fps diffrence between the two, and if your already above 50 or 60 fps, it does not really matter at that point. The extra cores also allow you to have other programs open without drawing on the cores running the game, plus its overclockable at a lower price point.

Still in my opinion, AMD CPUs are like big fat sumos that eats a ton and have a huge 8-fingered fist, just to fight a stronger and littler ninja dude (with four fingers on his fist) that in the end beats the sumo. Maybe AMD is better for the price point, and it really is (as long as your electricity is cheap...) but Intel in all respects is better in the end.

If intel would introduce an overclockable low end chip then they would have a bit more control on the lower end market. Im looking forward to this new OC pentium ive heard about.
But, for the price points, AMD can not be beat, but remove price points, intel hulk smashes.

 

[Zircoben]

The 8320 is the best bang for the buck.

Very true, and I think that even the biggest Intel fanboys can't dispute that. For $150 you are getting a processor that does about the same as an i7 ($310) in mutlit-hreaded tasks. At the $150 price point, it destroys Intel in video editing and stuff, but when it comes to gaming and single-threaded tasks, it becomes a bit more iffy. If you can splurge $50 on an i5, that really is a better processor than the FX-8320.

Even then, you will only see maybe 10 fps diffrence between the two, and if your already above 50 or 60 fps, it does not really matter at that point. The extra cores also allow you to have other programs open without drawing on the cores running the game, plus its overclockable at a lower price point.

Still in my opinion, AMD CPUs are like big fat sumos that eats a ton and have a huge 8-fingered fist, just to fight a stronger and littler ninja dude (with four fingers on his fist) that in the end beats the sumo. Maybe AMD is better for the price point, and it really is (as long as your electricity is cheap...) but Intel in all respects is better in the end.

If intel would introduce and over clockable low end chip then they would have a bit more control on the lower end market. Im looking forward to this new OC pentium ive heard about.
But, for the price points, AMD can not be beat, but remove price points, intel hulk smashes.

Agreed. My A10-5800K APU is spectacular at the price I paid for. $110 got me a CPU about the same as an i3 ($130) and a GPU of an R7 240 ($60). I still wish I went for an Intel i5 system, but for 90% of normal people out there, an APU is probably the best deal. I can't believe how awesome they are and it's too bad noone buys them.

 

[Vitric9]

I see this question 10 times a day......Like any CPU it depends....I did not read any posts in this thread... sorry

 

[LookItsRain]

I think no one buys the APUs because you are stuck with a socket with no good upgrade path for higher end gaming.

 

[Zircoben]

I think no one buys the APUs because you are stuck with a socket with no good upgrade path for higher end gaming.

Yeah. So true. I feel so limited by the FM2+ socket i'm at, because they probably won't ever release anything better than a mediocre quad core. It's awesome for the folks who don't care though.

 

[LookItsRain]

I think no one buys the APUs because you are stuck with a socket with no good upgrade path for higher end gaming.

Yeah. So true. I feel so limited by the FM2+ socket i'm at, because they probably won't ever release anything better than a mediocre quad core. It's awesome for the folks who don't care though.

Tthe 7850k is by no means mediocre, but the price of the iGPU tacked on to the processor is what makes it not good, sell the 7850k for around 130 bucks, and you would literally own that market.

Im waiting for AMD to get smart and upgrade thier fx line with steamroller.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-4350-vs-AMD-A10-7850K

 

[revanchrist]

the trinity cores in your a10 are true cores each with their own resources and cache... its a true quad core.

Thank you! I'm glad I have a real quad core.

Intel really is the better choice for 95% percent of instances. The only exceptions might be a dirt-cheap HTPC with an Athlon 5350 APU maybe, and maybe... can't think of anything else. Agree?

After this thread, I really want to dump my brand new AMD build... Thank you for all the input!

A10-7850K has a high performance/price ratio with its current price of $180. GPU wise, it matches R7 250 if you paired it up with a 2133Mhz RAM, especially after the latest driver 14.4 driver. Now if you pair up a i3 4130 ($125) and a r7 250 ($80), it sums up to a $205, which has similar graphics performance but weaker cpu performance. Thus Kaveri APUs is a good option for low budget PC. And it even consume similar or less power than a i3 + discrete GPU. But these only held true for the latest Kaveri line of APUs, not its predecessor. I'll not recommend any older gen of APUs even for low budget build.

Wait... why is A10-7850K so much better than previous generations? The benchmarks aren't far off from my 5800K to the 7850K and I saved $70 by getting the 5800K.

That is a very good point, though, about the prices. At the low end, AMD really does provide very good options because of their significantly superior graphics, that are actually USABLE!

http://blackholetec.com/drupal7/article/amd-a10-7850k-kaveri-review-page-1

http://hardware-360.com/amd-kaveri-evolution-progress/

 

[Zircoben]

the trinity cores in your a10 are true cores each with their own resources and cache... its a true quad core.

Thank you! I'm glad I have a real quad core.

Intel really is the better choice for 95% percent of instances. The only exceptions might be a dirt-cheap HTPC with an Athlon 5350 APU maybe, and maybe... can't think of anything else. Agree?

After this thread, I really want to dump my brand new AMD build... Thank you for all the input!

A10-7850K has a high performance/price ratio with its current price of $180. GPU wise, it matches R7 250 if you paired it up with a 2133Mhz RAM, especially after the latest driver 14.4 driver. Now if you pair up a i3 4130 ($125) and a r7 250 ($80), it sums up to a $205, which has similar graphics performance but weaker cpu performance. Thus Kaveri APUs is a good option for low budget PC. And it even consume similar or less power than a i3 + discrete GPU. But these only held true for the latest Kaveri line of APUs, not its predecessor. I'll not recommend any older gen of APUs even for low budget build.

Wait... why is A10-7850K so much better than previous generations? The benchmarks aren't far off from my 5800K to the 7850K and I saved $70 by getting the 5800K.

That is a very good point, though, about the prices. At the low end, AMD really does provide very good options because of their significantly superior graphics, that are actually USABLE!

http://blackholetec.com/drupal7/article/amd-a10-7850k-kaveri-review-page-1

http://hardware-360.com/amd-kaveri-evolution-progress/

Interesting... is that because of Steamroller?

 

[sapperastro]

The latest gen AMD cpu's have the full amount of cores, as stated. The one difference is the Floating Point Unit. 2 cores share 1 floating point unit, whereas in normal cpu configs, it is a one for one basis (one core paired with one floating point unit). They are weaker than the Intel, but still good enough, especially for the money. The best performance for dollar chip is currently the FX 6300.

Trinity uses the module system above; 2 cores using one floating point unit. Trinity is a piledriver based chip, same as the FX cpus. Only difference is that it has a igpu and no L3 cache, so the FX chips are better performers. Trinity, Richland, Kaveri, Vishera, Zambezi...are all Bulldozer, Piledriver or Steamroller CPUs.

What do I think of them? As above. I think they are fine. I have an I5 haswell system, but after witnessing friends computers with FX 6300s and the like, I honestly wouldn't care too much if my PC shat itself tomorrow, and my only option was an AMD FX piledriver system to replace it. I didn't see anything to complain about performance wise, and they haven't been overclocked as yet.

Probably burn a bit more power, but the difference is only lightbulb type wattages between them....not enough to care.

 

[Syamantak]

Intel is the better one by a far margin.Unless you don't intend to buy a Graphics Card,Intel is the better choice.AMD stands for Raw Power.Believe me I've used FX-4100 and G630.G630 is better in every aspect other than inbuilt graphics and video/photo editing.

 

[sapperastro]

I think you have something mixed up a little there Syamantak...the FX 4100 doesn't have an igpu for starters. As for the rest, I would imagine the difference between them is so small as to not worry about which one you had. ie, they both suck.

And as I stated before, I haven't seen a big enough real world difference between my i5 haswell machine and an FX 6300 system to cry a river if I had to take the AMD machine for some strange reason. I like my intel, but after witnessing the old AMD in action, they certainly are not as bad as everyone likes to make out. Looks a lot worse on those graphs you see on the internet 😉

 

[Zircoben]

I think you have something mixed up a little there Syamantak...the FX 4100 doesn't have an igpu for starters. As for the rest, I would imagine the difference between them is so small as to not worry about which one you had. ie, they both suck.

And as I stated before, I haven't seen a big enough real world difference between my i5 haswell machine and an FX 6300 system to cry a river if I had to take the AMD machine for some strange reason. I like my intel, but after witnessing the old AMD in action, they certainly are not as bad as everyone likes to make out. Looks a lot worse on those graphs you see on the internet 😉

You probably don't notice a difference between the 6300 and the i5 because you didn't put it under load. Once you stick a high-end GPU to it and run it at 100% the Intel WILL DESTROY the 6300.

 

[sapperastro]

I think you have something mixed up a little there Syamantak...the FX 4100 doesn't have an igpu for starters. As for the rest, I would imagine the difference between them is so small as to not worry about which one you had. ie, they both suck.

And as I stated before, I haven't seen a big enough real world difference between my i5 haswell machine and an FX 6300 system to cry a river if I had to take the AMD machine for some strange reason. I like my intel, but after witnessing the old AMD in action, they certainly are not as bad as everyone likes to make out. Looks a lot worse on those graphs you see on the internet 😉

You probably don't notice a difference between the 6300 and the i5 because you didn't put it under load. Once you stick a high-end GPU to it and run it at 100% the Intel WILL DESTROY the 6300.

Beat yes. Destroy, no. As I said, I have seen plenty of examples, and that includes under load where my friend is playing cpu demanding games. I think you are under the misunderstanding that I think the 6300 can BEAT an I5 haswell. I didn't mean that at all. I meant that the 6300, from everything I have seen, is not 'worlds' apart from the I5, and is a pretty bloody good performer for its cost.

 

[Zircoben]

I think you have something mixed up a little there Syamantak...the FX 4100 doesn't have an igpu for starters. As for the rest, I would imagine the difference between them is so small as to not worry about which one you had. ie, they both suck.

And as I stated before, I haven't seen a big enough real world difference between my i5 haswell machine and an FX 6300 system to cry a river if I had to take the AMD machine for some strange reason. I like my intel, but after witnessing the old AMD in action, they certainly are not as bad as everyone likes to make out. Looks a lot worse on those graphs you see on the internet 😉

You probably don't notice a difference between the 6300 and the i5 because you didn't put it under load. Once you stick a high-end GPU to it and run it at 100% the Intel WILL DESTROY the 6300.

Beat yes. Destroy, no. As I said, I have seen plenty of examples, and that includes under load where my friend is playing cpu demanding games. I think you are under the misunderstanding that I think the 6300 can BEAT an I5 haswell. I didn't mean that at all. I meant that the 6300, from everything I have seen, is not 'worlds' apart from the I5, and is a pretty bloody good performer for its cost.

Yeah I probably got too excited I've seen the 6300 on sale for $110 before which is very compelling. I just don't think I could build a computer with such an inefficient CPU in a dead socket.

Do you think AMD is ever going to release any more FX's? I want to see more competition again.

 

[revanchrist]

I think you have something mixed up a little there Syamantak...the FX 4100 doesn't have an igpu for starters. As for the rest, I would imagine the difference between them is so small as to not worry about which one you had. ie, they both suck.

And as I stated before, I haven't seen a big enough real world difference between my i5 haswell machine and an FX 6300 system to cry a river if I had to take the AMD machine for some strange reason. I like my intel, but after witnessing the old AMD in action, they certainly are not as bad as everyone likes to make out. Looks a lot worse on those graphs you see on the internet 😉

You probably don't notice a difference between the 6300 and the i5 because you didn't put it under load. Once you stick a high-end GPU to it and run it at 100% the Intel WILL DESTROY the 6300.

Beat yes. Destroy, no. As I said, I have seen plenty of examples, and that includes under load where my friend is playing cpu demanding games. I think you are under the misunderstanding that I think the 6300 can BEAT an I5 haswell. I didn't mean that at all. I meant that the 6300, from everything I have seen, is not 'worlds' apart from the I5, and is a pretty bloody good performer for its cost.

Yeah I probably got too excited I've seen the 6300 on sale for $110 before which is very compelling. I just don't think I could build a computer with such an inefficient CPU in a dead socket.

Do you think AMD is ever going to release any more FX's? I want to see more competition again.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6300+Six-Core&id=1781
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4430+%40+3.00GHz&id=1924

Low Performance/watt.
High Performance/price.
Add in overclockability, i think the numbers speak for themselves.

 

[vmN]

The latest gen AMD cpu's have the full amount of cores, as stated. The one difference is the Floating Point Unit. 2 cores share 1 floating point unit, whereas in normal cpu configs, it is a one for one basis (one core paired with one floating point unit). They are weaker than the Intel, but still good enough, especially for the money. The best performance for dollar chip is currently the FX 6300.

Trinity uses the module system above; 2 cores using one floating point unit. Trinity is a piledriver based chip, same as the FX cpus. Only difference is that it has a igpu and no L3 cache, so the FX chips are better performers. Trinity, Richland, Kaveri, Vishera, Zambezi...are all Bulldozer, Piledriver or Steamroller CPUs.

What do I think of them? As above. I think they are fine. I have an I5 haswell system, but after witnessing friends computers with FX 6300s and the like, I honestly wouldn't care too much if my PC shat itself tomorrow, and my only option was an AMD FX piledriver system to replace it. I didn't see anything to complain about performance wise, and they haven't been overclocked as yet.

Probably burn a bit more power, but the difference is only lightbulb type wattages between them....not enough to care.

Bulldozer and it's family, is using an architecture technology called CMT. This is what AMD calls modules.
The fx 8350 is a 4 module CPU.

A module "holds" 2 cores. These cores are sharing more than just the SIMD. They are also sharing the entire frontend. (This changed with steamroller, adding extra decoders to the mix).

 

[sapperastro]

Yes, but I was just trying to cut through the 'AMD don't have real cores!' rhetoric, along with the 'Trinity have real cores not like FX!' rubbish. If people wish to delve into the makeup of the bulldozer microarchitecture, then starting with the Wiki page is a nice easy way to begin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitecture%29