- Feb 14, 2014
- 910
- 0
- 11,360
EDIT: some people pointed out that comparing clock-for-clock thermals and not similar performance thermals was not a great comparison. So I've included a similar performance thermal comparison immediately following the existing clock-for-clock comparison
I've seen too much false information in regards to AMD vs. Intel flying around here lately, so let's see if we can't put to bed some of the myths.
I didn't cherry-pick any of the following benchmarks to prove my point, and although performance differs between the two from benchmark to benchmark, I selected benchmarks indicative of the gaming landscape as it stands right now.
MYTH: AMD runs hotter than Intel
FACT: On a per clock basis, AMD actually runs cooler than Intel BUT it does draw more power, which I guess it where the myth came from.
EVIDENCE: Intel Core i7 4770k clocked at 4.8GHz runs at 93°C load (high-end air cooling)
AMD FX-8320 clocked at 4.8GHz runs at 55°C load (low-end Corsair H60 water cooling)
Similar Performance Thermal Comparison
At stock 3.7GHz the 4770k (lots of people here agree that to get stock 4770k performance out of an FX-8xxx you'd have to overclock the FX in the neighborhood of 4.8GHz--so this is essentially comparing similar performance instead of clock speed) runs at 78°C max load on an NZXT Havik 140:
which is directly comparable to the H60 that I use on my 8320 according to this:
So my 8320 at 4.8GHz more or less equals the performance of the 4770k at stock, and it runs at 55°C max load versus the 4770k's 78°C max load (both were tested with Linx-AVX) with directly comparable cooling solutions--again Intel runs hotter, on a clock-for-clock basis and a similar performance basis.
MYTH: AMD is dramatically slower than Intel in game performance
FACT: AMD frequently falls behind Intel in gaming benchmarks that is true, but never so far that a game becomes unplayable on AMD--even in the worst cases, AMD maintains more-than-playable frame rates.
EVIDENCE: Intel Core i7 4770k runs Civ5 @ 1440p Max Settings (Radeon 7970) at 85fps
AMD FX-8350 runs Civ5 @ 1440p Max Settings (Radeon 7970) at 71fps
A difference of 14fps and both are well north of the desired 60fps threshold.
Intel Core i7 4770k runs Crysis 2 (DX11) at 1920x1200 Max Settings at 97fps
AMD FX-8350 runs Crysis 2 (DX11) at 1920x1200 Max settings at 85fps
A difference of 12fps and, again, both are well north of 60fps.
There are some rare instances, such as Skyrim which is heavily dependant upon single-core performance, where the performance delta between the two are much wider, but even in those instances AMD puts out more-than-playable numbers:
Intel Core i7 3770k runs Skyrim @ 1080p Ultra Settings (Radeon 7970) at 107fps
AMD FX-8350 runs Skyrim @ 1080- Ultra Settings (Radeon 7970) at 70fps
A big difference of 37fps, but both are able to maintain above 60fps.
MYTH: AMD will bottleneck a multi-GPU setup
FACT: AMD FX and Intel i5/i7 have more than enough power to push frames to a multi-GPU configuration
EVIDENCE: Intel i7 3770k with SLI GTX 680s puts out 162fps in Battlefield 3 Ultra 1080p
AMD FX-8350 with SLI GTX 680s puts out 150fps in Battlefield 3 Ultra 1080p
A difference of 12fps and both are way more than you'd need for a smooth, responsive gameplay experience.
Intel i7 3770k with Crossfire 7970s puts out 77fps in Battlefield 3 Ultra 1080p
AMD FX-8350 with Crossfire 7970s puts out 75fps in Battlefield 3 Ultra 1080p
A difference of a mere 2fps, both above 60fps.
Those are the three biggest myths that have been bugging me and there are more, but I feel better having cleared these up.
I'll leave you with some basic, no-nonsense facts about AMD and Intel performance:
FACT: Intel has better single-threaded/single-core performance than AMD
FACT: AMD has just as good, and sometimes better, multi-threaded/multi-core performance as Intel
FACT: AMD FX draws more power than Intel i5/i7
FACT: The bottom line is that both AMD FX and Intel i5/i7 are fantastic CPUs that are more than capable for even the most demanding gaming scenarios--Intel is the all-around speed king, but AMD is no slouch and is frequently right there with Intel or not very far behind.
So enough with the Intel vs. AMD infighting, they aren't that different after all and neither will let you down when it comes to gaming
I've seen too much false information in regards to AMD vs. Intel flying around here lately, so let's see if we can't put to bed some of the myths.
I didn't cherry-pick any of the following benchmarks to prove my point, and although performance differs between the two from benchmark to benchmark, I selected benchmarks indicative of the gaming landscape as it stands right now.
MYTH: AMD runs hotter than Intel
FACT: On a per clock basis, AMD actually runs cooler than Intel BUT it does draw more power, which I guess it where the myth came from.
EVIDENCE: Intel Core i7 4770k clocked at 4.8GHz runs at 93°C load (high-end air cooling)
AMD FX-8320 clocked at 4.8GHz runs at 55°C load (low-end Corsair H60 water cooling)
Similar Performance Thermal Comparison
At stock 3.7GHz the 4770k (lots of people here agree that to get stock 4770k performance out of an FX-8xxx you'd have to overclock the FX in the neighborhood of 4.8GHz--so this is essentially comparing similar performance instead of clock speed) runs at 78°C max load on an NZXT Havik 140:
which is directly comparable to the H60 that I use on my 8320 according to this:
So my 8320 at 4.8GHz more or less equals the performance of the 4770k at stock, and it runs at 55°C max load versus the 4770k's 78°C max load (both were tested with Linx-AVX) with directly comparable cooling solutions--again Intel runs hotter, on a clock-for-clock basis and a similar performance basis.
MYTH: AMD is dramatically slower than Intel in game performance
FACT: AMD frequently falls behind Intel in gaming benchmarks that is true, but never so far that a game becomes unplayable on AMD--even in the worst cases, AMD maintains more-than-playable frame rates.
EVIDENCE: Intel Core i7 4770k runs Civ5 @ 1440p Max Settings (Radeon 7970) at 85fps
AMD FX-8350 runs Civ5 @ 1440p Max Settings (Radeon 7970) at 71fps
A difference of 14fps and both are well north of the desired 60fps threshold.
Intel Core i7 4770k runs Crysis 2 (DX11) at 1920x1200 Max Settings at 97fps
AMD FX-8350 runs Crysis 2 (DX11) at 1920x1200 Max settings at 85fps
A difference of 12fps and, again, both are well north of 60fps.
There are some rare instances, such as Skyrim which is heavily dependant upon single-core performance, where the performance delta between the two are much wider, but even in those instances AMD puts out more-than-playable numbers:
Intel Core i7 3770k runs Skyrim @ 1080p Ultra Settings (Radeon 7970) at 107fps
AMD FX-8350 runs Skyrim @ 1080- Ultra Settings (Radeon 7970) at 70fps
A big difference of 37fps, but both are able to maintain above 60fps.
MYTH: AMD will bottleneck a multi-GPU setup
FACT: AMD FX and Intel i5/i7 have more than enough power to push frames to a multi-GPU configuration
EVIDENCE: Intel i7 3770k with SLI GTX 680s puts out 162fps in Battlefield 3 Ultra 1080p
AMD FX-8350 with SLI GTX 680s puts out 150fps in Battlefield 3 Ultra 1080p
A difference of 12fps and both are way more than you'd need for a smooth, responsive gameplay experience.
Intel i7 3770k with Crossfire 7970s puts out 77fps in Battlefield 3 Ultra 1080p
AMD FX-8350 with Crossfire 7970s puts out 75fps in Battlefield 3 Ultra 1080p
A difference of a mere 2fps, both above 60fps.
Those are the three biggest myths that have been bugging me and there are more, but I feel better having cleared these up.
I'll leave you with some basic, no-nonsense facts about AMD and Intel performance:
FACT: Intel has better single-threaded/single-core performance than AMD
FACT: AMD has just as good, and sometimes better, multi-threaded/multi-core performance as Intel
FACT: AMD FX draws more power than Intel i5/i7
FACT: The bottom line is that both AMD FX and Intel i5/i7 are fantastic CPUs that are more than capable for even the most demanding gaming scenarios--Intel is the all-around speed king, but AMD is no slouch and is frequently right there with Intel or not very far behind.
So enough with the Intel vs. AMD infighting, they aren't that different after all and neither will let you down when it comes to gaming
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram