Why are Intel considered better than AMD

[Guest]

Might seem stupid question to some but why does are Intel better than AMD CPU's?
Ive heard people say stuff like "amd 4 core = Intel 2 core" and stuff like that and can't seem to figure it out. By the looks of things amd looks better with cheaper prices and more CPUs with higher stock speeds than intels . please help!

 

[Arronleeds]

basically amd processors have more cores, but these cores are like a class of underachievers so to say, so its like putting say 6 underachievers vs 4 top class students, its only when you push amd cpus they start to shine (a little), i went from an amd fx-6300 to an intel i7 4790 and what can i say, worlds apart. most games dont use more than 2-4 cores and because intel cores are more powerful, they excel. amd processors are said to be better for things like rendering etc.

 

[Thaisnang]

Intel are considered better than AMD because they are currently doing better than AMD in CPU market. Intel has better chipsets while AMD on the other hand has inferior chips but higher clocks and haven't put anything new on the CPU market since the last few years.

 

[RunLuke]

My friend made thins analogy, which I've always liked:

AMD is a cardboard box, Intel is a wooden box. You can fit the same stuff in it and move it around, but if you stand on the cardboard box it'll break.

 

[Arronleeds]

indeed, they are lighter wont hurt your back as much

 

[bmacsys]

basically amd processors have more cores, but these cores are like a class of underachievers so to say, so its like putting say 6 underachievers vs 4 top class students, its only when you push amd cpus they start to shine (a little), i went from an amd fx-6300 to an intel i7 4790 and what can i say, worlds apart. most games dont use more than 2-4 cores and because intel cores are more powerful, they excel. amd processors are said to be better for things like rendering etc.

Comparing an $299 cpu to at $100 cpu is a terrible way to go about things.

 

[bmacsys]

My friend made thins analogy, which I've always liked:

AMD is a cardboard box, Intel is a wooden box. You can fit the same stuff in it and move it around, but if you stand on the cardboard box it'll break.

That analogy is quite frankly terrible. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[RunLuke]

It was from back in the day when AMD processors caught fire. Step on it: Overload it. Makes sense to me.

 

[Arronleeds]

wtf you on about :s does it say we are comparing a cheap amd to an expensive intel? no it doesnt, the fx 9590 for example is terrible, it uses so much power and generates so much heat, that your bills are gonna be huge and then you have to buy a cooler like the h100i. that processor goes for about the same price as an i7 4770k and which is better? oh its the i7 4770k, reason being, less wattage taken, better single core performance, doesnt need a an expensive cooler and is better for gaming, dno about rendering but yeah, point proven.

 

[Arronleeds]

look here http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-9590, turns out the 9590 may have gone down in price but still.

 

[bmacsys]

wtf you on about :s does it say we are comparing a cheap amd to an expensive intel? no it doesnt, the fx 9590 for example is terrible, it uses so much power and generates so much heat, that your bills are gonna be huge and then you have to buy a cooler like the h100i. that processor goes for about the same price as an i7 4770k and which is better? oh its the i7 4770k, reason being, less wattage taken, better single core performance, doesnt need a an expensive cooler and is better for gaming, dno about rendering but yeah, point proven.

So what were you comparing? Brands of detergent? Lol!

"Arronleeds said:
basically amd processors have more cores, but these cores are like a class of underachievers so to say, so its like putting say 6 underachievers vs 4 top class students, its only when you push amd cpus they start to shine (a little), i went from an amd fx-6300 to an intel i7 4790 and what can i say, worlds apart. most games dont use more than 2-4 cores and because intel cores are more powerful, they excel. amd processors are said to be better for things like rendering etc.

 

[core_dumped]

Cray is the top computer company that provides the U.S military with super computers as you see here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehCgG9yZQmg

They are all Opterons is not by luck as they are the best. For a desktop you start with around 115 watts heat load each so we speak about 1600 watts PSU needed. You luck of knowledge what a RISC cpu means

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opteron

 

[RunLuke]

Do you know how government agencies and the military choose suppliers?

The cheapest.

 

[core_dumped]

count the threads between xeon and Opteron:

http://www.eofw.org/bench/

 

[synphul]

We're also talking about opterons in a very task specific scenario where their features make sense. Desktop pc's, gaming pc's and home workstations aren't cray computers. A caterpillar will out pull your ford pickup any day, are you going to drive it to get mcd's? Probably not. It's probably only feasible in one specific field of work.

I feel with the mention of opterons and the cray there's a 'yea, but will it play crysis' joke buried in there somewhere.

 

[synphul]

On a side note, after checking the link core_dumped provided - as they said, yes opterons have lots of threads. 96 compared to the xeon with only 8 threads. If I read it correctly, the xeon with 1/12th the thread count and about 70-80% of the ram available to the opteron STILL rendered the test in just 2/3 the time? Gonna need more opterons to get 'er done. Sort of the same basic idea that carries down through the line to the more casual desktop solutions. Amd has all kinds of cores and threads and whatnot going on and intel still manages to outperform with less. Their efficiency in terms of raw power per clock can't be ignored on pretty much any level, wave all the cores and threads amd wants to at it.

 

[Arronleeds]

What the hell are you guys on about lol,you've gone all technical on my ass .

 

[Arronleeds]

That's a Lot of processors :O how much would that cost, Jeeze

 

[core_dumped]

It took 2 new xeons at 3800MHz to 'beat' the older Opteron model but as booth of them finished the test in less than a sec you will notice no real difference in the real life and if he upgrades to the new:

http://www.amd.com/Documents/Opteron_6300_QRG.pdf

with 16 cores each they will eat their dust for the next 10 years.

 

[synphul]

You're right, it was 2x xeons in 1st place, and it was 4x opterons in 5th place. Still with 12x the thread processing and a good 20% more ram. Intel is still on top. Intel did it with half the processors and 1/12th the threads and less ram. Same story as before, intel's capable of beating amd with half the hardware - just like quad core i5's and octa core vishera. Which further embraces Arronleeds comment that amd cores (or "modules") are underachievers. No amount of extensive threading can make up for that.

 

[synphul]

If it were about technicality, the tianhe-2 is the fastest supercomputer in the world (china) and has been the past couple of years including nov 2014 (current). It runs on ivy bridge and xeon phi chips. The top 500 fastest are comprised of 85.8% intel cpu's. The upcoming sc's for the u.s. are scheduled to be "summit" (amd opteron) and "sierra" (intel xeon). No telling what might change by then since even though they're supposed to be faster than the th-2 it's pretty obvious china isn't sitting on their heels and will likely have something faster. Again, a bunch of underperformers a winner does not make. Current (not speculative) fastest desktop cpu? Intel. Fastest current supercomputer (if wanting to go to those extremes) - again, intel.

 

[core_dumped]

You see a video Cray the top secret company that provides supercomputers to U.S military and NSA to Use Opterons and you speak about the bankrupted Xeon? 2 x 3800MHz Xeon CPU motherboards to beat an old Opteron (6 cores) by 0.0.0.03 fragments of 1 sec? You don't get it if he upgrades to the new Opterons (16 cores) xeon will eat their dust for the next 10 years then you are blind and nuts.

 

[synphul]

It's not even worth debating. Typical amd fanboy, twist the situation until amd looks competitive. Since going s.c. route, why not consider the th-2? Because it kicks the cray using xeons and has been the world's fastest s.c. for several years running? What sense does it make to brag it's the fastest in the country when it's not the fastest period. Just thought you'd stop there because that's where amd's prowess ends? It's tired, kinda like amd's fx lineup. You suggest a cpu solution, amd fanboy says xyz is faster. So you suggest a faster intel solution and the amd fanboy's cry it's too expensive. Which is it? If amd has to cherry pick their environment to shine, they're not shining very bright in the first place.

At the end of the day, the best performing mid grade cpu for the money is still likely the i5 and plenty of people have agreed in their reviews. You wanted to go off on a tangent and talk s.c.'s which have nothing to do with anything - but since you took that route, all I did was point out the facts. Intel is winning there too, fastest in the world beats fastest in the country. It's easy to look like a big fish in a small pond, however the way things have been for awhile - Intel is still the big fish in the big pond.

At the end of the day, I'm still smiling and thankful I don't have an amd in my cpu socket. No one to impress, just work to get done and amd just can't hack it half the time. I don't have time to waste on inferior hardware, all it does is frustrates me. I'm not invested either way, not like I'm getting kickbacks or anything. It's up to the companies to duke it out - the one with better performance gets my dollar which might explain why amd's nearly broke. If they were all you think they are I'm pretty sure they'd be in the top ratings instead of floating in just about everyone's tier 2 and 3 desktop lineup. It is what it is.