Why does Intel perform better than AMD even with less cores, clock speed and cache mem.?

SNAR

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
127
0
10,690
1
Please clear this matter.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1198
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4690-vs-AMD-FX-8350

According to these two benchmark comparision results, Intel i5 4690 is performing better than AMD FX 8350.

But FX 8350 has higher clock speed, more cache mem. and more no. of cores. Intel i5 series do not have hyperthreading as well. Then why is it performing better than 8350?
 

nukemaster

Titan
Moderator
AMD and Intel use radically different cores.

AMD uses cores with shared components so every 2 cores share many of the parts making them more like 1.5 cores. This does not mean heavily threaded programs do not get a boost just like they do from Intel HT.

Clock speed only means so much because every core type does so much work per clock cycle. Because at current Intel does more work per clock cycle. They can be faster with less clock speed.

It was the opposite when AMD released the Athlon64 that was faster at 2.0-2.2 ghz than Intel cpus running a 3.0ghz and higher.

Software can be designed to take more advantage of a core feature or instruction sets may also perform better on one core type than another.

This also happens with Video cards, Some favor Nvidia core designs while others favor AMDs.
 

nukemaster

Titan
Moderator
AMD and Intel use radically different cores.

AMD uses cores with shared components so every 2 cores share many of the parts making them more like 1.5 cores. This does not mean heavily threaded programs do not get a boost just like they do from Intel HT.

Clock speed only means so much because every core type does so much work per clock cycle. Because at current Intel does more work per clock cycle. They can be faster with less clock speed.

It was the opposite when AMD released the Athlon64 that was faster at 2.0-2.2 ghz than Intel cpus running a 3.0ghz and higher.

Software can be designed to take more advantage of a core feature or instruction sets may also perform better on one core type than another.

This also happens with Video cards, Some favor Nvidia core designs while others favor AMDs.
 

Dunlop0078

Champion
Ambassador


What kind of benchmark gaming? Its because the individual cores on the intel chip are much faster and im going to butcher this but the fx 8350 does not have 8 full cores it has 4 physical cores and 4 logical cores sort of like hypertheading on an i7 but a bit different. For gaming you want fast single core performance as most games aren't multi threaded yet or aren't properly multi threaded so they cant make use of the full performance of an 8350.
 

getochkn

Polypheme
Moderator
When you look at the anandtech link you posted, in most of the games and the multi-core tests, the results aren't that far off. Most games are getting better at multi-core now. Single core for core, the intel crushes. In things that can use all the cores, it's a lot closer race. As said, the way AMD does cores is more 8-core-ish. lol.
 

SNAR

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
127
0
10,690
1


So, in future, when games and softwares start using multi cores, AMD will emerge as winner? So it is future proof than Intel?
 

SNAR

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
127
0
10,690
1


So, 8 cores of 8350 is an overkill? How many cores does recent games at 1080p utilizing?
 

SNAR

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
127
0
10,690
1


So, Intel has lesser but faster cores and AMD has more slower cores?
Which one is better in a long run? More cores or faster cores?
 

tiny voices

Titan
Moderator


Nope not at all actually. It will be a LONG time before games actually properly use 8 cores. Maybe in 4 years buying a new 8 core CPU will be a good investment for the late future, but for the current foreseeable future and how BRAND NEW games being released this year still prefer strong single core performance, I doubt very seriously that an 8-core AMD CPU (actually only really a quad core) will be better than or even equal to a 4 core intel.

I mean there are brand new games being released today where an i3 beats an 8350.

Until AMD can equal Intel in per-core performance, I very seriously doubt that they will be better for gaming or general use.

Even in games like BF4 that can use more cores, where the 8350 performs well, it STILL gets lower minimum FPS (what you feel) than an intel i3, even if the 8350 gets slightly more average FPS. So, even though it gets slightly more FPS average, it will be less smooth and have more dips/spikes than an i3 simply because the i3 has much stronger per-core performance.

It is always important to look at minimum FPS. And even in games where an 8350 is equal to an i5 in average FPS, it will loose to even an i3 in minimum FPS, meaning intel gives a much smoother experience.
 

tiny voices

Titan
Moderator


For the current and foreseeable future of gaming and general use, 4 intel cores will be better than 8 AMD cores every time. This is coming from someone who has owned many examples of both CPUs.
 
Games don't use cores. Games run software that broken into threads which run on a CPU. The CPU manages these threads and distributes them across its cores, real or virtual, to get the job done.

There is also a terminology issue, what we are calling cores is not the same thing for Intel and AMD. The AMD 8300 is a four module processor with each module having two integer and one floating point processor all of which share resources, the Intel Core has one of each.

To a certain extent, talking about the future is irrelevant; it is too theoretical. The important question is "Today, if you want a system to be capable of running top games for as long as possible into the future, what processor should I buy?" The answer is resoundingly Intel (if budget allows). Intel has just released a new generation of chips that are an incremental improvement of the previous generation, and include some significant advances, which have limited value in gaming. AMD is slated to release new generation CPUs soon. When they appear and we understand what they do in practice, this advice may change.
 

SNAR

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
127
0
10,690
1


"This is coming from someone who has owned many examples of both CPUs" - i was searching for a guy like you who has used both processors many times. Usually i get answers from intel and AMD fanboys.
Alright, i'm planning to buy either of these processors.
I'm not a hardcore gamer but a multimedia student. I do video editing, compositing and 3D renderings.
But, i like to play games as well.
So, which one should i choose?
 

SNAR

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
127
0
10,690
1


Aren't Xeon processors made for servers and workstations? They are made to handle more load and still stay power efficient is what i heard. So i thought they are not for regular desktop systems.
 

SNAR

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
127
0
10,690
1


I know that. But my budget will not get me a workstation. So that is out of the picture. Regular Desktop computer is what i need.
 

SNAR

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
127
0
10,690
1


I never looked at xeon processors as i thought they are not the right choice. But now after these discussions, i checked them. There are three families: E3 E5 & E7. Is it just like i3, i5 & i7? E3 is cousin of i3, E5 is of i5 and so?
Also what are v2, v3, v4?
 

nukemaster

Titan
Moderator
A little late back here, but future proof is kind of a bad term because in the end, the system may well be obsolete before certain programs are updated to take advantage of them.

While games to no see cores, some still do everything in a single thread leaving all the other cpus with little to do. The newer assassins creed game will fully use a 4 core cpu and should come close to maxing out a 6 core cpu. Not all games use more threads in this way.

At current, Intel has quite an edge in the market and I agree with the above recommendations. If you can find benchmarks for the software YOU will use then you will get a better idea of what to expect. I am not saying AMD makes bad cpus, just that currently Intel has a rather strong lineup.
 

SNAR

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
127
0
10,690
1


Okay. I will consider Intel then. But, i am new to this Benchmark thing and don't know hot to benchmark for particular softwares. Can it be done in any bechmarking websites like AnandTech and CPUBoss?
 

SNAR

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
127
0
10,690
1


I never looked at xeon processors as i thought they are not the right choice. But now after these discussions, i checked them. There are three families: E3 E5 & E7. Is it just like i3, i5 & i7? E3 is cousin of i3, E5 is of i5 and so?
Also what are v2, v3, v4?
 

nukemaster

Titan
Moderator
If you look at the AnadTech benches you posted you will see many different programs.

See how programs similar to what you are going to use perform on the cpus you are looking at.

You may be able to find benchmarks for the exact software you use online as well.

I am certainly not going to say one cpu is right for everyone. You just have to get the best you can afford for what you use it for.
 

SNAR

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
127
0
10,690
1


Alright thanks! :) I will check out and do some research.
However, can you please shed some light on xeon e3, e5, e7 and v3, v4, v5?
 

Dunlop0078

Champion
Ambassador


Yah it is sort of like the i3, i5, i7 chain but the e3 is like an i7. The e3 1231 V3 is basically and i7 4790 at 3.4ghz but it does not have integrated graphics which makes it a bit cheaper than an i7 while still achieving the same level of performance. The V is just the version I believe, they release slightly improved version of the same chip every so often and call it V1, V2 ETC.
 

SNAR

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
127
0
10,690
1


I see! Thanks a lot :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS