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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SNAR

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
127
0
10,690
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?
 
Solution
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...
I was away at hospital. Can you see now why the Xeon 1231v3 is so good for what you want to do. The e3s have a maximum of four cores and are based on the i7 architecture (same silicon, different parts enabled AFAIK). The v5 is a 6 core architecture, with the very bottom of that range having two disabled (maybe didn't pass testing)