Why Intel over Amd?

[sudev atgur]

There are so many threads/questions over it but what i wanted to ask is that why does majority of people recommend Intel over Amd. I know about the time and years that they are old. For example whenever i compare a game that if it'll run on my pc or not (high end games) Amd's FX 8350 can run almost all the game in ultra (i mean it supports) and mean time in the same budget Intel's i3 6th gen or i5 can only run it in medium setting. So why Intel over Amd?

 

[Gallarian]

Intel CPUs at almost every price point above entry level perform better than AMD CPUs.

When comparing game performance between different CPUs, don't look at system requirements. They mean almost nothing. Look at benchmarks (the actually frames per second that people get) and you'll see why gamers usually take Intel over AMD.

Basically what it came down to was; a few years ago AMD bet that games would perform better with more cores, but Intel bet that games would prefer faster cores, not more. So AMD went about making its CPUs with 4-8 cores, whilst Intel stuck around 2-4 cores but made them faster and more efficient.

Turns out that for gaming, Intel were right.

 

[EchohcE]

For now at least, Intel is simply better in every conceivable way. Problem is, they know it, so their prices reflect their dominance. AMD users, including myself for 2 years, usually choose AMD because they may not be better, but the price/performance ratio can be much higher. The 'sweet spot', as it were.

Until Zen, however, a Skylake i3 now renders that price/performance thing pointless, since Intel wins there now too.

 

[dudeman509]

I don't think games and other applications were ever really scaled up to take full advantage of multi threading. We're slowly getting there. Intel has such a huge % of the marketshare of store-bought and prebuilt PCs that *most* programming is centered around 2C, 4T or 4C, 4T processors.

Having 4C, 8T or 6-8C is still quite uncommon, so most companies/programs/games don't really bother scaling up to that factor. When they DO become more common in the future, we'll likely see more games/applications take advantage of it. But right now, and definitely in the future as well, GPUs can handle many, many parallel computations at once, and then squish it all back together. There are many potential uses to harness a GPU's calculation power over the work that even a good CPU can do in the same amount of time.

AMD has done well in the gaming console market, on the other hand. They are very price-competitive and good onboard graphics and core count for consoles. The original Xbox had to make use of an Intel Celeron because then, like now, the higher-end chips were just too expensive to build a console around that people wouldn't complain about the high price.

 

[Themastererr]

If there's tons of threads/posts why did you ask the same question? Somebody asks this every second day and a simple Google search would have your answer.

AMD FX has roughly 30-40% less IPC (instructions per clock) than Intel. So even if they are both the same clock speed - let's go with 4Ghz, the Intel is more powerful because it uses that 4Ghz more effectively.

 

[sizzling]

OP, you information that an i3 can only run medium settings where an FX8xxx can run ultra is wrong. Firstly going from medium to ultra usually adds very little CPU load, the extra work is on the GPU. Secondly the i3 usually allows higher fps where the CPU is the limiting factor.

 

[sudev atgur]

Thank you all for the reply. And i want to make a point or ask another question is that now all the latest games are supporting Dx 12 and that demands more threading as amd 8350 has 8 threading i saw a video where Dx 11 was enabled and amd performed little less than i3 but when Dx 12 was enabled it was little better than i3. This was the point. Mostly i'm asking because i want to build a pc i'm confised about whether to go with Amd fx 8350 with more threads or Intel i3 6100. Please suggest me. Again thanks 4 reply.

 

[dudeman509]

As an AMD owner myself, do not build a FX platform in the current day and age. It is not worth it, DX12 or otherwise. My build has aged well, but they will begin to bottleneck more and more as time goes on.

Actually at this point, I would have a hard time recommending either build until both Kaby Lake and Zen release next month. At least personally, I'd kick myself. There probably will not be huge gains on the Intel i3 side, but the i3 will for sure be a little quicker than the current i3, and rumor has it that i3 may be unlocked. And there's still the great unknown of what Zen will actually bring to the table.

 

[sizzling]

Very few games use DX12 yet and some of those that do show 0 gain. What you have seen is probably the best case scenario for the FX8350. In 99% of games the 6100 always wins. The 6100 also gives you an upgrade path to an i5 or i7 in the future, the FX8350 gives you no upgrade path, you will need a new motherboard and RAM. The FX8350 also needs a higher quality motherboard due to overheating the VRM's on lower boards and needs a decent cooler. The 6100 can easily run on a basic motherboard and stock cooler.

The FX series are just out dated and a bad investment. Lets hope Zen brings AMD back to the CPU market.