Why is Intel preferred over AMD?

[Mundaneum]

I don't understand the difference. My uncle said Intel cost more for the name. I want to know because next summer I plan on building a PC. Also, could someone explain the execution process mean? And why does a 3.6 GHz 8 core AMD CPU cost $100 less than a 3.4 GHz Quad-core Intel CPU?

 

[nekulturny]

My policy is, if I can help it, I won't recommend a dual core in 2012 for a modern system. HyperThreading of i3 is nice, but 2 HyperThreads is not the same as having 2 extra Physical cores in regards to comparing a Phenom II to an i3. The benches do show this, which is part of that information I consider some of Tom's articles to do a disservice by omitting.

Phenom II @3.7GHZ (perfectly safe overclock on a 965 model with the stock heatsink) vs an i3-2100
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=362

Every bench which calls 4 threads into play, clearly the 4 physical cores will trump the 2 physical +2 HyperThreads

 

[mercer95]

Intel are better but cost more, more than they should for the performance increase and AMD are better is you are aiming for a mid to low end PC or are on a budget, the main reason why AMD gets slagged off is because the Bulldozer CPU's were a massive disappointment i didn't perform as well as people would like, although the phenom CPU's are very good for the cost even if they are a couple of years old.

 

[mace200200]

Yea to many things run on multiple cores these days I wouldn't plan on buying a CPU that isn't at least quad either. Looks like the cheapest Intel Quad is about $200.

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

Looks like the cheapest Intel Quad is about $200.

Although if you live near a Microcenter, you're set http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354589 $169.99

 

[hijaxhfx]

Amd Cpu's are great, i bought a FX chip after reading all the hate it got and still gets. and i am loving it

 

[nekulturny]

Although if you live near a Microcenter, you're set http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354589 $169.99

Yea thats a pretty nice deal, and if you do in fact live near a MicroCenter, then thats the place to be. But when talking about Intel in terms of pricing as a company, you have to keep in mind with Microcenter, they're basically selling those CPUs at little nor no profit, perhaps even a loss. Intel is not selling MicroCenter CPUs at a wholesale discount, MicroCenter is subsidizing the CPUs on their own accord to generate business. I'd say thats not a good sign of MicroCenter's ability to stay in business in the longrun. They do have a pretty lowsy reputation for online orders, get your bargains from em while you can I say.

 

[daswilhelm]

And if you keep trolling the forum, you won't make it to your 100th post. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, just stop posting.

if i was trolling the forums, wouldnt i have more than 100 posts already? good show.

 

[mouse24]

I would grab a pentium G series proc and upgrade to an i5 later (im kicking myself for going with a cheap amd + athlon 2 x3 right now)

In some (most from what I am seeing but I could be wrong) benchmarks a pentium G performs pretty near a phenom 2 x4, yes in CPU intensive games you might see a hit but meh, you still won't have to drop 100 bucks on a new mobo if a phenom isn't doing it for you.

 

[davidm90]

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354589

Nekulturny, the i5 2500k is actually $170 at micro center.

 

[TidalWaveOne]

I don't understand the difference. My uncle said Intel cost more for the name. I want to know because next summer I plan on building a PC. Also, could someone explain the execution process mean? And why does a 3.6 GHz 8 core AMD CPU cost $100 less than a 3.4 GHz Quad-core Intel CPU?

Yes, you're paying for the name because it represents a faster processor, though AMD is often "good enough".... but my next build is going to be Intel because I want SPEED.

 

[ohiou_grad_06]

I can say honestly, for the i series, at least Sandy Bridge, everyone makes such a big deal. Here is my take on it. I'm a tech, I work on many different computers. Quite honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. It seems like they cost much more, but for me, I don't see a huge performance difference. I mean yeah sure, the benchmarks say one thing, but for example, my system right now is going on 5 years old, it's an older AMD rig with a socket AM2 board, I've accumulated 6 gb of ddr2 that I've upgraded it to over the years, and I put an Athlon II quad in it, which I have overclocked to 3.3 ghz. I worked on an i3 2120 system recently I think. I hear oh even the i3 is better than the Phenom II 6 cores. Honestly though, When I looked at the Windows 7 experience index, my processor is showing as 7.3, vs the i3 rated at 7.1. I mean I'm talking a 2 year old AMD processor vs this i3 that everyone recommends as a great budget gaming chip and my chip was a budget chip when it came out? I'm sorry, but I don't see the value there. Your i5's and i7's yeah, they are great. But if I go to my local microcenter, for 200 bucks I can have a nice FX 8120 8 core with a motherboard. Intel cannot touch that, and at that point, you are at least in i5 performance territory I would think. But when I see for intel when some of the cheapest boards are 75, so total cost I'm paying more for intel, just don't see it. Your i7 is basically a server chip and is overkill for what most people do.

Personally would I like to upgrade? Yeah, but probably to like an AMD FX 6100 for an 8 core. But right now, my quad runs everything I throw at it. As I said, not saying the intels are junk because they aren't, but for the extra cash I'm going to spend for them, I'd rather get a better graphics card or an SSD. Just my 2 cents.

 

[nekulturny]

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354589

Nekulturny, the i5 2500k is actually $170 at micro center.

I know lol. And its a hell of deal, but its on MicroCenter's dime, not Intel. Thats all I was saying.

 

[teh_gerbil]

Thanks guys, love this thread.

Op, my hat off to you.

 

[daswilhelm]

I would grab a pentium G series proc and upgrade to an i5 later (im kicking myself for going with a cheap amd + athlon 2 x3 right now)

In some (most from what I am seeing but I could be wrong) benchmarks a pentium G performs pretty near a phenom 2 x4, yes in CPU intensive games you might see a hit but meh, you still won't have to drop 100 bucks on a new mobo if a phenom isn't doing it for you.

i couldn't be happier with my Pentium G620... picked it up for $50 @ microcenter

 

[bigcyco1]

Alright enough already i am not blaming anyone but mods please...close this thread before it get's out of hand thank you!

 

[nekulturny]

They always do don't they? I really should stay out of the CPU section, I'm much happier in the Homebuilt section, less threads like this made by hit and run posters that I'm so naive, I fall for :lol:

 

[MU_Engineer]

I don't understand the difference. My uncle said Intel cost more for the name. I want to know because next summer I plan on building a PC. Also, could someone explain the execution process mean? And why does a 3.6 GHz 8 core AMD CPU cost $100 less than a 3.4 GHz Quad-core Intel CPU?

1. The most expensive Intel CPUs perform better than the most expensive AMD CPUs in Windows games, which is the most taxing thing that most people do. The guys chasing benchmarks go for Intel because of that, and tell their friends to do the same.

2. Intel spends billions of dollars on advertising every year. AMD spends essentially none and few have heard of them. In fact, many of the search results for "AMD" online turn up websites for amyotonic muscular dystropy (Lou Gehrig's disease) and age-related macular degeneration. Few outside of the enthusiast community have heard of the Advanced Micro Devices AMD. The general population has heard of Intel and thinks of anything they haven't heard of, including AMD, as an inferior "off brand."

3. Intel has pulled some stunts in the past where they paid vendors to not offer AMD-equipped models and/or penalized them for offering AMD-equipped models. The margins on consumer PCs is razor-thin, so giving up the free Intel money was suicide. There was a huge lawsuit over this where AMD got paid over a billion dollars because of Intel's tactics.

4. AMD's parts cost less than Intel's because of #1 and #2. They could charge a grand for that FX-8150 but nobody would buy it because Intel's $300 parts outperform it in Windows games. So they have to price according to what the market will bear. Note that their server products are inexpensive too, that is not because of lack of performance in server programs (Intel CPUs perform a little better for MANY times the price) but because they are much less expensive to produce than the Intel parts and AMD wants to spur sales. AMD uses reasonable-sized CPU dies even in their high-end server parts; they just use two dies where Intel uses one huge, difficult-to-manufacture die. Intel used to use the same efficient multi-chip module designs as AMD does now when they used the old FSB architecture, they have not figured out how to do so now that they have moved to an AMD-style IMC-and-point-to-point-bus architecture with the Nehalem Xeons.

 

[amuffin]

Yet, at any particular time, Intel can just screw over AMD. They're just waiting for them to get wiped out by the other companies and go in and screw everyone else.

 

[Guest]

1. The most expensive Intel CPUs perform better than the most expensive AMD CPUs in Windows games, which is the most taxing thing that most people do. The guys chasing benchmarks go for Intel because of that, and tell their friends to do the same.

2. Intel spends billions of dollars on advertising every year. AMD spends essentially none and few have heard of them. In fact, many of the search results for "AMD" online turn up websites for amyotonic muscular dystropy (Lou Gehrig's disease) and age-related macular degeneration. Few outside of the enthusiast community have heard of the Advanced Micro Devices AMD. The general population has heard of Intel and thinks of anything they haven't heard of, including AMD, as an inferior "off brand."

3. Intel has pulled some stunts in the past where they paid vendors to not offer AMD-equipped models and/or penalized them for offering AMD-equipped models. The margins on consumer PCs is razor-thin, so giving up the free Intel money was suicide. There was a huge lawsuit over this where AMD got paid over a billion dollars because of Intel's tactics.

4. AMD's parts cost less than Intel's because of #1 and #2. They could charge a grand for that FX-8150 but nobody would buy it because Intel's $300 parts outperform it in Windows games. So they have to price according to what the market will bear. Note that their server products are inexpensive too, that is not because of lack of performance in server programs (Intel CPUs perform a little better for MANY times the price) but because they are much less expensive to produce than the Intel parts and AMD wants to spur sales. AMD uses reasonable-sized CPU dies even in their high-end server parts; they just use two dies where Intel uses one huge, difficult-to-manufacture die. Intel used to use the same efficient multi-chip module designs as AMD does now when they used the old FSB architecture, they have not figured out how to do so now that they have moved to an AMD-style IMC-and-point-to-point-bus architecture with the Nehalem Xeons.

what an utter fail. i would expect you to use your vast knowledge and wisdom to answer a technical question the OP had:

Also, could someone explain the execution process mean?

but no. it seems you felt that educating about the capitalist process with the evils involved in it would be a most enlightening experience.

so what did we learn?

1) a product that performs under the most stressful conditions will benefit from word of mouth referrals.

2) advertising increases the sales of a product.

3) intel is just as guilty as quite a few other large corporations such as GM, nvidia, ford, sony, samsung, google, and microsoft, to name a few, at backing illegal back door deals and applying pressure to dealers, manufactures and vendors further down the supply chain.

4) the price of a product is reflected by the demand in the market as much as the manufacturing process and supply.

now it was a bit of a challenge for myself to be able to wrest such useful technical knowledge but by golly after i scraped away the obvious disdain; i think i got it.

1 and 2 are directly correlated to the first part of 4 and the latter part of 4 is can be eased by doing 3.

thanks for that

 

[nekulturny]

I assumed that somebody reported the thread or he checked it out to see if he needed to lock it. But lol.

I guess he could have answered the technical question, but number 3 is the main reason I will not buy an Intel product for myself, believe it or not corporate greed still disgusts some people. I hate walmart but I can't afford to shop anywhere else, at least I still have a choice in which processor I can buy. I'll still recommend Intel to others if I feel their budget, and expectations merit if of course.

 

[Guest]

really its time for my monthly warning i get from a mod.

figured i might as well get it out of the way . . .

 

[nekulturny]

LOL, well I'll clear the air since I realized smoking a cigarette just now that someone might ask. MY money didn't pay for the i5 rig. Max's Grandfather paid a shop to build that for him for his birthday last year.

 

[joeythellama]

I don't understand the difference. My uncle said Intel cost more for the name. I want to know because next summer I plan on building a PC. Also, could someone explain the execution process mean? And why does a 3.6 GHz 8 core AMD CPU cost $100 less than a 3.4 GHz Quad-core Intel CPU?

The reason you are getting such wildly differing answers, and some interesting takes on modern capitalism, is that the world of CPU's at the moment is far from clear cut, and it's no longer a market dominated by desktops either (or even notebooks).

Firstly, Intel and AMD have chosen very different paths in addressing modern processing requirements. Typically with Intel you get fewer physical cores than AMD, but they do a bit more computing per cycle, hence your correct observation that you can get an 8 core AMD when Intel only offer you 4. This can also explain why in some benchmarks, Intel's fewer cores can produce better results than an AMD with more. What you pay for them will fluctuate depending on where and when you purchase them, but generally AMD's stuff is a bit cheaper.

What you have to do is evaluate at each price point which CPU performs better for the type of work you are going to give it.

You also have to consider the motherboards that go with the CPU's, again, you may find that when you come to buy, one manufacturer has a better overall offering than another.

Both AMD and Intel are as bad as each other at changing CPU sockets, so my advise is usually get the board with the features you need now and expect to replace it with your CPU in a few years time.

To computer enthusiasts AMD do usually come up with some interesting stuff, and the current APU's and FX chips are no exception. You get access to some very powerful compute for less money than Intel; and the fun stuff, such as unlocked chips, are available at a much lower price point.

For pure gamers Intel's current architecture does produce better results, this is why on this site the 'Best Gaming CPU's' section currently has no AMD products in it. This, however, can lead some to think that this makes the Intel CPU's better all round, or that you cannot game on an FX chip, which is not necessarily the case.

The good news is that you really cannot go wrong, any modern multi core processor coupled with a mid range GPU will run any game well in HD and chew though most processing tasks with no problems. What makes modern PC's slow is the hard drive, so make sure you budget for a decent SSD.

 

[MU_Engineer]

This topic has been closed by MU_Engineer