Why Not an AMD ??..Is going economical a compromise ?

[tortvoice v]

Simple explanation: The clock speed is simply a measure of how many cycles of work a CPU can do each second. For each clock cycle, a CPU can do a certain amount of work. And Intel gets far more work done for each cycle of work, and thus, is faster despite having fewer cores and having a lower clock speed.

A rough estimate right now is two AMD cores roughly equate the performance of one Intel core.

So Intel Team of 4 Executives(cores)+ 4 Secretaries(HT) are more efficient than AMD with 8 Executives(cores). They(Intel) accomplish 'more' and 'better' in the given period of time...

Don't forget that AMD doesnt have 8 executives, rather 4 executives + 4 part-time execs. 😛 AMD rather utilizes the phisical form of hyper threading, if you know what i mean.

i am confused here between AMD's physical form of Hyper Threading and Intel's Hyper Threading...would appreciate if you elaborate the difference between them...

Stick to the office example:
Let's say an AMD 8 core CPU is an office. Normally (in intels case for example) each core would be an executive right? Well not here, since there are 4 "true" phisical cores and 4 "other" cores, 1-1 of them shares the same cache and so on.
Translating this to our office example, that means our AMD CPU office has 4 executives working with computers for example, and 4 high school graduates helping the executives out (1 graduate for each exec. of course). But the high schoolers cant use the computers BUT they can help the execs. out by bringing them paper clips, using the copier, making coffee etc.
While this is a rough example it kinda looks like this, use your imagination 😛

and i guess at Intel their secretaries(HT) can use the computers efficiently right...

No no at intel the "secretaries" are phisically not there, they are helping from their home remotely when needed

Really appreciate the efforts you put in to make me understand. I admit, i lack the knowledge base to really comprehend but guess i got the idea, for sure it's less hazy now than before...

 

[DubbleClick]

Simple explanation: The clock speed is simply a measure of how many cycles of work a CPU can do each second. For each clock cycle, a CPU can do a certain amount of work. And Intel gets far more work done for each cycle of work, and thus, is faster despite having fewer cores and having a lower clock speed.

A rough estimate right now is two AMD cores roughly equate the performance of one Intel core.

So Intel Team of 4 Executives(cores)+ 4 Secretaries(HT) are more efficient than AMD with 8 Executives(cores). They(Intel) accomplish 'more' and 'better' in the given period of time...

Don't forget that AMD doesnt have 8 executives, rather 4 executives + 4 part-time execs. 😛 AMD rather utilizes the phisical form of hyper threading, if you know what i mean.

i am confused here between AMD's physical form of Hyper Threading and Intel's Hyper Threading...would appreciate if you elaborate the difference between them...

Stick to the office example:
Let's say an AMD 8 core CPU is an office. Normally (in intels case for example) each core would be an executive right? Well not here, since there are 4 "true" phisical cores and 4 "other" cores, 1-1 of them shares the same cache and so on.
Translating this to our office example, that means our AMD CPU office has 4 executives working with computers for example, and 4 high school graduates helping the executives out (1 graduate for each exec. of course). But the high schoolers cant use the computers BUT they can help the execs. out by bringing them paper clips, using the copier, making coffee etc.
While this is a rough example it kinda looks like this, use your imagination 😛

and i guess at Intel their secretaries(HT) can use the computers efficiently right...

No no at intel the "secretaries" are phisically not there, they are helping from their home remotely when needed

Really appreciate the efforts you put in to make me understand. I admit, i lack the knowledge base to really comprehend but guess i got the idea, for sure it's less hazy now than before...

Intel's hyperthreading helps working more efficiently, imagine you have to work on project A and project B. Without hyperthreading, you first do A, which takes you say 1 minute and then B which takes you another minute. With hyperthreading you do A and B at the same time. You can't do both as fast as if you just had one, but it saves you let's say 30 seconds.

 

[SlayZombi]

Just to chime in, I have an 832 and it is FULLY capable to do anything I want it to. At one time I had msuic running, multiple tabs in Firefox open, Thief running, World of Tanks doing god knows what in the background, and a few other things too! GET IT!!! :-D

 

[ZeroRequiem]

Simple explanation: The clock speed is simply a measure of how many cycles of work a CPU can do each second. For each clock cycle, a CPU can do a certain amount of work. And Intel gets far more work done for each cycle of work, and thus, is faster despite having fewer cores and having a lower clock speed.

A rough estimate right now is two AMD cores roughly equate the performance of one Intel core.

So Intel Team of 4 Executives(cores)+ 4 Secretaries(HT) are more efficient than AMD with 8 Executives(cores). They(Intel) accomplish 'more' and 'better' in the given period of time...

Don't forget that AMD doesnt have 8 executives, rather 4 executives + 4 part-time execs. 😛 AMD rather utilizes the phisical form of hyper threading, if you know what i mean.

i am confused here between AMD's physical form of Hyper Threading and Intel's Hyper Threading...would appreciate if you elaborate the difference between them...

Stick to the office example:
Let's say an AMD 8 core CPU is an office. Normally (in intels case for example) each core would be an executive right? Well not here, since there are 4 "true" phisical cores and 4 "other" cores, 1-1 of them shares the same cache and so on.
Translating this to our office example, that means our AMD CPU office has 4 executives working with computers for example, and 4 high school graduates helping the executives out (1 graduate for each exec. of course). But the high schoolers cant use the computers BUT they can help the execs. out by bringing them paper clips, using the copier, making coffee etc.
While this is a rough example it kinda looks like this, use your imagination 😛

and i guess at Intel their secretaries(HT) can use the computers efficiently right...

No no at intel the "secretaries" are phisically not there, they are helping from their home remotely when needed

Really appreciate the efforts you put in to make me understand. I admit, i lack the knowledge base to really comprehend but guess i got the idea, for sure it's less hazy now than before...

Intel's hyperthreading helps working more efficiently, imagine you have to work on project A and project B. Without hyperthreading, you first do A, which takes you say 1 minute and then B which takes you another minute. With hyperthreading you do A and B at the same time. You can't do both as fast as if you just had one, but it saves you let's say 30 seconds.

Also it might worth mentioning (sticking to the office example of course):
Intel cores are more efficient, and "younger" CPUs. (In this case newer technology). AMD cpus are older, moving slower than the well educated, younger, faster Intel cores. Thats why fewer but better cores can finish the job faster.

Also do take notes that Intel keeps upgrading it's office constantly, where the AMD executives still have to work in outdated offices (outdated maybe exaggerating), also Intel gonna finish it's newer offices with 6 and 8 real executives in each (the new 6 and 8 core intel cpus), those will be some pretty neat offices!

Anyways you get the idea now I guess 😛 Office life ftw.

 

[tortvoice v]

For another $15 or so you could get a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo. This is one of the best coolers when it comes to price / performance ratio and it would only put a couple of dollars over budget if you decided to go with something such as the above build.

Just to chime in, I have an 832 and it is FULLY capable to do anything I want it to. At one time I had msuic running, multiple tabs in Firefox open, Thief running, World of Tanks doing god knows what in the background, and a few other things too! GET IT!!! :-D

i guess you mean Fx-8320 here...have you tried video editing on this cpu...

 

[ZeroRequiem]

Oh I see you want to use Blender, well in that case Nvidia GPUs are a must. Im also modeling and rendering in blender (i7 4770k, R9 290 Tri-x), everything runs smoothly but you can do the whole rendering on Nvidia GPU-s a lot faster. Sadly its currently not supported to render scenes on AMD GPU-s.

 

[8350rocks]

While many have pointed out performance per watt. If you are budget building, AMD wins performance per dollar hands down, especially rendering and video encoding. You can buy the FX 8350 for $160ish right now, and nothing Intel offers in that price range is even close to the performance you get from the 8350. Additionally, while they point to efficiency, your desktop does not have a battery pack to be concerned with, and the difference in money spent on a better GPU will go much farther in games and hardware accelerated rendering/encoding.

So, for your budget, take into consideration you can get 90% performance for 60% cost.

 

[SlayZombi]

+1 for that comment.

 

[Beezy]

FX 8350 > i5 for rendering
FX 8350 < i7/xeon

end of story.

 

[SlayZombi]

FX 8350 > i5 for rendering
FX 8350 < i7/xeon

end of story.

Yesh..

 

[DubbleClick]

FX 8350 > i5 for rendering

Not entirely true.

Yeah, just looked up some benchmarks and the i5 4690k seems to beat fx 8350 even on base clock, including x264 encoding, vegas, adobe and handbrake rendering.

 

[SlayZombi]

FX 8350 > i5 for rendering

Not entirely true.

Quite true indeed.

 

[SlayZombi]

For another $15 or so you could get a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo. This is one of the best coolers when it comes to price / performance ratio and it would only put a couple of dollars over budget if you decided to go with something such as the above build.

Exactly what I have. Prime95 for 12 hours and the temp never left 65 C. :-D

 

[Beezy]

FX 8350 > i5 for rendering

Not entirely true.

very true, and especially with 3D rendering (the physics operations on the FX destroys the i5). rendering is one of the few computing tasks that can really use 100% of all threads, thats where raw compute comes in (the FX destroys even the i7 in raw compute)

"This Computer" is my FX 8320 at 3.5Ghz no turbo. Ran with Passmark 8.0 full version.

 

[DubbleClick]

FX 8350 > i5 for rendering

Not entirely true.

very true, and especially with 3D rendering (the physics operations on the FX destroys the i5). rendering is one of the few computing tasks that can really use 100% of all threads, thats where raw compute comes in (the FX destroys even the i7 in raw compute)

"This Computer" is my FX 8320 at 3.5Ghz no turbo. Ran with Passmark 8.0 full version.

Running passmark 8.0 gives me 30% better results on my i7 4790k than the one's listed. With it on 4.0ghz base clock I am still beating all i7 4770k benchmarks by far. Not saying I don't trust these results, but they are not accurate for sure. Looking around in the internet in direct comparison the i5 4690k seems to win in about everything over the 8350, both on base clocks. See my edited previous post.

 

[SlayZombi]

FX 8350 > i5 for rendering

Not entirely true.

very true, and especially with 3D rendering (the physics operations on the FX destroys the i5). rendering is one of the few computing tasks that can really use 100% of all threads, thats where raw compute comes in (the FX destroys even the i7 in raw compute)

"This Computer" is my FX 8320 at 3.5Ghz no turbo. Ran with Passmark 8.0 full version.

I have the same processor and clock speed. Everything is done when and how fast I want it to be. How did you get the AMD badge?

 

[DubbleClick]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3

Some wins the i5, few wins the 8350.

 

[Beezy]

FX 8350 > i5 for rendering

Not entirely true.

very true, and especially with 3D rendering (the physics operations on the FX destroys the i5). rendering is one of the few computing tasks that can really use 100% of all threads, thats where raw compute comes in (the FX destroys even the i7 in raw compute)

"This Computer" is my FX 8320 at 3.5Ghz no turbo. Ran with Passmark 8.0 full version.

Running passmark 8.0 gives me 30% better results on my i7 4790k than the one's listed. With it on 4.0ghz base clock I am still beating all i7 4770k benchmarks by far. Not saying I don't trust these results, but they are not accurate for sure. Looking around in the internet in direct comparison the i5 4690k seems to win in about everything over the 8350, both on base clocks. See my edited previous post.

passmark 8.0 uses user uploaded scores only. not theoretical benchmark comparisons like you often see on the internet. the 4790k is a better chip than the ones in my uploaded pic, so that makes sense it would be better. I chose baselines with clocks set at stock "base", no turbos anywhere.

 

[SlayZombi]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3

Some wins the i5, few wins the 8350.

Mostly benchmarks that show the best Intel has to offer, which is not the much. What about a multi-threaded program benchmark?

 

[DubbleClick]

It is about the margin between the chips. I highly doubt a 3.9ghz 4770k is 30% worse than a 4790k on 4.0ghz.

Also, in case it didn't get watched:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3

Some wins the i5, few wins the 8350.

 

[8350rocks]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3

Some wins the i5, few wins the 8350.

LOL @ comparing a $350-400 chip to a $160 chip...

How much further do you think the extra $240 would go to get you a better GPU???

That is an upgrade from R9-280X to R9-290X, which is a massive difference in performance.

Compare dollar per dollar gentlemen. How much performance does a $160 intel chip give compared to the 8350. Let us keep this honest shall we?

 

[DubbleClick]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3

Some wins the i5, few wins the 8350.

Mostly benchmarks that show the best Intel has to offer, which is not the much. What about a multi-threaded program benchmark?

I was under the impression image and video rendering, encoding and such would be multi threaded.

 

[SlayZombi]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3

Some wins the i5, few wins the 8350.

LOL @ comparing a $350-400 chip to a $160 chip...

How much further do you think the extra $240 would go to get you a better GPU???

That is an upgrade from R9-280X to R9-290X, which is a massive difference in performance.

Compare dollar per dollar gentlemen. How much performance does a $160 intel chip give compared to the 8350. Let us keep this honest shall we?

Exactly, and well put. The world of computers is about getting the most juice with less cash. Pitting an i7 versus an 8350 is like getting a Ferrari and an Escalade and pitting them against each other. Of course escalade can't win. It's in a whole different class, not even a sports car!

 

[DubbleClick]

LOL @ comparing a $350-400 chip to a $160 chip...

i5 4690k 180€

http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/Intel-Core-i5-4690-4x-3-50GHz-So-1150-BOX_960037.html

FX 8350 140€

http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/AMD-FX-Series-FX-8350-8x-4-00GHz-So-AM3--BOX_818298.html

I wasn't commenting on the price/performance ratio, I was commenting on the 8350 easily beating the i5 4690k in multi thread performance.
The 8350 has about the greatest price/performance ratio to be found, that's for sure.

 

[tortvoice v]

Its not the clockspeed, or the heat output so much, its the fact that an modern intel quad core with HT running at the same clock speed is faster - all while using less power. They are just more efficient.

Also worth bearing in mind is how much the programs can use GPU accelleration like CUDA (nvidia) or OpenCL (AMD mainly..). Generally if a program can be accellerated by a GPU, it will be considerably faster than what a CPU can do.

Adobe thrives with Cuda, Blender support only Cuda, Handbrake and Gimp have support for both (but quality suffers in GPU encoding in Handbrake) and not sure about DaVinci Resolve Lite... I was inclined towards OpenCL because it's unbiased and have an open platform available for all but stats are against it..