Intel Vs AMD
- Thread starter EfficientEnergySolutions
- Start date
K
Kev Jaques
Always one to check out Tomshardware, only seeing Intel top positions still, I think it will be sometime before AMD have an Intel beater imo
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/benchmarks,31.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/benchmarks,31.html
Upvote
0
That's a hugely complicated question because it depends on what you mean by "same specs".
The real issue is what you need to do with your PC. For certain types of workload (e.g. video encoding where the particular encoder is optimised to use SSE4.x instructions) then the latest Intel i7 (codename Nehalem) processors leave AMD in the dust but really for most workloads (e.g. web, email, word processing, spreadsheet, powerpoint, etc) then an i7 is total overkill (and quite power hungry) and you'd be far better going for the best value-for-money midrange CPU and spending any spare budget on getting the fastest hard drive setup you can (maybe a solid state storage device for your system drive), this will give you a more noticable speedup in your day to day work.
In the value midrange processor the AMD Phenom II 720 is getting some rave reviews and offers excellent value for money and a lot of people are citing it as one of the best midrange buys (ahead of Intel).
To try and directly answer your original question, if by "spec" you mean clock speed then right now Intel tends to win but I would suggest that the most important "spec" to look at is price in which case it's a closer race but in my opinion AMD is probably ahead by a whisker in the midrange part of the market.
- Julian
Upvote
0
These do get done on occasion but the problem is that AMD and Intel change their prices so often (where change pretty much invariably means drop) that any such comparison can go out of date very quickly. Both AMD and Intel are rumoured to have new processors launching next month so there's a pretty high probability that there will be some re-pricing when that happens.
Having said that, here's a recent article, "A fresh look at processor value", which pretty much does what you suggest: http://techreport.com/articles.x/16570
What is more common, and what the original poster might be interested in (hazarding a guess based on the OP's forum name) is analysing performance per watt of power has become very common in processor reviews. Some reviewers even take it a step further and analyse the total power consumed to run each benchmark, i.e. plotting the instantaneous power draw vs time over the run time of the benchmark and then summing the area under the curve. Unfortunately I don't have a link to such a review to hand right now but I'll post it if I do stumble across one in the near future.
- Julian
Upvote
0
AMD use to be where the smart money went, better performance lower clock speed, generally due to AMD producing a better pipeline.
But, recently there have been rumours of Intel being better.
To actually look at this properly you have look at the design of the CPU. Benchmarks may help but it can vary depending upon the compiler used and the way the problem is solved.
Kernels can make a huge difference as well, and AMD have been fairly good at releasing specifications quickly and indepth, that allows for optimisation to be placed directly in the kernel. And of course software itself can be optimised to target.
A compiled from source to target CPU computing system is a lot snappier, but in all fairness a light weight WM over a DE also has huge performance implications. And it can go deeper, optimised window servers can again make things faster.
There is an interesting site, use to be called the great language shootout, now the computer language benchmark game:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
You can see just how wide and disperate the choice of implementation language is to the results.
But, more revealing is the FAQ
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/faq.php
It depends what you do, want you want, and how it is implemented.
So, when you think about the CPU the best performance will often be the software that is most optimised to that CPU, and it could vary between problem spaces, and generally does.
With multicore it becomes even more confusing, because you now have structure of system across cores to contend with.
I think Intel tends to work better for commercial software where you cannot compile it yourself, primarily because of optimisation to the more prevalent CPU, whereas software you can compile yourself AMD appears to be better, but that is just a general feeling and I am sure it is not right in all instances and on all comprable CPUs.
Intel also has the marketing tax it costs to have people dance around in teflon suits and have that shown on prime time TV. AMD they cater for the enthusiasts with things like their black box CPUs to be overclocked. So, generally you will find that AMD gives more bang for your buck, but you have to be in the enthusiast or pro camp.
But, recently there have been rumours of Intel being better.
To actually look at this properly you have look at the design of the CPU. Benchmarks may help but it can vary depending upon the compiler used and the way the problem is solved.
Kernels can make a huge difference as well, and AMD have been fairly good at releasing specifications quickly and indepth, that allows for optimisation to be placed directly in the kernel. And of course software itself can be optimised to target.
A compiled from source to target CPU computing system is a lot snappier, but in all fairness a light weight WM over a DE also has huge performance implications. And it can go deeper, optimised window servers can again make things faster.
There is an interesting site, use to be called the great language shootout, now the computer language benchmark game:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
You can see just how wide and disperate the choice of implementation language is to the results.
But, more revealing is the FAQ
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/faq.php
It depends what you do, want you want, and how it is implemented.
So, when you think about the CPU the best performance will often be the software that is most optimised to that CPU, and it could vary between problem spaces, and generally does.
With multicore it becomes even more confusing, because you now have structure of system across cores to contend with.
I think Intel tends to work better for commercial software where you cannot compile it yourself, primarily because of optimisation to the more prevalent CPU, whereas software you can compile yourself AMD appears to be better, but that is just a general feeling and I am sure it is not right in all instances and on all comprable CPUs.
Intel also has the marketing tax it costs to have people dance around in teflon suits and have that shown on prime time TV. AMD they cater for the enthusiasts with things like their black box CPUs to be overclocked. So, generally you will find that AMD gives more bang for your buck, but you have to be in the enthusiast or pro camp.
Upvote
0
I switched from AMD to Intel when the Dual Cores came out - they run cool, fast and quietly - quiet was my big thing.
Part of my AMD choice was because the Pentium 4 was such a bloody awful processor, running so hot that you needed a big noisy fan to keep it from melting.
I made a mistake in chosing the 64bit OS - too early and too few programmes capable of using it and too many devices without drivers.
In truth though, all modern CPUs are blindingly fast and unless you're doing something very specialised almost any will work fast enough for normal use.
Part of my AMD choice was because the Pentium 4 was such a bloody awful processor, running so hot that you needed a big noisy fan to keep it from melting.
I made a mistake in chosing the 64bit OS - too early and too few programmes capable of using it and too many devices without drivers.
In truth though, all modern CPUs are blindingly fast and unless you're doing something very specialised almost any will work fast enough for normal use.
Upvote
0
K
Kev Jaques
Am an avid AMD fan, have used both Intel and AMD, what really peeved me was that AMD changed 939 socket to AM2 within about 6 months of production, yet the higher spec AM2 cpus were cheaper than the highest 939 equivalent. Then they stopped high spec cpus but carried on with the AM2. I think they lost out there with some of their hardcore fans.
The past year or so Intel have really been pushing the core2s and lowering their prices and left AMD with a catchup race as they had issues a while back and lost momentum.
The other factor is the cost of the Mobos now, decent ones are now in the 150-250+ range and of course you have the graphics cards crazy market.
I think solid state discs will see more action and this will be more noticeable (compared overall and to normal hdds) than processor speeds (especially marginal chip increments)
The past year or so Intel have really been pushing the core2s and lowering their prices and left AMD with a catchup race as they had issues a while back and lost momentum.
The other factor is the cost of the Mobos now, decent ones are now in the 150-250+ range and of course you have the graphics cards crazy market.
I think solid state discs will see more action and this will be more noticeable (compared overall and to normal hdds) than processor speeds (especially marginal chip increments)
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
If a laptop then energy efficiency is quite a big part to extend battery life.
So, you obviously want to use some form of power control and be able to step the processor down. But I think AMD has the edge on some of their newer chips.
In truth at this moment you should just examine on specification not brand, I don't think there is too much in it between the two chip makers at the mo across their ranges. MIPs is perhaps better than clock cycle to compare on but that is a bit bogus as well. And do remember most of the time the CPU will be idle anyhow, it is rarely the bottleneck nowadays for general use.
So, you obviously want to use some form of power control and be able to step the processor down. But I think AMD has the edge on some of their newer chips.
In truth at this moment you should just examine on specification not brand, I don't think there is too much in it between the two chip makers at the mo across their ranges. MIPs is perhaps better than clock cycle to compare on but that is a bit bogus as well. And do remember most of the time the CPU will be idle anyhow, it is rarely the bottleneck nowadays for general use.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
What Carphone Warehouse, Microsoft and Uber Have in Common: They Started in a DownturnThere's a comforting myth that you need a booming economy to start...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Makes a Small Business Actually Sellable?There's a question that a lot of small business owners never think to...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Why Your Team Keeps Asking the Same Questions (And What to Actually Do About It)Every small business owner knows the moment. You're halfway through...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
At What Point Do Courier Losses Just Become a Cost of Doing Business?If you sell physical products online, you already know the feeling. You...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What I Wish I'd Known Before Using AI in My BusinessSomewhere between the headlines promising AI will transform everything...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
