PDA

View Full Version : Any real differences between AMD and Intel?



Lavaeagle
August 21st, 2009, 08:05 AM
I have always known these to be somewhat similar except when dealing with video card compatibility which can get a little bit tricky.

Generally I see:

Intel: More business like for spreadsheets and word, things like that.

AMD: More power behind it for gaming or large editing programs.

Am I correct or is there more?

toupeiro
August 21st, 2009, 08:15 AM
this topic has been covered multiple times in depth here. I highly recommend using the forum search tool, and I am sure you will have no problems finding the answer to your inquiry.

Lavaeagle
August 21st, 2009, 08:27 AM
I kept finding Pepsi Coke answers so i was wondering if anyone had any real input on this.

Or

The answers were completely bias'd pointing out negatives on one side and all the positives on the other.

and

That I would almost always rather be on AMD's side in court since they for the most part always win.

toupeiro
August 21st, 2009, 08:39 AM
Then it sounds like you already know all you need to know.

pizmooz
August 21st, 2009, 08:54 AM
hmm...
Are you talking about processors? Both companies primarily sell desktop processors based on the x86[_64] instruction set, but have vastly different microarchitecture/silicon and thus act differently under different stresses. When you ask a question like this all you'll get are 'Pepsi v Coke' answers. I think you need to be more specific. Maybe start by doing some basic research, find out the parameters that makes chips different from each other (caches, cores, energy usage). Then ask a more informed question. Not raggin' on you though.

Warpnow
August 21st, 2009, 04:43 PM
...Okay, you obviously are confused about processors. Intel processors are not designed to be good for spreadsheets/word, in fact...every modern processor will perform flawlessly with such easy tasks.

In addition, there are dozens of processors from each company, ranging from celerons/semprons, to c2d/x2s, to i7/Phenoms.

At present, the diffference between the two is in price/performance comparison. AMD is more bang for its buck, but less power overall. AMD wins by a large shot due to its price on budget systems. A high powered x2 can be gotten for well under $100, and a quad core for a tad more.

But nothing that AMD makes, at all, can compete with the current i7s. But at double the price most people wouldn't expect them to.

If you want the most high end, and are willing to spend the money, go for the better Intels. If you want to get more power for less money, go AMD. Right now it would be stupid to buy the lower end Intel cheaps as they are very expensive for their power, but the high end intel chips are simply the best processors on the market.

hyperdude111
August 21st, 2009, 05:01 PM
...Okay, you obviously are confused about processors. Intel processors are not designed to be good for spreadsheets/word, in fact...every modern processor will perform flawlessly with such easy tasks.

In addition, there are dozens of processors from each company, ranging from celerons/semprons, to c2d/x2s, to i7/Phenoms.

At present, the diffference between the two is in price/performance comparison. AMD is more bang for its buck, but less power overall. AMD wins by a large shot due to its price on budget systems. A high powered x2 can be gotten for well under $100, and a quad core for a tad more.

But nothing that AMD makes, at all, can compete with the current i7s. But at double the price most people wouldn't expect them to.

If you want the most high end, and are willing to spend the money, go for the better Intels. If you want to get more power for less money, go AMD. Right now it would be stupid to buy the lower end Intel cheaps as they are very expensive for their power, but the high end intel chips are simply the best processors on the market.

+1

If you are looking for a good processor dual core or better quad core for a good price, go AMD.

If money is not an option and you want the best available go for the top intels like the i7.

I recommend AMD because for very similar performance you will pay 1/2 what the equal chip from intel offer but AMD have not yet released a chip as fast as the i7.

cascade9
August 21st, 2009, 05:04 PM
I have always known these to be somewhat similar except when dealing with video card compatibility which can get a little bit tricky.

Generally I see:

Intel: More business like for spreadsheets and word, things like that.

AMD: More power behind it for gaming or large editing programs.

Am I correct or is there more?

Intel- has a lot more deals with large manufacturers, and bought more by conservative buyers. Thats one reason why the majority of office PCs are Intel.

AMD- Gets much more business from the enthusiast market, almost always cheaper for any given amount of CPU power. So your broke gamer, or people looking for max CPU power for the least $$$, more likely to own an AMD.

BTW, Warpnow is right, at the moment Intel i7s are the fastest things around. But when you can get AMD Motherboard/RAM/CPU for less than an i7 CPU, you know your buying high-end LOL

LowSky
August 21st, 2009, 05:04 PM
I've used AMD exclusivly for my desktops since the K6-2, My laptops have been mostly Intels, My sister has had a few AMD laptops and I see no problem with them either, but for laptops I reallyl dont care, it usually came down to what was cheap and availible.

As for my desktop, I build my own and for whatever reason have loved using AMD. The price has always been good, and once you get used to one brand it easier to know newer features and what kind of performance to expect.

the one thing I have started missing withthe new AMD chips is Nividia supported Motherboards. They just dont seem to be made to the same standards ever since AMD purchased ATI. but the newer AMD/ATI motherboards ave been treating me very well. I only wish ATI graphic ran better under Ubuntu, but in time they will get better.

I am going to be in the market for a new PC soon and really want to wait until the newer graphics cards come out in the winter, hopefully I can wait that long.

.Maleficus.
August 21st, 2009, 05:08 PM
Am I correct or is there more?
Nope, that's not quite correct.

Intel wins hands down for gaming and large editing programs. Here's a benchmark from Tom's Hardware, showing performance on Crysis and UT3.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem,2057-25.html

And here's one for 3dsmax 9 and Fritz 12.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem,2057-34.html


Edit: But you would have been pretty close back in 2004 when Socket 939 was king.

sandyd
August 21st, 2009, 05:23 PM
I have always known these to be somewhat similar except when dealing with video card compatibility which can get a little bit tricky.

Generally I see:

Intel: More business like for spreadsheets and word, things like that.

AMD: More power behind it for gaming or large editing programs.

Am I correct or is there more?

They have different instruction sets.

Intel generally has better instruction sets than AMD.

cascade9
August 21st, 2009, 05:38 PM
Nope, that's not quite correct.

Intel wins hands down for gaming and large editing programs. Here's a benchmark from Tom's Hardware, showing performance on Crysis and UT3.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem,2057-25.html

And here's one for 3dsmax 9 and Fritz 12.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem,2057-34.html


Edit: But you would have been pretty close back in 2004 when Socket 939 was king.

Dont let one set of toms hardware graphs mislead you. Theres other tests around where the difference is far less than tom makes out-

http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=794&page=1

I'm not denying that the i7 is the fastest thing around now, but its debatable as to how much faster it is.

BTW, in the 939 days, AMD had a pretty nasty lead on Intel in a lot of areas, but thats true back to the early athlons (or even the k6-3s, not that many people saw them). There was a reason why Intel released that mistake of a chip they called the 'p4' (it was pretty horrible up to the 800mhz FSB models).


They have different instruction sets.

Intel generally has better instruction sets than AMD.

Debatable as well. Dont forget that Intel-64 is just Intels version of AMDs x86-64 ;)

Regenweald
August 21st, 2009, 05:41 PM
Little off topic but i see that i5 may be released 3rd or 4th qtr for sub $200 is claimed. I'd love to see it's performance and how it may affect AMD's already very low pricing. considering intels track record though, i'm a little skeptical of a brand new arch at sub $200, performance may be a dog.
If it excels though, the proc wars will heat up considerably.

kickwin
August 21st, 2009, 05:48 PM
A couple of my friends have laptops with AMD processors and they always have problem with over-heating, which powers off the laptops. I have an Intel processor with similar configuration but I have had no such problems. But AMD works flawlessly in my Desktop. If I were to buy a laptop, I would go with Intel. I am not familiar with the latest Intel and AMD processors though!

Mehall
August 21st, 2009, 05:56 PM
A couple of my friends have laptops with AMD processors and they always have problem with over-heating, which powers off the laptops. I have an Intel processor with similar configuration but I have had no such problems. But AMD works flawlessly in my Desktop. If I were to buy a laptop, I would go with Intel. I am not familiar with the latest Intel and AMD processors though!

I have an HP laptop with an AMD processor, so I should be the worlds most susceptible person to overheating according to what I hear.
Had the thing for about a year now, and not had it shut down on me once.

If I leave it on overnight, the section of casing next to the trackpad, where the HDD is, can get rather hot, but thats because I'm generally torrenting if I leave it on ;)

pookiebear
August 21st, 2009, 05:57 PM
bought a lot of both over the years.

all the same stuff. except.

what was posted above about the ati/amd combo...not so good in my book. I would get a amd chip but get a different mobo from asus or some such. ati chipsets are worthless to me since the driver issues with ati and linux. I have 2 that I don't like. 1 a laptop and 1 a desktop. Desktop running XP for gaming isdecent enough for the super cheap price. If it is a laptop I would get a intel chip with a nvidia video chipset if I was to do it over.

Speedwise chip to chip....just fit your budget. The AMD overheating issues were addressed long ago.

PurposeOfReason
August 21st, 2009, 06:01 PM
To keep it simple, AMD budget and power conservative. Intel, just raw power. Wait for i9 people. 24 theoretical cores FTW!

kickwin
August 21st, 2009, 06:14 PM
I have an HP laptop with an AMD processor, so I should be the worlds most susceptible person to overheating according to what I hear.
Had the thing for about a year now, and not had it shut down on me once.

If I leave it on overnight, the section of casing next to the trackpad, where the HDD is, can get rather hot, but thats because I'm generally torrenting if I leave it on ;)

It is very much possible that your processor and many other AMDs have good heat dissipation system. I just mentioned what I have observed in my surrounding. It may not be true for every AMD-based laptop. But I would recommend people to research on this issue before buying an AMD-based laptop.

.Maleficus.
August 21st, 2009, 06:34 PM
Dont let one set of toms hardware graphs mislead you. Theres other tests around where the difference is far less than tom makes out-

http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=794&page=1
One set? Oh no no no. Take a look at any of their benchmarks. That was just the first result from my Google search of "i7 benchmarks". And the link you provided just helped prove my point. The i7 won almost every test. The only saving grace for that test was the price point, which they made sure to note on almost every page. Sorry PureOC, but I don't read benchmarks to find out that an AMD processor is cheaper; I can go to Newegg for that.

cascade9
August 21st, 2009, 07:02 PM
LOL, I said that the i7 was faster...just how much faster is questionable.

BTW, from memory, Toms has a known Intel bias. Even if thats been toned down, its interesting to see that they put overclocked Intels on that list, but not a single overclocked AMD?

Toms has i7s 920s smashing the fastest AMD by 40%, the best that they did @ that pureOC site was 12%. Unless you go to crossfire (and I would guess nvidia SLI) then the core i7 does better. Ohh, and the i7 on the pureOC site is running 6GB DDR3, the AMD is on 4GB.

Benchmarks are just statistics, and like the saying says- "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

Nepherte
August 21st, 2009, 07:22 PM
They have different instruction sets.

Intel generally has better instruction sets than AMD.
Not necessarily from a designer's perspective. They try to be compliant with much older intel istruction sets which kinda makes it a real mess compared to, let's say, mips.

SunnyRabbiera
August 21st, 2009, 08:06 PM
I say both are equal in terms of having decent processor models.
Though despite the price I personally say Intel is more worth it right now, intels these days have better speed and power then AMD

sandyd
August 22nd, 2009, 01:43 AM
To keep it simple, AMD budget and power conservative. Intel, just raw power. Wait for i9 people. 24 theoretical cores FTW!
you know that windows can't use that much right?:lolflag:
or rather, it can't use the cores effectively.

PurposeOfReason
August 22nd, 2009, 02:03 AM
you know that windows can't use that much right?:lolflag:
or rather, it can't use the cores effectively.
Not ATM, nothing can. But applications are becoming more multi-threaded by the day and when that is a feasible upgrade many programs will be able to take advantage of it.

It also will be 32nm goodness.

Oh, and some of us fold.

EDIT - I'm surprised I haven't been called out yet. It's 12 cores, not 24. Don't know what I was thinking . . .

cascade9
August 22nd, 2009, 11:15 AM
From wiki, its actually 6 cores, 12 theads
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i9

Who know what will happen before they get it out, the theads/cores could be increased...

johnbunag
August 22nd, 2009, 11:17 AM
i think it all depends on how much a person will spend.

stinger30au
August 22nd, 2009, 11:32 AM
while on the subject of intel vs amd, many, many moons ago the amd chips had no inbuilt thermometer and if the cpu fan ceased they would go pop

i assume amd have fixxed this??

cascade9
August 22nd, 2009, 12:01 PM
Yeah, most everything has some form of thermal protection these days. Funny enough, there were even ancient super7 boards that had a fan sensor, if the CPU fan failed they would shut down.

khelben1979
August 22nd, 2009, 12:30 PM
If you're interested in the difference between what Intel vs AMD can achieve these days, AnandTech have tried to cover this. Check out their review here (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3619&p=1).

I find the technology from AMD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd) more exciting myself.

3rdalbum
August 22nd, 2009, 02:29 PM
If you want a good platform on a budget, then AMD is where you should look.

If you have a bit more money and you want power, then Intel has the edge.

markbuntu
August 24th, 2009, 01:50 AM
For most users the i7 is just a dumb waste of money, but so is any quad core for that matter.

shezif
August 24th, 2009, 01:56 AM
AMD better then Intel but intel have much more tools (Like a lot of motherboards, more supports and etc).

I'm working with AMD and I'm very satisfied from my possessor.