PDA

View Full Version : Why can't amd keep up with Intel - ?



michael-piziak
November 9th, 2015, 10:26 AM
I know OS bashing is not allowed here, I hope this is allowed.

I only came across this issue personally when having an HP desktop that is 8 years old is faster than my 4 year old AMD hp notebook I'm using now - both have Ubuntu 12.04 lts 100% on both of them.

Link to article why can't amd keep up is at: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/356437-28-intel

Swagman
November 9th, 2015, 01:08 PM
For the first time in probably 12 years I have moved over to intel for that very reason.

Moved from a black Edition Phenom II x4 @ 4ghz (iirc) to a Core™ i7-6700 CPU @ 3.40GHz × 8

It's so blisteringly quick I've even been awarded a "Top 25%" Badge of honour from Seti !

http://i.imgur.com/9KMP1cU.jpg

As much as I hate to admit it.. AMD is passed it's "Glory"

nevets68
November 9th, 2015, 04:03 PM
And stuff like this doesn't help any :


http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/07/amd-processor-core-class-action-lawsuit/

mastablasta
November 10th, 2015, 01:36 PM
they have limited resources compared to Intel. And even with those limited resources they manage to squander them in one way or another. Even the GPU is not as good as it was in the days of ATI. though that one is still better than Intel.

in Single core they had a lead, but they seem to have fell asleep quite fast after that, I mean they made some powerfull multi cores CPU at the time but they also drained plenty of power and generated a lot of heat. Intel focused more on lower power and it payed of as more people switched to notebooks from desktops. TDP suddenly mattered. battery time was improving for Intel and stagnating or getting worse for AMD. so they lost money there as well.

then there is some marketing lies and well they did it themselves. I mean look at ARM, where they started and where they are now. who said you can't do it?

and I think I will go with intel on the next PC. I though about going with A8, but the more I read the more it seem sit is worth paying a bit extra nowadays and get a proper CPU to last you a bit longer.

d-cosner
November 10th, 2015, 02:41 PM
On a positive note though AMD processors are so much more affordable than Intel. For myself at least, if I am not running high end games performance is perfectly fine using an AMD processor or graphics card.

mystics
November 10th, 2015, 04:01 PM
Yeah, there are some trade offs. AMD is good for people on a budget, but they can't invest in R&D, marketing, and business deals at quite the same level of Intel or NVIDIA. The end result is that they'll likely remain, for at least the near future, both a minor player and one lagging behind. That doesn't mean people on a budget are forever doomed to bad hardware. AMD is decent if you don't plan on running The Witcher 3 maxed out on graphics and eye candy (of course, part of this is also due to NVIDIA's ability to get developers to give them preference), and I've seen plenty of people use AMD as a way of keeping costs down for their mid-range gaming computers. It just won't get you the best performance possible and may die on you sooner.

mastablasta
November 11th, 2015, 08:52 AM
although AMD did manage to break into consoles with GPU chips.

I still think they squandered their lead. I mean ATI did that probably before AMD picked them up.

SantaFe
November 12th, 2015, 02:54 AM
Hard to say, maybe they didn't have a nifty logo animation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW8LLhHq9_c

:D

pqwoerituytrueiwoq
November 12th, 2015, 03:09 AM
there are some situations AMD is faster, for example single thread prime calculations (if anyone wants to compare multi thread prime calculations ill help)
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2302060
and in more real world uses there is video encoding on a budget (speed matters but a i7 or xeon just cost too much)

bcschmerker
November 12th, 2015, 04:05 AM
Advanced Micro Devices came up with the Accelerated Processing Units to better integrate CPU and GPU memory handling; the Socket FM2/+ A-Series do the job well enough for a client-side system on DDR3-1600+, and they've DDR4-ready Socket FM3 APU's in preproduction testing. Of course, they also know in what areas they are beat, as they too went with Intel® in the form of a 4th-Generation Core Processor™ i7-4790K and Z97 Express Set™ when building a demo system for the R9 Fury video adapter, since upgraded to sell the R9 Fury-X. I kinda like the APU's as first choice for client all-in-ones, as the built-in R7 Radeons still run circles around the 5th- and 6th-Gen Cores' integrated graphics in some tasks and keep up with the New Pentiums and Core i3's on the CPU side.

QIII
November 12th, 2015, 05:27 AM
AMD is the innovator. Intel has the muscle to push them out.

In the consumer market, AMD has gotten there first in some pretty important new technologies:

64 bit architecture
Multi-core processors
CPU/GPU on the same die

Then Intel adopts, adapts and clears the dance floor before AMD can make good. AMD settles for the value market.

Innovation: AMD
Marketing clout and revenue generation: Intel

In another area: because NVIDIA got such a head start in the GPGPU/supercomputer arena they can keep the competition out of the boxing ring, but AMD's GPUs are often very superior to NVIDIA in parallel processing. NVIDIA just keeps them out of the boxing ring because they got there first. It doesn't matter a lot that the competition is better, because there is just too much code written for NVIDIA that nobody wants to refactor -- because that's expensive.

AMD is like a gazelle that sprints away from the lion ... and then trips and gets caught.

mastablasta
November 12th, 2015, 09:56 AM
well that was the case but I think the question here is it still the case? they seem to have fallen behind Intel a bit more and they also started lying to consumers. not a good idea. before we knew AMD was a bit slower than Intel but they were quite a bit cheaper. but now it seem they are a lot slower yet are pushing into same price area. the APUs are probably still stronger as their GPU chip is a lot better than Intel's.

him610
November 12th, 2015, 12:04 PM
they also started lying to consumers That is called 'marketing'.

I have used both of them in the past, but I normally don't build machines that are high end screamin' banshees either, just plain middle of the road, able to perform normal everyday tasks expected of a cup/gpu.