AMD vs Intel

Are we comparing phenomII to i7 again when it's real competitor is the i5?

I'm with Techie on this one. Buy what you can afford. I do however use the argument of there being "too much" power when I know someone is about to waste a load more money than they should when all they're ever going to do is read e-mail. If you can comfortably afford the i7 get it, if not then don't. I recently upgraded because what was "too much power" 6 years ago just wasn't anymore. :) In 5-6 years time the i7 will be slow.
 
The_Techie said:
Care to qualify that statement? Because as it stands it is blatantly false.
Click to expand...

Lets ignore performance for a moment (I will get on to that now). What can an Intel CPU (from a capability point of view) that can't be done by an AMD one?

On the performance side, there are obviously some CPU's where Intel is way ahead. If you need that performance then the question about which CPU to get is mute. For all other speed requirements, there is roughly an equivalent AMD to Intel processor. When you fall into that bracket, pick what gives you the best bang for your buck.
 
Abe said:
Lets ignore performance for a moment (I will get on to that now). What can an Intel CPU (from a capability point of view) that can't be done by an AMD one?
Click to expand...

Two come to mind immediately:
1) Execute 8 threads simultaneously
2) Access RAM in triple channel

Abe said:
On the performance side, there are obviously some CPU's where Intel is way ahead. If you need that performance then the question about which CPU to get is mute. For all other speed requirements, there is roughly an equivalent AMD to Intel processor. When you fall into that bracket, pick what gives you the best bang for your buck.
Click to expand...

Again, exactly what I stated (though mine was a bit more long-winded :p) :)
 
Last edited:
A note about the human eye not being able to see more than 30fps. I used to play GTAIV at 35fps and it seemed smooth and I couldn't imagine it smoother. Last month I went and got Burnout Paradise Box which runs at 60+fps. After playing that for a while I went back to GTAIV and it feels laggy. The point is, it's only after experiencing 60+fps in fast paced games, that 30fps will seem slow.
 
The_Techie said:
Two come to mind immediately:
1) Execute 8 threads simultaneously
Click to expand...

Please explain. I develop and run far more then 8 simultaneous threads on single core processors. If you are talking about quad core with hyperthreading then that can be a good thing or a bad thing. For example, there was a thread about a year ago where they instructed people to disable hyperthreading when using SQL Server on server systems.

2) Access RAM in triple channel
Click to expand...

Is there a specific reason for needing this at the moment from a user point of view? It will not make the machines any faster. While it is a nice thing to add on the plus list, it serves no purpose for AMD to add it in the short term. I would understand if they had a problem with memory bandwidth. OTOH, it is technically something that the Intel can do which the AMD can't.

Again, exactly what I stated (though mine was a bit more long-winded :p) :)
Click to expand...

:D

The point I was trying to make is that the two makes are, for all intensive purposes, identical when it comes to a user point of view. You will probably find technical things on both sides that the other can't do.

People have this habit of looking at the best and making assumptions from there. One cannot assume that because AMD presently has the fastest GPU, all of their GPU's are better/faster and the same thing applies to the AMD/Intel situation on CPU's. I am sure everyone would like an i7 in their computer but sticking an Intel Celeron is not going to miraculously turn into one when it's stuck in your box.
 
SaiyanZ said:
A note about the human eye not being able to see more than 30fps. I used to play GTAIV at 35fps and it seemed smooth and I couldn't imagine it smoother. Last month I went and got Burnout Paradise Box which runs at 60+fps. After playing that for a while I went back to GTAIV and it feels laggy. The point is, it's only after experiencing 60+fps in fast paced games, that 30fps will seem slow.
Click to expand...

Of course the human eye can notice more than 30 FPS, geez run games at 30FPS and then run them at 100FPS there is massive difference regardless of what people tell you.
 
I love this type of conversation. No one will give up.

Die hard amd Fans vs Intel Power Users :D

My preference is Intel, purely based on past experiences.

I do a lot of encoding etc, and when you are encoding a large amout of AVI's that little bit of extra umph in a Intel saves you a couple of hours. But once again if you are a simple home user requiring a budget machine to do small time gaming etc AMD is great for you.

No CPU is better than the other, Porche's are great handlers but Lambo's will eat them down the straight...... I would kill for either..... need I say more.
 
Abe said:
Please explain. I develop and run far more then 8 simultaneous threads on single core processors. If you are talking about quad core with hyperthreading then that can be a good thing or a bad thing. For example, there was a thread about a year ago where they instructed people to disable hyperthreading when using SQL Server on server systems.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, you cannot execute 8 threads concurrently on a single core, process scheduling will revert to a "round robin" execution where every thread is given a slice of CPU time to make it appear as if each thread is being executed concurrently. If you have the capability of executing 8 threads simultaneously then no round robin is required. For example, a dual core can execute two threads simultaneously because each core can work on a different thread concurrently. See my following response regarding the performance aspect.

Abe said:
Is there a specific reason for needing this at the moment from a user point of view? It will not make the machines any faster. While it is a nice thing to add on the plus list, it serves no purpose for AMD to add it in the short term. I would understand if they had a problem with memory bandwidth. OTOH, it is technically something that the Intel can do which the AMD can't.
Click to expand...

I did not raise HyperThreading and triple channel memory access for their performance increases, I raised them in answer to your question of what capabilities an Intel desktop CPU has which an AMD desktop CPU does not. As you said, let's ignore performance for a moment. Don't move the goalposts ;)


Abe said:
:D

The point I was trying to make is that the two makes are, for all intensive purposes, identical when it comes to a user point of view. You will probably find technical things on both sides that the other can't do.

People have this habit of looking at the best and making assumptions from there. One cannot assume that because AMD presently has the fastest GPU, all of their GPU's are better/faster and the same thing applies to the AMD/Intel situation on CPU's. I am sure everyone would like an i7 in their computer but sticking an Intel Celeron is not going to miraculously turn into one when it's stuck in your box.
Click to expand...

I struggle to think of anything AMD desktop CPUs have that Intel desktop CPUs do not, save for concurrent DDR2 and DDR3 support (on supported chipsets), actually.

However, I am not pro-Intel or pro-AMD, but claiming that one is as good as the other whilst it's just not true irks me.
 
The_Techie said:
To my knowledge, you cannot execute 8 threads concurrently on a single core, process scheduling will revert to a "round robin" execution where every thread is given a slice of CPU time to make it appear as if each thread is being executed concurrently. If you have the capability of executing 8 threads simultaneously then no round robin is required. For example, a dual core can execute two threads simultaneously because each core can work on a different thread concurrently. See my following response regarding the performance aspect.
Click to expand...

Yes, but hyperthreading just works the same at a hardware level. It does a round robin between the two "virtual" processors with some optimisations when threads stall. The point with hyperthreading is that it can give you anything from -10% to +15% in performance difference when compared to the same CPU with hyperthreading disabled, depending on the situation. In both cases, the CPU is capable of doing only 1 action at a time.

I did not raise HyperThreading and triple channel memory access for their performance increases, I raised them in answer to your question of what capabilities an Intel desktop CPU has which an AMD desktop CPU does not. As you said, let's ignore performance for a moment. Don't move the goalposts ;)
Click to expand...

Not trying to move goalposts or did you miss where I said "OTOH, it is technically something that the Intel can do which the AMD can't.".

I struggle to think of anything AMD desktop CPUs have that Intel desktop CPUs do not, save for concurrent DDR2 and DDR3 support (on supported chipsets),
Click to expand...

But that would be one and it may be important to someone. I haven't really given it much thought. There were a number of other that Intel have recently included in their chips and I am sure there will be more on both sides in the future.

However, I am not pro-Intel or pro-AMD, but claiming that one is as good as the other whilst it's just not true irks me.
Click to expand...

They can both do the job. That is the context in which I read the comment that you took to task. The argument that Intel is better then AMD only holds water when looking at the top end processors to which AMD doesn't have a competitor. In 2 years time, it could be the other way around again.
 
Spazmatic said:
I love this type of conversation. No one will give up.

Die hard amd Fans vs Intel Power Users :D

My preference is Intel, purely based on past experiences.

I do a lot of encoding etc, and when you are encoding a large amout of AVI's that little bit of extra umph in a Intel saves you a couple of hours. But once again if you are a simple home user requiring a budget machine to do small time gaming etc AMD is great for you.

No CPU is better than the other, Porche's are great handlers but Lambo's will eat them down the straight...... I would kill for either..... need I say more.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Abe said:
Yes, but hyperthreading just works the same at a hardware level. It does a round robin between the two "virtual" processors with some optimisations when threads stall. The point with hyperthreading is that it can give you anything from -10% to +15% in performance difference when compared to the same CPU with hyperthreading disabled, depending on the situation. In both cases, the CPU is capable of doing only 1 action at a time.
Click to expand...

Then shall I revise it to say that Intel CPUs are more efficient and optimized for multithreaded programming when using HyperThreading (in fact I was thinking of the Core i7 CPUs being able to schedule 8 threads, not parallel execution, my mistake)? Either way my (amended) point remains valid, having extra logical (or virtual) processors is a capability found on some Intel desktop CPUs but not on AMD desktop CPUs.

Abe said:
Not trying to move goalposts or did you miss where I said "OTOH, it is technically something that the Intel can do which the AMD can't.".
Click to expand...

No I didn't miss it (thanks the for the implication though :)) however the whole performance discussion was completely irrelevant to the points I was making. Like you said, we are ignoring performance and looking at capabilities.

Abe said:
But that would be one and it may be important to someone. I haven't really given it much thought. There were a number of other that Intel have recently included in their chips and I am sure there will be more on both sides in the future.
Click to expand...

And the capabilities on an Intel CPU may be important to someone as well. Even if someone doesn't need the capabilities it doesn't make the CPU a lesser chip, it just means that they could get something inferior for cheaper.

Abe said:
They can both do the job.
Click to expand...

Certainly, however if CPU X does the job better/faster than CPU Y whilst supporting newer technologies and optimizations I will not rank them "every bit as good". That's why I suggested a qualification on his statement.

Abe said:
That is the context in which I read the comment that you took to task. The argument that Intel is better then AMD only holds water when looking at the top end processors to which AMD doesn't have a competitor. In 2 years time, it could be the other way around again.
Click to expand...

Which has been my main point all along.
 
Last edited:
blaaislaai said:
3DNow! and 3DNow!+ instruction sets.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I should then probably also mention there is support for SSSE3 and SSE4.2 on the Intel CPUs (not sure if AMD CPUs have those yet, the newest Phenom 965 BE C3 doesn't) for the sake of balance ;)
 
Last edited:
I've somehow gotten involved with this pointless debate again :D

The fact of the matter is: No, AMD does not have anything which trumps the Core i7 CPUs yet (as the OP asked). However, mid-high to mid-level performance is very even between Intel and AMD, so buy what's best for your budget. But if you need the insane power offered by the Core i7 CPUs, your choice is already made for you.

This will be my last post in this thread (unless I get bored :p) as it's slowly degenerating into an argument about definitions and interpretations thereof (which all X vs Y threads eventually do).

/me lurks some more :D
 
Last edited:
blaaislaai said:
lol oh! never knew there was a SSSE3, thought you made a typo. :o
Click to expand...

Completely understandable :)

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some lurking to do :p I want to see whether this thread pans out like the AMD vs Intel thread I started many years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X