1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD / Intel CPU perforrmance

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by VulkanBros, Mar 27, 2013.

  1. VulkanBros

    VulkanBros

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,340 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Location:
    The Pico Mundo Grill
    This thread is NOT about beeing Intel/AMD fanboy !!

    So I have recently made a shift from a FX-8150 BE to an i5-3570K.
    The AMD mobo was a ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2
    The Intel mobo is a ASUS Maximus V Gene.
    The FX-8150 OC = 4.4 GHz (24/7)
    The i5-3570K OC = 4.6 GHz (24/7)
    All other stuff is the same (see System Specs)

    One of the reasons I made the shift was: I got the stuff really cheap!
    Second - I thougt the Intel thing was overall faster.

    And here is the question: In allmost all synthetic benchmarks I made myself, the Intel
    CPU is faster - BUT in real life use is seems to be slower - why??

    I know the FX-8150 has 8 cores and the i5 has 4 (no hyperthreading) - is that the reason??

    System boot times and general use (Office/picture viewing/mail etc etc) no noticeable diff.
    I crunch (WCG) - there the diff. is huge (due to 4 more cores)
    In Freemake Videoconverter the diff. is huge - the FX-8150 is 30% faster.
    In games (BF3/FarCry3/Metro2033/Skyrim/Dishonored) I can´t see/feal any diff.
    In 3DMark benchmarks the i5 is faster - no doubt.
    In a total system scan (with Kaspersky Internet Security) the FX is 10 minutes faster (total scan time is 1 hour and 21 minuts with FX)

    So my conclusion is:
    The i5-3570K cost around 220 $ and the FX-8150 around 180$
    There is no way I can justify to buy and Intel CPU over an AMD.
    (If I do benchmarks all the time the answar is YES - but who does that?)

    I don´t know if it is right to compare those two CPU´s - if i am totally wrong please slap me :slap:
     
    Daimus says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  2. Raw

    Raw

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    454 (0.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    97
    I don't quite get your question

    *** And here is the question: In allmost all synthetic benchmarks I made myself, the Intel
    CPU is faster -



    And since when did life become real?
    Just asking...

    :twitch:
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2013
  3. d1nky

    d1nky

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,707 (6.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,281
    I see what he's saying, he did mention this before.

    I think real life refers to daily usage. eg. tasks you perform day to day in the real world. Not virtual synthetic benchmark scoring.

    synthetic benchmarks like 3dmark etc? where the intel does perform better than amd.

    id say youre noticing the difference between the core difference and multi threaded applications etc.

    and youre are right the price difference between a four core and an 8 core, while the 8 is cheaper, definitely the price/core ratio is the main point.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2013
  4. ueutyi New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Messages:
    65 (0.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Do not do both
    Do this instead.
    i7-3770K
    Z77A-GD65
    IF U WANT choose one in this two.
    i5
    Reason: AMD for gaming? GO I3 INSTEAD!
     
  5. marsey99

    marsey99

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,572 (0.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    294
    your old amd chip is up against hte i7 in perf but as they lose there they are priced against intels next perf range, the i5 where they win at things which can use the extra cores. on the other hand things which dont make much of those extra cores and require more getting done per cycle (most games, less system heavy stuff) will be faster on intels cpu even with 4 less threads.
     
  6. RCoon

    RCoon Forum Gypsy

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    6,911 (7.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,166
    Location:
    Gypsyland, UK
    I have both 3570k and the 8350, both have been overclocked with a H100. I see no real world performance difference between either of them. I will remain neutral with AMD/Intel because both of these chips are good and fully capable at high end gaming with no noticable difference.
    Synthetics are an entirely different matter.
     
    Daimus and xvi say thanks.
  7. VulkanBros

    VulkanBros

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,340 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Location:
    The Pico Mundo Grill
    Thanx all .... hmmm

    Clarification:
    Synthetic benchmarks = Futuremarks hole range, SuperPI, etc etc - you name it.
    Real life = Every day tasks, Office Suite, mail, video editing, games etc etc

    I am happy with my i5 - no question, just thought I would see a greater performance diff. in everyday use - as all reviews I have found tells that the i5 is faster than the 8150.

    Could I conclude that both are good - yes
    I wish that more applications/games would use the full potential of every core in a CPU - regardless witch brand it may be!
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  8. ruff0r

    ruff0r

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2012
    Messages:
    239 (0.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    62
    The AMD would pull ahead of the i5 greatly.

    As you said. AMD with it´s 8 cores is much better suited for Multimedia because of the parallelization in all of those programs (most).

    Intel has better single core to Mhz performance that is why in games the i5 pulls ahead for example SC2 only uses 2 cores even an i3 beats the fx 8350.
     
    xvi says thanks.
  9. techtard

    techtard

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Messages:
    930 (0.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Both are good platforms, I own an FX based computer and an Intel as well. Sounds like you are seeing the gains in multithreaded apps, where the extra 4 cores will make a difference.

    And with the PS4 using AMD FX cpus, we may finally move into the real next-gen of gaming with decent multithreading.

    That being said, I can't wait for Intel to drop a 6 or 8 core i5 cpu, that will be my next upgrade on the Intel side.
     
    xvi says thanks.
  10. terrastrife New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    Messages:
    172 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    38
    OP I have the same experience as you. I went from a stock 8350/890FX to an i7 950 4GHz/X58 and the AMD setup was definitely much more responsive however slower at benchmarks. The rest was identical, same SSD/RAM/etc
    The AMD setup also benefits greatly from Windows 8, or the scheduler and sleep fixes for Windows 7.
     
  11. lilhasselhoffer

    lilhasselhoffer

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,615 (1.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    967
    Location:
    East Coast, USA
    What?

    You went from a modern AMD cores, to a 2+ generations older (SB, IB) system. You forego all the advanced instruction sets, better DDR3 handling, and other benefits. You do all of this, and then wonder why CPU based testing gives you better results on Intel but whole system testing gives you better results on AMD. I don't believe this was a well designed comparison.




    Also, nobody's come out to say this. 8 AMD cores =/= 8 Intel cores in this generation. AMD shares some resources among core pairs, so they have a higher number of cores without having performance equal to that core count.

    In the real world, AMD offers an 8 core chip for the price of a 4 core Intel. You lose some of the single threaded performance, but single threaded programming has its days numbered. Intel chips are more power efficient, but AMD is significantly better on the initial pricing.

    I don't see appreciable differences between an APU and a 3930k in most usage scenarios. That said, I'm encoding video on my 3930 and surfing on my APU. Flawed initial assumptions generally make "testing" results flawed....
     
  12. BiggieShady

    BiggieShady

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    984 (1.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    326
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    You shouldn't have done that ... quickload your last save :D
     
    xvi says thanks.
  13. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,653 (4.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,019
    This is very true. I have seen that intel CPUs are only better in synthetic benchmarks. The reason is, that they are indeed only synthetic. and generally built around intel processors.
    also dont know if its true or not, someone once told me that intel uses TTL logic where as AMD uses NMOS logic. As usual, you can switch a mosfet on and off faster than you can do that with a transistor.

    I would also like to add that, comparing efficiency is not really possible, because as far as i know, amd and intel measure their TDP in different ways.


    Again, recently i have seen a lot of intel processors getting rma'ed. specially since the sandy bridge came out. Seems like they have lost the reliability front, because i have never once seen an AMD cpu go broke.

    i have seen some noobish amateurs push 2.1V through their FX 4100s and still those live to tell the tale.
    i still have the screenie XD
    [​IMG]
     
  14. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,653 (4.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,019
    i3 are pathetic. so is hyper threading. good luck finding anything useful to do with an i3 other than running synthetic benchmarks. two cores in 2013. hahah
     
    eidairaman1 says thanks.
  15. VulkanBros

    VulkanBros

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,340 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Location:
    The Pico Mundo Grill
    I didn´t get ueutyi´s message either - i3 is in my eyes not an option - maybe for a HTPC.....
     
    de.das.dude says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  16. GamerGuy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2012
    Messages:
    180 (0.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    102
    Location:
    Babylon 5
    I have a high end Intel build, as well as a better than average AMD FX8350 build, and I can honestly say that in everyday usage, like vid encoding and gaming, the FX hold its own. I use either my FX rig, or my 3rd rig (Intel X9650) for surfing and other daily use......the FX is fast and responsive as any Intel. I had built this FX rig to see what the hysteria was over the FX CPU (originally had an FX410, upped to an FX8120 to my present FX8350). Mind you, the FX4100 & 8120 were good......I'd decided I want the best AMD could offer, to commensurate with the Asus mobo I had originally gotten.
     
    Daimus and xvi say thanks.
  17. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,653 (4.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,019
    he is an intel fanboi obviously :p
     
  18. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Everything's true but not the voltage part. I know the guy you are talking about. And actually his voltage was around 1.5V. But the reading was wrong he told me.

    As for the reliability part, both AMD and Intel are equally reliable.

    I overclocked my Intel Pentium 4 at 4 GHz feeding it 1.7 V on stock cooling on a sub $50 Foxconn motherboard with DDR2 667 MHz value RAM. Still it was rock solid.

    And one thing, I am a fanboy of no brand. But I personally think Intel's overclocking potential is under stated especially in recent times. The Sandy Bridge K series processors are very good overclockable and can do 5 GHz easily on a good air cooled system. I wonder why Intel does not do the overclocking part as well as AMD i.e. using extreme cooling and have the OC market.

    And also one thing's for sure, current AMD CPUs consume much more power than current Intels. Not talking about the TDP. But a CPU's power usage can be calculated by the amount of heat it generates. No doubt, if you use a same cooler in both AMD and Intel CPUs of the same time, you will see the temps of the Intel will be lower than that of the AMD.

    Again I don't know another thing, AMD has the potential to lower their VCore on their CPUs for less TDP. I ran my 955 BE at 3.7 GHz at reduced voltage of 1.375V(Default 1.4V). Still it was rock solid stable and temps were less than it would have been at stock.

    Weird. :p Correct me if I am wrong. :)
     
    xvi says thanks.
  19. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,653 (4.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,019
    he checked the reading on both aida and speedfan. they cant both be incorrect. how did you know it was 1.5V? i dont think you measured it with a multimeter! just because it was set as 1.5V doesnt mean it will stay that way. a lot of bioses will bump up the voltage automatically to keep it stable.

    thats not the matter. the matter is that the CPU still survived about being pumped with over 2V.
     
  20. TommyT New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Messages:
    55 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Location:
    Beer-Sheva@Israel
    i'm not a fanboy of any company here. but i can that my rig run games like cyrsis 3, mohw, skryim

    with very nice frame rates ... 35-43 on ultra high resolution and all at max with msaa on 4 and filtering on 16

    so :)

    its very nice cpu :)
     
  21. xvi

    xvi

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,987 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,158
    Location:
    Washington, US
    I heard AMD still has better memory latency which makes it quick and snappy. I think that's still true since Intel added an IMC. Even if AMD isn't as powerful, it'll still feel fast. A bit like a little car versus a truck. You can tow a mountain up another mountain with the truck (synthetic bench), but if all you're doing is nipping out for some groceries, the quick and agile car will feel faster.
     
    Daimus says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  22. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    I think he did it wrong. If you monitor voltages with two or more different voltage monitoring apps at a time, they will read wrong readings because it conflicts with the SMBus signal generated by the SuperIO chip. I think Asus PC Probe was running in the background.

    And yes for the information, I just called him. His BIOS does not even allow to up the voltage above 1.7 V. I was kinda surprised when I saw this cuz my 120$ mobo doesn't allow >1.9. His motherboard being a sub entry micro ATX board could not allow greater than that. So its wrong info. Any CPU at normal cooler would be fried at that much voltage.

    And if you research, you will find that no entry level FX board shows correct voltage with FX CPUs due to change in design in power section. Even the fan control does not work efficiently.

    And no BIOS ever sets the CPU voltage automatically after you define it to be controlled manually. If you undervolt, it will undervolt. If you overvolt, it will overvolt.
     
  23. BiggieShady

    BiggieShady

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    984 (1.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    326
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Same voltage all the time? Not saving power? Is there an offset mode for controlling core voltage on entry FX boards?
     
  24. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,653 (4.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,019
    ^ lol. obviously your views are pretty rigid.

    there is a thing called load line caliberation. that will increase/deccrease you volts.

    also on my motherboard, which has a digital VRM, it continuously monitors the stability and voltage of my cpu at a couple of thousand times a second. It will increase the volts if it finds necessary, until and unless i turn LLC off.

    same goes for the Digi VRM having asus mobos, the 970 evo etc.
    infact for some reason (probably due to poor designing by asus), the VRM rated voltage was always .2V more ,during load testing, than what i applied.
     
    BiggieShady says thanks.
  25. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Yeah same voltage without cool and quiet(VDroop will occur as normal). If you enable cool and quiet, voltage will drop but that's a different thing. Its cool and quiet and not voltage selection.
    And yes, every motherboard has offsets for every CPU model it supports upto a limit.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page