My Personal Experience

[EarthDog]

Regarding temps between the two..http://www.alcpu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=892

#7...

 

[Bill_Bright]

Regarding CPU Temperatures - Intel measures temperatures weird. I always kept the max temp on the 9370 under 60c, and only that high when stress testing. The 6700k is safe to 81c and that is on the low end of the safety spectrum, but the chip itself is a WAY lower TDP, and definitely runs cooler in my rig, but measurable temps of the core are substantially higher. Anyone care to weigh in on why this is?

It is not that Intel measures temps weird. Long standing Intel users would probably say AMD measures temps weird.

The problem is, there is no industry standard for where processor makers will put sensors, nor is there any industry standard for how those test points are even labeled. So what makes it "weird" is all the processor makers do it differently.

If they all agreed to a common terminology, it would be so much easier. But one uses CPU temp, the other uses Tcase and another uses the socket. One other uses "Core", the other "Tjunction" - it is no wonder consumers (and often the HW monitoring programs) get confused.

Even within the same brand, the makers don't put the sensors in the same place.

All that creates confusion before the computer is even turned on! After that, there is no (and can be no) standard for what is "hot". Hot for this CPU may be 65°C but that CPU may have another 10°C headroom.

As far as AMD vs Intel, both make great and reliable processors and either will form the foundation for a great computer. And we (consumers) need both companies to continue doing so. While I happen to prefer Intel, that is only because my Ford F150 is better than Chevy and both are better than RAM!

 

[JATownes]

It is not that Intel measures temps weird. Long standing Intel users would probably say AMD measures temps weird.

The problem is, there is no industry standard for where processor makers will put sensors, nor is there any industry standard for how those test points are even labeled. So what makes it "weird" is all the processor makers do it differently.

If they all agreed to a common terminology, it would be so much easier. But one uses CPU temp, the other uses Tcase and another uses the socket. One other uses "Core", the other "Tjunction" - it is no wonder consumers (and often the HW monitoring programs) get confused.

Even within the same brand, the makers don't put the sensors in the same place.

All that creates confusion before the computer is even turned on! After that, there is no (and can be no) standard for what is "hot". Hot for this CPU may be 65°C but that CPU may have another 10°C headroom.

I am digging in to the link Earth threw up. Pretty interesting read on TJMax and what it means/how it is read. It is a pretty steep learning curve with the multitude of fundamental differences between the two processor manufacturers.

 

[Toothless]

IIRC, it's because of where the reading is taken. (I've never quite understood this so it's hard for me to explain) The Intel's temperature is read in the die, while AMD's is read on the package????? They way I think of it; Intel's is read closer to the source of the heat.

But haven't we seen that trend in society? How much of a snot where you when you were 20? (yes @Toothless , I'm talking about you) I know I knew everything when I was 18.

I don't think there are many who have a similar experience to discuss. IMHO, most made the switch a long time ago or are holding out for ZEN.
Secondly, people today don't seem to be able to participate in an debate. You offered up your experience, and most have responded with 1-2 sentences. Going deeper than that is foreign to most everyone, it seems. Then there's that time thing....

For a long time, my son had an i5-650 and I had an X2-4400+. I would have to go back and forth between the two, and that old 4400+ felt just as fast as his. Way back time machine: IIRC in Win3.1, there was a setting (I can't recall where) to adjust how quickly the GUI responded. Therefore, most likely, the speed that the GUI responds is not determined by the CPU (unless it's really slow/overloaded) but by settings within the OS. I would not be surprised if AMD and Intel have custom "profiles" within OS's and maybe AMD cached more of the directory tree.

I might be snotty at times but i still have love for most of you guys.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

All that's really going on with Cities is the Intel chip yielding much higher result due to much higher IPC. Which is why AMD is now seeking 40% more power per core in Zen.

Other than that the Intel sys just has way higher RAM speed, but that may only show as a slight performance increase in very CPU demanding games. However you are right to a degree that you'd need to test for it with same RAM capacity.

 

[Kanan]

You guys wanted more than a generic post, so...

I was a long time AMD user too. Actually my first really good CPU was a AMD, a Athlon TB 700 Slot A. After that I had a Athlon 1333 TB (Socket A), Athlon 64 X2 3800+ S939 (really expensive and not really worth it, but who would've guessed they are so slow with games that utilize more than 1 core) and finally a Phenom II 940 (AM2+). Last one I used for nearly 4 years from early 2009 (it's release) to end of 2013, I really liked that CPU and system. I changed when it became apparent that the CPU just couldn't cope with BF4, simply because the bandwidth and raw CPU power wasn't there. That's when I changed to a Intel. That was only my 3rd Intel, the 2nd one was a Pentium 166 MMX, the first a Pentium 90. So that was like a "big move" for me.

 

[Jetster]

Listing your system specs is important when discussing a problem. All manufactures hardware have traits that are characteristic to that company. Most OEMs profit margin is so tight than manufactures try to pass shoddy hardware on to costumers and load their products with "trial software" that can be a nightmare experience. This forum is our voice in that fight for quality hardware that do what we payed for. Its so powerful of a voice that representatives from hardware manufacture troll this forum to see what our experiences are, and to assist with problem when they arise. Sure you get an occasional "AMD sucks" but really its a non issue when you look at the positive that comes out of this place. Our passion is our power, don't silence your voice.

 

[chuck216]

I've always been an AMD Loyalist for a few reasons, first they're the underdog and we should fight for the underdog and they are more budget oriented.

 

[EntropyZ]

finally a Phenom II 940 (AM2+). Last one I used for nearly 4 years from early 2009 (it's release) to end of 2013, I really liked that CPU and system. I changed when it became apparent that the game just couldn't cope with BF4, simply because the bandwidth and raw CPU power wasn't there.

This. My first actual system that I used for gaming was a Phenom II x4 960T, which I could unlock to a six-core and even then overclock it beyond 4GHz, but what's the point? The TDP was nearing 140W mark, instead of the 95W for stock. And I didn't see much of a performance increase in a lot titles especially ones using DX9 and DX11 API's. The rig did well enough I thought to myself, I built it in Q2 2012 after the releases of a lot of AAA titles.

I'll use Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas as examples here... I would always look up benchmarks since 2011 to see Intel processors (since Nehalem) performing much faster compared to AMD counterparts. The ONLY reason I built that Phenom II rig was for Skyrim at the time and because money was an issue.

So l looked at pretty much every benchmark of Skyrim I could find and compared the results to my own. And thought "Ok, but I still think that surely Intel chips cannot be that much faster than the Phenom II and FX series processors." I proved myself wrong with the only way possible, by actually selling the 990X AM3+ motherboard and the Phenom II X4 960T.

After being fed up with dreadful stuttering in some games (including the Bethesda Game Studios titles) I replaced my Phenom II rig into one with an Intel i5 2400. Which didn't seem like an upgrade, but more of a downgrade, remember the Phenom X6 1605T @ 4GHz that I unlocked was faster in multi-threading, so a lot of more basic tasks in OS felt better for some reason (placebo? I don't know.). The Single-thread performance was what interested me, I remember my dad being all skeptical about the i5 2400 performance, saying it couldn't beat his FX 8350 in anything or would run on par.

Skyrim was, get this. Twice or almost three times as faster, in stock clock. My only reaction was "**** yeah! Finally I can play games without ever even reaching 70% usage on this thing when overclocked". The GTX 660 I had at the time could really stretch its legs, and after upgrading to a R9 380. The rig feels like a beast for the money I spent on getting it.

The motherboard VRM's are so much cooler, I never have to worry about the motherboard getting hot, especially after changing the thermal paste/pads. With a decent GPU I could run any game no problem, but the Sandy Bridge is showing its age now, more than ever. I'm starting to think I might have to track down an i7 2600K to take advantage of future technologies that favor multi-tasking more.

I'm still excited about AMD Zen, I want to see the next chapter in what's in store for us consumers, good or bad. Maybe I'll tell the story about it to the future generations if I'll still be alive.

Sorry for the poorly written post. I'm just a newcomer here speaking my mind. It's messed up in there, especially when it's late.

 

[Kanan]

There are many users here that still use their Phenom IIs one even coupled with a Fury X - what a crazy guy. It's out of loyalty I guess, but basically games like Skyrim are the nail to the coffin for Phenoms. That game's not really into multi Cores, I mean, you could probably play Crysis 3 on it and not lose any FPS, even with a Fury X maybe, but then again, Crysis 3 has a really solid multi threaded engine, which even scales up to 8 cores.

 

[RealNeil]

I completely prefer my Intel boxes at the moment, but my last AMD PC (FX-9590) was smooth and powerful.
It had a fast SSD in it,.................and that helped it out a lot. There were two GTX-760 4GB GPUs in it in SLI too.
One thing that it didn't do well was overclock, but it was rock solid at stock speeds.
I gave it to my son to use for his Engineering tasks because I knew that it would work well for him. He loves it so far.

I think that my intel boxes handle memory a little better. I also think that Intel's DATA throughput is quicker than AMD's is.
If Zen is good, I'll probably buy one of them. It doesn't have to whip Intel's ass either. It just has to be good.

 

[JATownes]

All that's really going on with Cities is the Intel chip yielding much higher result due to much higher IPC. Which is why AMD is now seeking 40% more power per core in Zen.

Other than that the Intel sys just has way higher RAM speed, but that may only show as a slight performance increase in very CPU demanding games. However you are right to a degree that you'd need to test for it with same RAM capacity.

I'm going to pull a pair of sticks out this evening and find out. The performance increase is absolutely crazy. Quite literally 30-40% increase in frame rate. I just really want to know what % difference is IPC , and what % of the increase is RAM.

This. My first actual system that I used for gaming was a Phenom II x4 960T, which I could unlock to a six-core and even then overclock it beyond 4GHz, but what's the point? The TDP was nearing 140W mark, instead of the 95W for stock. And I didn't see much of a performance increase in a lot titles especially ones using DX9 and DX11 API's. The rig did well enough I thought to myself, I built it in Q2 2012 after the releases of a lot of AAA titles...

I always thought my 9370 was more than sufficient. Truly did not realize the dramatic difference in the platforms themselves.

...The ONLY reason I built that Phenom II rig was for Skyrim at the time and because money was an issue...

This may be the main reason I did not switch the last few years. The Sabertooth 990FX I had the 9370 in began it's life with a Phenom II 965, that was always "good enough", then when I had some extra coin I spent a bit for a 9370, then spent some time playing with different cooling. The price of switching the entire platform was cost prohibitive. Sad thing is that now I know what I was missing all those years.

...Sorry for the poorly written post. I'm just a newcomer here speaking my mind. It's messed up in there, especially when it's late.

I thought it was extremely well written.

I completely prefer my Intel boxes at the moment, but my last AMD PC (FX-9590) was smooth and powerful.

Right after you made the switch, did you happen to notice any difference in responsiveness of the desktop/file file browser??

As I mentioned, the change has really got me thinking about playing with a pair of NV cards. I know performance is better, but is the difference in "visual quality" very dramatic? I know that is a VERY subjective question, but I would like some opinions.

JAT

 

[Kanan]

Visual quality should be the same, unless you have more GPU power available and can set the graphical settings higher. With CF 290X from what you're coming, you need at least a Titan XP or 2x GTX 1080 to have a real boost and more options available. 1x GTX 1080 wouldn't do much difference if at all (at least if crossfire works in that game). The switch from a Crossfire setup to a single GPU would benefit frame time issues nonetheless, so yes, the quality would be higher, at least in games that have problems with Crossfire, but basically it would be a good move and a lot less power consumption on top (150-200W compared to 500W+).

 

[MT Alex]

As I mentioned, the change has really got me thinking about playing with a pair of NV cards. I know performance is better, but is the difference in "visual quality" very dramatic? I know that is a VERY subjective question, but I would like some opinions.

JAT

I actually had a very hard time after switching to an NV card, the colors to my eyes are much less vibrant than AMD. Things look fine, but just not as striking. It's been several years now, and a couple of cards later, so it no longer bothers me as much. Talking to a few other users on this forum it seems to be a well known difference between the brands.

 

[JATownes]

Visual quality should be the same, unless you have more GPU power available and can set the graphical settings higher. With CF 290X from what you're coming, you need at least a Titan XP or 2x GTX 1080 to have a real boost and more options available. 1x GTX 1080 wouldn't do much difference if at all (at least if crossfire works in that game). The switch from a Crossfire setup to a single GPU would benefit frame time issues nonetheless, so yes, the quality would be higher, at least in games that have problems with Crossfire, but basically it would be a good move and a lot less power consumption on top (150-200W compared to 500W+).

I'm definitely ready for a new pair of cards soon, as these 290Xs get hot as hell, but I'm not willing to spend the money on blocks for cards I know I'm about to replace. As far as new cards, I'm not going to go with a GP104, and I'm a little thrown that even the Pascal Titan is GP102, which should mean the "ti" model will use it too...It's beginning to look like we will not see a consumer card base on GP100? I'm waiting to see what Vega brings before I make any decisions, and I think right now the cost of GP104 and 102 based cards are too high. But the switch to Intel has made me want to try every manufacturer of hardware now, just to become familiar with the particular nuances of each.

I actually had a very hard time after switching to an NV card, the colors to my eyes are much less vibrant than AMD. Things look fine, but just not as striking. It's been several years now, and a couple of cards later, so it no longer bothers me as much. Talking to a few other users on this forum it seems to be a well known difference between the brands.

This is what I've also heard, and partially what I was referring to with the question. Glad to hear a first hand account of it...

 

[Kanan]

It's beginning to look like we will not see a consumer card base on GP100?

The GP100 has a lot of useless space occupied with double precision shaders and other things that are useless to gamers - basically the GP102 is a GP100 without useless parts to save space, energy and cost. What you'd want though is a GP102 fully activated (3840 shaders), a "Titan X Black", comparable to the original Titan Black. And if Vega is nice, maybe Nvidia is forced to come with a "1080 Ti" that has all shaders activated, being similar to a 780 Ti which has more shaders activated compared to the original Titan too.

I'm waiting to see what Vega brings before I make any decisions, and I think right now the cost of GP104 and 102 based cards are too high. But the switch to Intel has made me want to try every manufacturer of hardware now, just to become familiar with the particular nuances of each.

Wise choice.

 

[Caring1]

.....No worries though..Life is too short to subject yourself to rude and offensive behavior.

It's also too short to waste time misinterpreting what others say and get huffy over.
I haven't seen any rudeness in this thread, but your comments are now starting to infuse it.

 

[Kanan]

btw. one reason NV has worse colors compared to AMD is maybe the driver settings.

Go under NV Control Panel to Adjust Video Color Settings -> "With the Nvidia Settings" -> "Dynamic Range" -> "Full". Makes a lot of difference, because blacks aren't really black (rather grey) with "Limited" and Limited is the standard setting. Compare in a video or movie, the difference is pretty clear.

If you use HDMI you must do the same under "Change Resolution".

 

[Toothless]

btw. one reason NV has worse colors compared to AMD is maybe the driver settings.

Go under NV Control Panel to Adjust Video Color Settings -> "With the Nvidia Settings" -> "Dynamic Range" -> "Full". Makes a lot of difference, because blacks aren't really black (rather grey) with "Limited" and Limited is the standard setting. Compare in a video or movie, the difference is pretty clear.

If you use HDMI you must do the same under "Change Resolution".

thank you i needed this

 

[Ithanul]

ignore those posts...if it gets out of hand, report THOSE posts/users for moderation help.

But, honestly, this is MOST forums, including TPU, when they get big there is always that type of behavior.

You should join Overclockers.com...smaller community, just as if not more knowledgeable than here and WAY less riff raff in the forums.

Anyway, I digress.

No kidding. This is tame compare to OCN. To save yourself, never go into a news thread on a new GPU.....talk about one hell of a craze storm between fanboys.

But on the OP's main post.

Cities:Skylines loves fast single thread performance. Since it is a building simulation game, such games tend to get CPU bound pretty fast before the GPU can be fully be used. Some others over on OCN in the thread for the game report once you get really high pop the game will actually start slowing down because of all the calculations it has to do.

About the reason the Intel chip runs hotter. Smaller nm and more transistors in a small space. Hence, the heat is more concentrated in a small space. This is also reason why it more of a challenge to get higher GHz. Can't remember all the particular reasons for it. Would have to find that huge thread debate over on OCN on the matter.

On the snappy feel of AMD, can't really say I ever notice that since both of my rigs run off SSDs. Only time I ever notice something being snappier was putting my folder rig over to Linux. I currently run a 1090T on a Asus 990FX board in the folder. The main rig has a 4770K delidded on a MSI Z87-GD65 board. On motherboard heat, never paid attention to it.

Plus, can't say on anything about GPU usage on AMD or Intel since I don't fret over small percentages or fps majority of the time as long as it can run the game. Also, I never game much on any of the AMD rigs I had since I use my current AMD for folding and boinc tasks.

 

[eidairaman1]

I'm going to pull a pair of sticks out this evening and find out. The performance increase is absolutely crazy. Quite literally 30-40% increase in frame rate. I just really want to know what % difference is IPC , and what % of the increase is RAM.



I always thought my 9370 was more than sufficient. Truly did not realize the dramatic difference in the platforms themselves.



This may be the main reason I did not switch the last few years. The Sabertooth 990FX I had the 9370 in began it's life with a Phenom II 965, that was always "good enough", then when I had some extra coin I spent a bit for a 9370, then spent some time playing with different cooling. The price of switching the entire platform was cost prohibitive. Sad thing is that now I know what I was missing all those years.



I thought it was extremely well written.



Right after you made the switch, did you happen to notice any difference in responsiveness of the desktop/file file browser??

As I mentioned, the change has really got me thinking about playing with a pair of NV cards. I know performance is better, but is the difference in "visual quality" very dramatic? I know that is a VERY subjective question, but I would like some opinions.

JAT

I guess I got lucky with a 125 W chip then to oc far.