Is intel really that good?

[Chrisoldinho]

How will Haswell compare with Trinity?

 

[Martini1991]

Trinity will probably have a better IGP still.
CPU side, it depends if we're going to get more 90 pound dual cores.

 

[stuie]

Probably for that kind of work, especially if I wanted value for money. If I was going to run it 24/7 I probably wouldn't though as they're a fair bit less power efficient than the intel alternative.



They do, but not for consumers. A pair of 6344s come out around the same price as the 3930K, but give you 24 cores. As above, you can think of this as similar to 12 cores in intel's architecture. In a memory intensive, multithreaded environment, I expect these would be higher performance.

http://www.servethehome.com/amd-opteron-6300-lineup-intel-xeon-threat/

The real attraction of these chips is in HPC though, as you can stick 4 of these 16-core chips in a mobo with practically as much memory as you want (up to 512 GB) and have a crunching beast. More, lower clock speed cores give you a really power efficient machine too.

Non consumer parts, not really a great deal of use to the majority of people on the forum

 

[Mr. May]

AMDs problem is they have nothing to match the hex core i7s, if they ever did find a CPU to match them I don't think intel would have any problem churning out hex cores at i5 prices.

Or an eight core i7 as the architecture has been designed for it, but is there any use for that much power ?? My 3930k never gets hot as its hardly trying 9 times out of 10.

 

[Gashman]

no this argument stems back too far to be explain in such two dimensional terms, is Intel really that good..?

at the moment, they are indeed very competitive, offering good performance (for a slight premium, but hell that is how you make money!) and keeping the market moving in the direction and speed they want it to.

the giant, huge glaring problem is brand awareness, quite frankly nobody knows who Advanced Micro Devices are. this might sound like a stupid thing to say on an enthusiast forum but take a sample of one hundred regular, day to day people, shop workers, mechanics, from all walks of life and ask them 'do you know who Intel are...?' and I would be willing to wager every single one of them know exactly who Intel are and what they do, or at least know they are something big to do with computers.

ask the same sample of people 'who are Advanced Micro Devices...?' and you'll get probably 75% of them giving you a glossy eyed look, why? because Intel control the market, its there market plain and simple, everywhere you look there is an Intel Inside sticker on it or being mentioned in it. the problem is Intel is a massive massive scary dog, and Advanced Micro Devices are like a little mouse, totally concealed in its shadow, has been the case for years. so yeah, Intel are that good but only because Advanced Micro Devices never really had a chance anyway, and the blame is pretty much on their shoulders as well.

 

[joeyjojo]

so yeah, Intel are that good but only because Advanced Micro Devices never really had a chance anyway, and the blame is pretty much on their shoulders as well.

It wasn't always a 2 horse race though. I was looking at this list of processors the other day http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/CPU.html and it's surprising just how much competition there was in the '80s and '90s.

 

[Chrisoldinho]

High end intel's are ahead yes, but for general gaming an 8350 can match 3570K's and get close to the 3770K it in highly threaded apps. I found this to be a very interesting read, and showed just how little difference there is between the obvious "gamers" choice CPU and an 8350, when both overclocked.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1333027/a...-crossfire-gpu

 

[Marine-RX179]

High end intel's are ahead yes, but for general gaming an 8350 can match 3570K's

Actually it's depended on the games being play. If you look at random single player benches there's usually not much difference between the two due to GPU bottleneck...but if you throw in online gaming performance, poor CPU core counts scaling, 120Hz monitor (without the 60Hz bottleneck) with high-end SLI/CF graphic setup into the mix, Intel would pull away with quite a big margin.

But generally speaking...for single player games that are using 4 or more cores and only on a single GPU graphic card, there's probably not gonna be any noticable difference between the two CPU. But I think Intel would still be a bit more power efficient if both CPUs were to deliver the same gaming performance.

Also to be honest, the FX8320 (the £130 AMD CPU OP's refering to) ain't exactly hugely cheaper than the i5 3570K...and then I think people have already reported that the 8320 seem to not overclock as well as the more expensive 8350.

 

[zakblood]

i have myself a oveclocked bundle from here a i7 2700K 3.50GHz @ 4.20GHz DDR3 and will compair it to another one i got also from here, a none overclocked AMD Bulldozer FX-4 Quad Core 4170 Black Edition 4.20Ghz, both builds have the same RAM: TeamGroup Elite 16GB DDR3 1600MHz Dual Channel, and also the same sdd's.

the only real difference is the vga cards in the amd is a mid ranged one a Sapphire HD 7850 2048MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card and the intel now has a Sapphire HD 7970 3072MB PCI-Express Graphics Card.

to be very honest apart from the cards, both play games almost the same on 22" and 24" displays, the extra the i7 has doesn't seem to come into play, i would guess that if i had the same vga cards in both then most standard users couldn't tell the difference without benchmarking it, and as i said standard users, ie those that just spend time gaming not just running tests to see how quicker something is as a hobby etc

so must also agree with above, even though he used different chips to make his point, any real gamer knows 4 core is max for games atm, 6 or 8 is way of into the distance with something like windows 9 or 10 even.

 

[Gashman]

It wasn't always a 2 horse race though. I was looking at this list of processors the other day http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/CPU.html and it's surprising just how much competition there was in the '80s and '90s.

indeed, did in-fact own a Cyrix processor back in those days. but that just further proves the point, Intel crushed them all essentially. hell even in those days everyone knew Intel, and Cyrix or people like that were reserved for those who 'looked deeper' into computers.

Edit: do people not agree that the problem has always been that Intel have an aggressive and successful marketing machine where as the others never did, hence how nobody knows them, its the vast majority of people that you want knowing who you are and buying your products rather than the minority (us)

 

[oa786gunnerhq]

Personally I believe that AMD is better value for money, take the higher end Trinity APUs for instance.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Actually it's depended on the games being play. If you look at random single player benches there's usually not much difference between the two due to GPU bottleneck...but if you throw in online gaming performance, poor CPU core counts scaling, 120Hz monitor (without the 60Hz bottleneck) with high-end SLI/CF graphic setup into the mix, Intel would pull away with quite a big margin.

But generally speaking...for single player games that are using 4 or more cores and only on a single GPU graphic card, there's probably not gonna be any noticable difference between the two CPU. But I think Intel would still be a bit more power efficient if both CPUs were to deliver the same gaming performance.

Also to be honest, the FX8320 (the £130 AMD CPU OP's refering to) ain't exactly hugely cheaper than the i5 3570K...and then I think people have already reported that the 8320 seem to not overclock as well as the more expensive 8350.

pretty much nailed it

also what some just don't get is the amd 8350 is priced lower for a reason its slower ! they are priced to compete with relevant counterparts. the 3570k isnt its rival. the amd 8350 is below that and has been show in many articles. basically its about 10-15 percent slower in games no matter what way you cut it. this is why the price reflects this. benchmark as many video encoding runs as you want it is slower

intel is just better at gaming. you do get good performance for price with some amd cpus though ill give em that.

 

[Gashman]

Well for years they have had the value card, in days gone by they had the value and performance, but its there limited influence that is ruining them not so much that their processors at the moment aren't quite at the standard of Intel, even then its not a massive gulf that can't be closed. Influence is more important than out right performance, look at the Prescott days where Intel successfully rode their 'reputation' for many many years even though Athlon 64 was the superior choice in most respects, still didn't stop the vast vast majority of people owning computers with the Intel Inside logo on it.

Happens in all aspects of life, look at the music industry and the Influence of people like Simon Cowell, doesn't matter that they keep peddling the same old rubbish on and on, and there are countless bands playing pubs and clubs that deserve to be there so much more. Comes down to the fact that the bold succeed, regardless of whether they should or not, they do because they are bold enough to get themselves out there.

 

[joeyjojo]

also what some just don't get is the amd 8350 is priced lower for a reason its slower ! they are priced to compete with relevant counterparts. the 3570k isnt its rival. the amd 8350 is below that and has been show in many articles. basically its about 10-15 percent slower in games no matter what way you cut it. this is why the price reflects this. benchmark as many video encoding runs as you want it is slower

Are you mad? The 8350 beats the 3570K in every video encoding benchmark.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/701?vs=697&i=500.502.26.28.39.40.345.54

 

[Martini1991]

Why is it people can't read graphs?
The 3570k wins the divX encode, the FX8350 the HD264 encoding.

Not that it makes a difference to me, but that isn't every.

 

[~>Dg<~]

joeyjojo hahah you fell in the trap

i put that because everyone's defense (8350) is i can encode faster video where as everything else is slower that's why i put it

the 8350 is 10-15 percent slower than a i3570k overall.

its priced at that aswell . that's why its priced that way

 

[Martini1991]

Well, it's not just encoding the FX8350 is faster.
In raw performance, if software wasn't the limiting factor in many of the situations the FX8350 loses, it would be the faster CPU, that said, Intel knows the situation with software, and that's why their CPU's are how they are with CPU's like the 3570k, can't see it paining Intel to release some mainstream 6 threaded hex core, but they don't need to.

 

[joeyjojo]

joeyjojo hahah you fell in the trap

 

[~>Dg<~]

Well, it's not just encoding the FX8350 is faster.
In raw performance, if software wasn't the limiting factor in many of the situations the FX8350 loses, it would be the faster CPU, that said, Intel knows the situation with software, and that's why their CPU's are how they are with CPU's like the 3570k, can't see it paining Intel to release some mainstream 6 threaded hex core, but they don't need to.

haha who makes something and hopes the the things its used for work for the product you make

you make the item work for what it used for.

so in actual normal world day to day use not in hypothetical make believe land the intel is simply faster overall its like trying to argue about physics.

if it aint going to happen its useless.

if you want to really end it set up a amount of benchmarks which arnt biased and we can do them and see !

awaits intel 3570 vs 8350

 

[Martini1991]

I don't understand your post in the slightest.
I don't really care about the benchmarks, I wouldn't buy the 8350 myself as I'm a gamer, and have a 2500k @ 4.8GHZ, and that's better for gaming.