• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

main differences between AMD and INTEL?

mrshinyshoes

mrshinyshoes

mrshinyshoes

Associate
Joined
19 Jul 2009
Posts
47
Hi

I have always used Intel processors but the AMD processors seem to have improved recently. Are there any major differences between AMD and INTEL, such as performance or quality??

Thanks
 
There are VERY loose terms at describing them, and they aren't true in a lot of circumstances since there is tons of variation in both manufacturers models. I always use AMD because they are amazing value and great performing chips. The motherboards are great quality too, and you can choose a good one without having to look up the chipset every time since it's named nicely.

Supposedly, Intel are more expensive but very slightly better at multi tasking. AMD are cheaper and are better at gaming.
 
Comparing am3/am2 to LGA775 Ive found that intel overclock better but that is much more dependant on motherboard and ram. Intel processors and mobos tend to cost slightly more too. Phenom II's perform roughly the same as the equivelent intel product but intel is faster clock for clock and has the advantage of hyperthreading. Phenom II overclock fairly well, not by as big a margin as intels dual or quads, but are easier due to unlocked multipliers. i7 is intels big boy, it out paces both LGA775 processors and AM2/3 in nearly everything, with the biggest exception being gaming in which it still performs better but not by as large a margin right across the board.
 
mrshinyshoes said:
thanks, so intel is better for multitasking, and amd is better for gaming.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily .. It depends on getting best value for money for what you are prepared to pay.. plus their overclocking potential, which has let AMD down in the past.

For all out performance and value, you can't really beat the I7 920 D0 which can easily clock at 4GHz.. you have 4 distinct cores, a huge bandwidth and so on.. .. but.. there is a hidden cost that you will need to upgrade your motherboard and memory.. and X58 board don't come that cheap. Conversely, the AMD path is a little simpler and is therefore regarded as better value as upgrading isn't as complicated nor expensive. Basically, if you already have an AMD AM2 or AM3 then I'd stick with that platform..

If you are building from scratch, then the i7 or even the forthcoming i3/i5 might be an option.. but again it depends on your budget.
 
Last edited:
Over the years I have found AMD the poor man's Intel. I have found the chipsets which support them a little less than stable. I used to be an AMD person all the way until the Core 2 Duo/Quads came out and surpassed AMD by quite a margin. Now when I build a work PC with a AMD processor/chipset they give me the most trouble. I have a feeling VIA are to blame though.
 
howiepoohs said:
Over the years...
Click to expand...
It varies over time. AMD's 586 processor was far better value than Intel's Pentium, with the Pentium II and especially the Celeron Intel was again the best. AMD's Athlon, especially the Thunderbird range totally outclassed Intel's offering and Intel remained on the back foot all through the P4 product line. It's only recently with the C2D product that Intel are on top again.

Given the economic performance of AMD - 11 straight quarters of loss, I'm not hopeful for their future.
 
IMHO, the reason Intel are ahead at the moment is because they have been price fixing, and preventing OEM manufacturers from stocking the rivals products in exchange for discounts on their products.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8047546.stm
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-antitrust-fine-violated-its-human-rights.ars

This has caused AMD to fall greatly behind with 11 sucessive quarterly losses. But even after this, they are still producing chips that are, on average, only 5-10% slower than than Intels in real world senarios, but are selling them much cheaper. The end user wouldn't even notice the difference, unless they were an enthusiast.

If it were me, i'd get AMD if you really want performance for your £. If money is no object to you and you are building from scratch, by all means go intel, but think to yourself, will; you really be fully loading all those cores and resources for a reasonable length of time per day? If not, you may find that you could have bought cheaper hardware and still got decent performance.

With no disrespect to anybody here intended, i have seen numerous threads in this forums where people have said they will use their PC for gaming, and the answer has pretty much always been 'i7, OC 4GHz'. This is completely fine if you can afford to replace your entire system pretty much, but i believe that similar performance could be had with some AM3 or even socket 775 solutions.

The real question that should be asked is how long you intend to keep your PC before you upgrade, because in a years 12-18 months time, we'll have 32nm CPUs from intel with 6 cores, and something similar coming from AMD (45nm or less). << i'll try and find my source for this.
 
Most benchies I have seen show the i7 slightly ahead but we are talking about only a frame or two. The Q9650 was practically neck and neck I seem to remember from a couple of benchmarks I saw. However, the i7 are great for encoding and such like tasks.
 
mrshinyshoes said:
thanks, so intel is better for multitasking, and amd is better for gaming.
Click to expand...

Intel (i7) is better for just about everything, it's Integer and FP performance destroys Phenom II, the margin of gain is just less pronounced for gaming since it relies more heavily on GPU efficiency and performance.

The only real advantage to Phenom II is its low cost and higher stock speeds.
 
mmj_uk said:
The only real advantage to Phenom II is its low cost and higher stock speeds.
Click to expand...

And such is Intels dominance for the past couple of years the choice of motherboards available for either platform varies quite a bit too.

If you're watercooling good luck finding blocks for NB/SB/Mosfet on AMD boards - just another point of view.

Building an i7 rig doesn't actually cost much more than a high spec's Phenom II either so unless you're an AMD fan i would probably go i7 right now especially if you're a clocker .....the 920's are a nice easy clock to 4ghz.
 
i've been using amd chips for about 10 years now infact the last intel cpu i bought was a 166MHz mmx chip back in the day :D

main reason is upgrade cost, where as intel change socket every 2 seconds :p amd do tend to keep with a socket for longer, for example am3 cpu's work in a am2+ motherboard and not only that but where intel have i7 being the enthusiasts choice with i5 being the mainstream choice and now someone above said about i3:confused: where amd have one socket that you can have the latest quad cord all the way down to simple single core chips and with bulldozer coming soon even more upgrade potential:D

i'm guessing your reading this thinking "amd fan boy" but that's just not true i just go with what's going to give me great performance with a cheap upgrade path, infact before my upgrade to a phenom 2 i was seriously thinking about getting an Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 but with socket 775 being on it's last legs decided to stick with amd but who knows next time round it may well be intel next time

the things you need to think of are what are you using the pc for
if it's mainly gaming then amd does a very good job with most games and on average is a little better as a gaming chip bit i7 chips when overclocked to 4GHz put up a very good fight
if your mainly going to use the pc for video/graphics/office work the intel chips do have the advantage

what are you running at the mo because this might also factor in you upgrade choice and budget will also be important so if you have i7 money you may as well go with one of them running at 4GHz because there's not much that can touch them at the mo but if you can wait have a read up on bulldozer from the look of it they have some really cool features that might just make it the chip of choice in all areas
 
Well if 'bang per buck' is the main factor then you cant beat AMD.....

My Phenom 550 dual core is as fast as an E8600 when it comes to games....for a lot less than half the price.

Of course, i have had to overclock it to 3.6Ghz to get it to the same performance levels, but thats why its a black edition CPU...its what its designed for, and though i have no doubt that an E8600 can also be overclocked to make it faster than my 550 again, the price factor cant be ignored..£78 compared to £195...

To some people,10-15fps extra in a game is worth £120 more....but not to me, id rather put it towards something else.

Im no AMD fanboy, i've had both Intel and AMD systems, if/when Intel can offer a CPU with a better price/performance ratio than AMD, id happily switch to them.

As of now, AMD is king of the hill when it comes to my criteria when choosing a setup.
 
mmj_uk said:
Intel (i7) is better for just about everything, it's Integer and FP performance destroys Phenom II, the margin of gain is just less pronounced for gaming since it relies more heavily on GPU efficiency and performance.

The only real advantage to Phenom II is its low cost and higher stock speeds.
Click to expand...

this - I couldn't have summed it up so well.

Don't be sucked in by the benchmarks - I've seen very few that truly represent real world performance in comparison - almost every CPU benchmark these days seems to be bias in on direction or the other.
 
Thats a good overall graph :D

Tho it doesn't represent gaming performance heh (well I guess it does if you have a single GPU - but multi GPU is a different story).
 
razer1978 said:
the things you need to think of are what are you using the pc for if it's mainly gaming then amd does a very good job with most games and on average is a little better as a gaming chip bit i7 chips when overclocked to 4GHz put up a very good fight
Click to expand...

So you're saying that an i7 at less than 4Ghz is on average worse for gaming than a Phenom 2 and claiming to not be an AMD fanboy? :p

The only time I've ever seen a Phenom II beat an i7 for gaming is when it had a significant clockspeed advantage (ie. 3.2ghz p2 vs a stock i920), put them at the same clock and they're either within 1fps of one another due to GPU bottleneck or the i7 is significantly faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom