AMD VS INTEL

[zitnik]

Yes, I would imagine if the amd chips perform the same or better, the price will also be the same or higher.
And that's my take on this whole situation, it doesn't really matter if BD whipes the floor with SB, which it wont, it would only mean it's gonna cost more. Amd is on a budget because most of their cpu's are slower compared to the ones from intel.
I see the same with videocards, either amd or nvidia, the faster card will cost more.

Anyway, it's interesting for sure and if one is inclined to leap over to amd, then it's best to wait a little longer. But I don't believe a faster amd cpu will cost less than a sandy bridge cpu.

In games they've said the BD slaps the Sandy Bridge and in Benchmarks it's faster than the i7-2600K and about the speed of the Gulftown i7's. Now, obviously until us, the public actually get our hands on these for ourselves we won't know. But I do believe AMD is really making a leap with BD and a good one, now I do believe that Intel's Ivy Bridge CPUs are more than likely going to outperform the BD.

As for the cost, I posted in article in the BD Rumors thread, it said since the BD does outperform the SB by quite a bit it was expected to be $320-350 (more than the i7-2600K) but AMD came out and said the price for the initial high-end release, the FX-8150 will be at a dead $300. Say what you want, Intel makes the faster CPUs but AMD's price/performance ratio is bar none. Especially if BD is "that much" better than SB.

 

[Evilsizer]

lol at the game claims, what are we running low resolutions now to prove a cpu is faster then another in gaming. its long been known low resolutions is cpu dependent, any gaming bechmark using AA/AF in a semi high res is going to be all the GPU. that is unless your running like a 2.4ghz cpu with a high end GPU...

 

[Mehovoric]

I feel like this should be a poll. haha

Personally I'm an AMD guy. Never had an issue. I've got the 6 core and it hauls like no bodies business. Now people say oh wait for the Bulldozer! Well by the time that comes out, they'll start building hype up for the next gen 8-core! and everyone will say wait for that! So personally, it doesn't really matter what you get, because it'll be obsolete soon. Now if you have the chunk of change to wait for Bulldozer, that's great. I've been hearing lots of good things about it and I'm sure it will do wonderfully. Otherwise I've been seeing some pretty good deals around for their 6 core. The performance is really good. And when you stick it under water cooling its even better.

I found a 2011-2012 road map for AMD. It was posted back in Nov 2010 but still interesting nonetheless.

 

[ancient11]

We can start from ... AMD doesn't have any high end cpu

I realize that I do not have the biggest and baddest computer and that it is a new build – but I don't think you can exactly call it a dog either. I am completely surrounded by AMD computer's and I can barely hang on with the black editions.
Oh, I can really whip *** when you run the "never never land" programs that was written for and optimized for Intel chipsets that AMD would have to be twice as fast just to break even with the scores.

Now let's get into the real world, and compare an AMD to an Intel crunching a video editing file that is about an hour long, timed by stopwatches, then you will be just as shocked as I was. The time's are so close that it is not even worth mention. When it comes to gaming they are right there with me. Sounds like they got some pretty high-end CPUs to me.

I guess everyone has a different opinion's on the subject but my grandson will be buying bulldozer the first week that the bulldozer CPU he want's comes out. Then I will really have to watch my video card to see that it has not accidentally changed.

 

[bigben6]

lol at the game claims, what are we running low resolutions now to prove a cpu is faster then another in gaming. its long been known low resolutions is cpu dependent, any gaming bechmark using AA/AF in a semi high res is going to be all the GPU. that is unless your running like a 2.4ghz cpu with a high end GPU...

LOL back at you, what game can a 955 BE NOT run right now? I give all the props in the world to SB, it is without question the best out there, but dont act like there is even a handfull of games you CANNOT RUN WITHOUT SB OMG!!!?!?!?!

SB benchmarks like a beast it IS the best out there right now, but if your gaming it is extreme overkill for the foreseeable future.... no reason not to future proof with a SB if your building right now, but amd's quad and hex cores game just fine....

 

[Evilsizer]

LOL back at you, what game can a 955 BE NOT run right now? I give all the props in the world to SB, it is without question the best out there, but dont act like there is even a handfull of games you CANNOT RUN WITHOUT SB OMG!!!?!?!?!

SB benchmarks like a beast it IS the best out there right now, but if your gaming it is extreme overkill for the foreseeable future.... no reason not to future proof with a SB if your building right now, but amd's quad and hex cores game just fine....

read into the post what you want, you just showed how much you don't know. this isnt a fan boy forum or thread and in which case you need to check your self before posting. no where did i say anything about SB in my post, anyone that has read a review would know what im talking about. well maybe if they understand what they are reading/looking at. which if you like i can help you out since it sounds like your not sure. what is going on with CPUs and gaming benchmarks. If you need help there are people in the forum that can help, you just have to ask. i know its kind of hard for you since your wearing green glasses and think everyone is out to play fan boy, not in this forum.

 

[Super Nade]

@Super Nade, sorry for falling out of line there

No worries, just keeping the peace.

Regarding games, as many people have mentioned, for normal mid-range systems, the GPU becomes the primary variable and the CPU is less important. So really, the only thing you should be worried about is your wallet. If gaming is all you do, perhaps a good graphics card and at least 4Gb of DRAM will be a better investment than a strong but expensive CPU.

 

[SpeeDj]

I do want to interject one thing here in this AMD (Bulldozer) vs Intel (SandyBridge) discussion, anything and I mean ANYTHING said about Bulldozer is purely speculation, there are no benchmarks no testing, zero, zip, zilch nada. Until we see real world testing occuring whether it be from us here at Overclockers, or other reputable sights like Anand, Xbit, even [H] I would strictly stick to the facts which is that bulldozer is simply speculative. On an aside, I've built A LOT of AMD rigs over the years and I would love just as much as the next guy to see them make a competitive run and drive down the pricing of paying for a name for Intel as they did so much in the K-7/Opteron era. As others have stated Dozer should drop about September (although it keeps being pushed back and pushed back so who knows) so if you can wait I would say make the decision then, if not a 2500k offers good bang for the buck.

Just my two cents

J

 

[bigben6]

read into the post what you want, you just showed how much you don't know. this isnt a fan boy forum or thread and in which case you need to check your self before posting. no where did i say anything about SB in my post, anyone that has read a review would know what im talking about. well maybe if they understand what they are reading/looking at. which if you like i can help you out since it sounds like your not sure. what is going on with CPUs and gaming benchmarks. If you need help there are people in the forum that can help, you just have to ask. i know its kind of hard for you since your wearing green glasses and think everyone is out to play fan boy, not in this forum.

If I mis understood your post, then back up your statement in bold... but my point stands, everything I stated is legit, perhaps I came off harsh, but my interpretation of your posts made it seem harsh to me, and I strongly believe everything I stated.... so explain it... or show me a false statement in my post...

P.S. You're right you did not mention SB at all, i may have inserted that in my own mind :

 

[MattNo5ss]

I think he was just saying that gaming benchmarks are not a good measure of a CPU's performance. Too many other factors contribute to performance in gaming benchmarks.

Both AMD & Intel chips can perform adequately in gaming benchmarks, but that doesn't mean AMD CPUs = Intel CPUs.

 

[Knufire]

Right now, the bottleneck for a 2600K at stock settings is about tri-fire 6970s (read [H]s 580 tri-sli review).

Even if Deneb was only two-thirds of the power of a 2600K, how many people have setups exceeding two 6970s/570s? Applying this past people here at the general population, in how many situations would a 955, which is very reasonably priced right now, is inadequate?

Note, this doesn't apply to general processing power. This is just proof that gaming benchmarks don't really help unless they're made to stress CPU, not GPU.

 

[Evilsizer]

If I mis understood your post, then back up your statement in bold... but my point stands, everything I stated is legit, perhaps I came off harsh, but my interpretation of your posts made it seem harsh to me, and I strongly believe everything I stated.... so explain it... or show me a false statement in my post...

P.S. You're right you did not mention SB at all, i may have inserted that in my own mind :

my post was off the basis that every one that posted before thinks that. some how this new amd cpu is going to some how rewrite bottlenecks in gaming. at low resolutions there isnt much info to be drawn on the screen. there for the gpu is waiting on the cpu to send data, the faster the cpu speed the faster the FPS. this is the case in all games, though dont read to much into that since the level of GPU is also a factor. as in the case of css, at low res of 1440*900 with no AA/AF on and everything else max. with a GT430 my highest FPS while nothing is going on is around 200fps, with action going on it can drop down to 30's. now compare that same res, cpu speed as in sig with a ATI 4850 i use to run, i would see above 240FPS no matter what was going on. Making for pure cpu performance in gaming with GPU not being the bottleneck you still need some mid to high gpu.

Now when you try to see if a cpu does any better and your using a high end gpu. your using AA/AF at say 1080P, the gpu matters more then the cpu since it is only going to take X mhz to get the most of the GPU. for the exp. it only applies to single card setups. since the gpu with aa/af has a lot more work to do to a single frame then it just being (for a better term) raw. it takes alot of work on the gpu side to make games look pretty. it isnt going to take much to get that raw data to the GPU. would be like using a 50g/h pump to fill a bucket that is draining at 20g/h.

i would attempt more detail to the amd vs intel in gaming, but what good would that do. after the amd suggestion is to wait for the new one, cant compare something that isnt out yet.

*edit*
matt is completely right, anyone that thinks gaming benchmarks is a good measure of cpu performance. i would have to say is out of there mind...

 

[bigben6]

Makes sense, pretty much what I though, I guess i might have read into your post, by bad for inserting opinions you didnt explicitly state...

 

[kppc]

If you take notebooks into account, I think AMD APUs (that is what they call CPU + GPU combination) beat Intel CPUs, atleast in the ultrabook, mini notebook category. I know a lot of you guys say that this Intel CPU opens Chrome browser in 0.2 seconds less, but to a normal person, these things do not matter.

A notebook with even AMD E240 (not even talking about E350) is fully capable of delivering great performance. I was able to get my hands on Asus Eee PC 1215B AMD E350 version (there is AMD C50 version as well) and was able to get 60FPS in SS4 benchmark, thanks to the integrated ATi Radeon HD 6310. And guess what, that computer retails at less than $500 now.

I think Ati Radeon hD 6250 is there in the AMD E240 which is not bad either.

 

[Knufire]

If you take notebooks into account, I think AMD APUs (that is what they call CPU + GPU combination) beat Intel CPUs, atleast in the ultrabook, mini notebook category. I know a lot of you guys say that this Intel CPU opens Chrome browser in 0.2 seconds less, but to a normal person, these things do not matter.

A notebook with even AMD E240 (not even talking about E350) is fully capable of delivering great performance. I was able to get my hands on Asus Eee PC 1215B AMD E350 version (there is AMD C50 version as well) and was able to get 60FPS in SS4 benchmark, thanks to the integrated ATi Radeon HD 6310. And guess what, that computer retails at less than $500 now.

I think Ati Radeon hD 6250 is there in the AMD E240 which is not bad either.

Very few people here would disagree with the AMD Fusion APUs being the best single chip solution by far as of now.

 

[ssjwizard]

Absolutely. For an all in one solution the APUs stomp the competition. Ive got a desktop variant E350 and I was surprised by how well it handles. IVe got an A8 setup that i got for my wife and am dieing to get it put together.

But I dont think that this thread was directed towards this arena to begin with.