Why is Intel favored over AMD?

[Vishera]

intel has hyperthreading and those fancy technology tweaks that make it just a little bit better, i admit. but why not AMD? i found a dual core APU for $70 whereas a dual core ivy bridge pentium is between $100-$120. with the pentium you still need a GPU. with the APU you don't. isn't it extremely obvious what the better choice is? and the APUs from Richland have close to 4GHz stock speed. The A10-6800K is OVER 4GHz stock at 4.1 so what gives? it seems ridiculous to pay hundreds of dollars for intel when AMD has a cheap, not too shabby alternative. i'd like people to start a discussion here because i just can't see why intel is a better choice and worth all this money.

 

[Mr.Scott]

Depends on what you're doing with it. Higher clock speed doesn't necessarily mean higher performance.
Intel processors typically kill AMD in number crunching applications.

 

[Vishera]

anyone got a short explanation as to what intel technology actually has over AMD besides hyperthreading? if not short then at least something that won't take up half a page?

 

[Mandrake4565]

Vishera, as Mr Scott said it all depends on what you're doing with it. Clock for clock you can't compare the two. In most cases an Intel chip will out perform an AMD chip even at lower clock speeds. Though if you don't need the biggest baddest processing Cpu then it comes down to how much you want to spend for what your needs are. For example I own a Fx-8350 "see signature" a I5-2500k and a 955 Be. For programs utilizing all 8 processor core on the 8350 it will outperform both the 2500k and the 955. With that said in single core applications my 955 be will still outperform my 8350 even overclocked 1 Ghz higher and the 2500k will blow away both of them in single core operations. This is noticeable when especially when I am pushing them to the limit. For day to day operations and the gaming I do, I do not notice much of a difference between the three of them. Therefore like I said it all depends on what a person is looking for when purchasing.

 

[Knufire]

You're forgetting IPC (instructions per clock). It's not the fancy technology tweaks that make Intel better, it's just inherently faster due to the design. Basically, disable any fancy stuff (like Hyperthreading), disable all but one core, and set the CPUs at the same clock speed. Result? Intel wins by a landslide. So if we're talking about doing one thing very quickly (single threaded applications), Intel wins. Even if the AMD I'd at a significantly higher clock speed.

The more accurate way to describe instructions per clock is to look at exactly what clock speed is. It's in Hz, a rate, so 4.1GHz = 4100000000Hz. Hz is 1/s, so a CPU at 4.1GHz is doing something every 1/4100000000 seconds, or 0.000000000244 seconds. Exactly how much can the CPU do in this amount of time? That's what IPC is.

Of course, AMD has more cores. So if you're running a calculation that can has parts that can be run in parallel (i.e. at the same time) then the AMD CPU starts catching up as they generally have more cores. Problem is, most things don't take advantage of more than 4 cores, just by how they're coded.

Also, as I said before, AMDs latest CPU uses the module design, where two cores share parts. So if you're doing floating point (decimal calculations), you can only use half the cores available.

 

[Vishera]

i'm starting to get it now. basically intel is capable of a higher IPC? if that's the case where did AMD go wrong, besides with the modules design?

 

[Mr.Scott]

i'm starting to get it now. basically intel is capable of a higher IPC? if that's the case where did AMD go wrong, besides with the modules design?

They didn't really go wrong per say, just in a different R&D direction.

 

[Knufire]

i'm starting to get it now. basically intel is capable of a higher IPC? if that's the case where did AMD go wrong, besides with the modules design?

The community still debates whether the module design was bad or not, actually. It was actually a step backwards in terms of IPC (the Phenom II X4 and X6 CPUs are just as good as the current FX CPUs), but since it was such a unique design, I'm sure it has tons of room for improvement.

A lot of it comes down to money. From the latest quarterly reports:

Intel Corporation today reported second-quarter revenue of $12.8 billion, operating income of $2.7 billion, net income of $2.0 billion and EPS of $0.39. The company generated approximately $4.7 billion in cash from operations, paid dividends of $1.1 billion, and used $550 million to repurchase 23 million shares of stock.

AMD (NYSE:AMD) today announced revenue for the second quarter of 2013 of $1.16 billion, an operating loss of $29 million and a net loss of $74 million, or $0.10 per share. The company reported a non-GAAP operating loss of $20 million and a non-GAAP net loss of $65 million, or $0.09 per share.

They just don't have the R+D money to compete with Intel.

Part of it stems from when they tried to buy NVIDIA, the deal fell through and they panicked a bit and bought ATI for much more than it was worth. I guess they were looking for towards the future for the APU concept, but it took a rather long time for the APUs to come to market. Remember that most of the money is in power efficiency for laptops, not really the desktop market.

 

[Vishera]

well for my budget i can only afford a dual core i3 at best if i go intel. and the emulator i'd use would run slower because it uses 3 cores maximum. it can be set to only use 2 or will only use 2 if you only have a dual core CPU but is slower that way

 

[Knufire]

As I said in your other thread, I still think that the emulator is going to run faster on the i3, but if you start playing some more modern PC games, the better graphics power of the APU will be more useful.

 

[Vishera]

maybe, but if it uses both cores wouldn't the PC crash? i mean say i open dolphin which is using both cores, then i happen to open firefox what would happen if there isn't any room for firefox? BSoD?

 

[juanpe966]

i'm starting to get it now. basically intel is capable of a higher IPC? if that's the case where did AMD go wrong, besides with the modules design?

AMD did not go wrong. They are just taking a different approach. If AMD tried to build their CPU with Intel-like technology and quality, the price would be much higher. At high prices Intel already have their history which would give them an edge. Thus, AMD would not be doing good business. Their market sector is the mid to low end CPUs. Intel catter toward mid-high end PCs. It is good business for both and its good for consumers. Intel end up giving you better performance (on most cases, as stated above), and AMD have a great quality performance ratio.(except their new CPUs 9xxx (i think), and this were and epic fail.

If AMD would have better profits opportunity developing higher end CPUs, then they would go that rout, its all business.

 

[Knufire]

Nah, it'll just be a bit slower and reallocate some resources to Firefox. I've run Prime95 (loads all your cores to 100% for stability testing) and surfed the Web in the background.

 

[Vishera]

AMD did not go wrong. They are just taking a different approach. If AMD tried to build their CPU with Intel-like technology and quality, the price would be much higher. At high prices Intel already have their history which would give them an edge. Thus, AMD would not be doing good business. Their market sector is the mid to low end CPUs. Intel catter toward mid-high end PCs. It is good business for both and its good for consumers. Intel end up giving you better performance (on most cases, as stated above), and AMD have a great quality performance ratio.(except their new CPUs 9xxx (i think), and this were and epic fail.

If AMD would have better profits opportunity developing higher end CPUs, then they would go that rout, its all business.

i see. well this really opens my eyes to the behind the scenes stuff. on this topic would AMD be good for creating guitar videos? like with all those fancy effects?

 

[Vishera]

Nah, it'll just be a bit slower and reallocate some resources to Firefox. I've run Prime95 (loads all your cores to 100% for stability testing) and surfed the Web in the background.

okay, i get it. now, recap: intel's design allows for a higher IPC and is therefore better for gaming and emulation, or other CPU stress tasks. Single core wise, this high IPC really helps things. AMD doesn't have as high of an IPC but for their range of CPU tasks it really isn't that much of a difference. Due to the module design they're sort of held back, but that's debatable. AMD is good for low to md range things, intel is more for mid range to high end. anything i left out?

 

[Mr.Scott]

Mostly correct. Only thing I would debate is the "Intel is better for gaming" part. Today's games are mostly GPU oriented. CPU won't make much difference unless you run into a bottlenecking situation.

 

[ChanceCoats123]

maybe, but if it uses both cores wouldn't the PC crash? i mean say i open dolphin which is using both cores, then i happen to open firefox what would happen if there isn't any room for firefox? BSoD?

This is a key point in computing. Processors aren't limited to only running a single task at one time. The beauty of all these instruction sets is that they allow a processor to determine which calculations to run and when (which is also partly scheduled by the operating system). But my point is that when you run multiple programs, the main task being used (because you can't use the emulator and browse the web at the same time, that would require four hands) is what gets allocated the most resources and is scheduled to have the most time handled by the processor.

With your main question, I'd like to draw your attention to the Netburst Architecture. During this time in history, AMD actually had much better performance than Intel. To counter this performance deficit, Intel created the Netburst architecture which had a very long pipe-line (basic order of events in a processor for a task to be completed), but a VERY high clock speed (relative for the time). The result was a horribly performing chip that only made Intel's situation worse. So raw clock speed is not everything, but rather what a processor does during each clock cycle (like Knufire mentioned).

 

[Vishera]

OHHH see now i get it, at least as far as pipelines. the longer the pipeline the longer it takes each instruction to finish, and thus a lower IPC. in order to fix this one needs a shorter pipeline, but a greater amount of these shortened pipelines. thus one of the reasons intel is better?

 

[ChanceCoats123]

Well there is more to it than just the pipeline. And when I say that, I mean if AMD just made their pipeline the same length as that of an Intel chip, the processors still would not be equal. I haven't read up on the exact technology for AMD, but I know that Intel uses High-K Gate technology and starting with Ivy Bridge, Intel used 3D transistors. For AMD, I believe they are still using Silicon-on-Insulator (SoI) technology in their chips. So it comes down to a lot of factors, and many I don't understand. But Pipeline length, manufacturing technology and substances play a large difference in the performance of the two company's chips.

 

[woboy]

There are also energy efficiency issues, actual and theoretical. Intel includes basic graphics on chip while being low power users.
FX chips do not include on chip graphics, yet are 95 and 125 watt rated.
APUs include better graphics, but are one or two module chips. An A10 6800 is a FX-4300 married to an HD 6670 graphics core.

Lately Intel seems to be pursuing energy efficiency and mobile CPU goals, while AMD has been refining their product and keeping prices low. IE Sandy Bridge was a performance jump while Ivy Bridge and Haswell have been "hops."
AMD over hyped Bulldozer, initial performance and pricing was disappointing. Refinement and lower pricing has helped.
AMD has "won" the gaming console APU contracts. This is using mobile cores and graphics, no one is certain how this will effect AMD DESKTOP PLANS.

Depending on specific applications an Intel I3 (with limited or no overclocking potential) performs equivalently or superior to Phenom II X4 or FX-4XXX CPU.
For gaming, mostly, an overclocked FX-4300/4350 or FX-6300/6350 may outperform an I3. This is strongly game dependent, a couple games are coded in such a way that they function better on one architecture rather than the other.

Almost forgot die size. Intel design made their chips two or three generations smaller than AMDs current production. (internal size).