Why is Intel considered so much better than AMD?

[internetswag]

I'm not saying Intel is better or trying to argue about it, I'm asking why.

I've read on Gamespot that Intel is the best for pure performance and AMD can't really stand up to it.

I'd like to know why, I was looking at the Phenom II X4 Quad-Core 955 and the Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge and it's pretty well known that the Intel is better.

But looking at their stats I don't see a difference, the website I'm using only specifies on the following;

Cache
Cores
Processor Speed
Socket
Warranty

Looking at the website they both are identical except for the i5 2500k being 3.3Ghz instead of AMD's 3.2Ghz. Both are quad core and have 6mb cache's.

Now aside from the overclocking capabilities of the i5 2500k why is it considered better than the Phenom 955?


Just curious, this is purely for me to learn more about PC's in general Thanks in advance.

 

[AdrianPerry]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=88

As you can see from all of the bench tests. AMD just can't stand up to Intel.

Not to mention the i5-2500k is possibly the best priced processor available today (price vs. performance wise).

 

[Supernova1138]

The key difference here is how much work each CPU can get done per clock cycle. Intel's Sandy Bridge CPUs are much more efficient at that than any of AMD's processors, which are more competitive with the old Core 2 series as far as instructions completed per clock cycle goes. The result is when running at the same clockspeed, the Intel CPU will be about 20% faster than its AMD counterpart.

With AMD's latest architecture, Bulldozer being a poor performer outside of a small number of applications that can use many cores, Intel CPUs are considered the best in terms general performance. The only thing AMD has going for it is price, and that's really only on their older Athlon II and Phenom II lines, both of which are being discontinued for the most part.

If you are looking strictly for a gaming CPU, the Phenom IIs are still adequate for the most part, but because they are considerably slower, software is going to outstrip their capabilities far sooner than the current Intel CPUs, which will still be viable gaming CPUs for years to come.

 

[jaguarskx]

It is all about CPU architecture design.

Intel designed their CPU to simply process more instructions than AMD's design in every clock cycle (MHz).

 

[memadmax]

Supernova is dead on.
Clock for clock, intel is just more efficient at what it does.
And efficiency is good, since we seem to be at a CPU clock plateau.

 

[sarinaide]

The key difference here is how much work each CPU can get done per clock cycle. Intel's Sandy Bridge CPUs are much more efficient at that than any of AMD's processors, which are more competitive with the old Core 2 series as far as instructions completed per clock cycle goes. The result is when running at the same clockspeed, the Intel CPU will be about 20% faster than its AMD counterpart.

With AMD's latest architecture, Bulldozer being a poor performer outside of a small number of applications that can use many cores, Intel CPUs are considered the best in terms general performance. The only thing AMD has going for it is price, and that's really only on their older Athlon II and Phenom II lines, both of which are being discontinued for the most part.

If you are looking strictly for a gaming CPU, the Phenom IIs are still adequate for the most part, but because they are considerably slower, software is going to outstrip their capabilities far sooner than the current Intel CPUs, which will still be viable gaming CPUs for years to come.

How do I superlike this?

 

[HEXiT]

its pretty simple for the last 5 or so years intel have produced the better chips...
amd is still a full gen behind intel. they hoped to catch up with BD but thats a fail... so much so amd has pretty much given up on the dual and quad side, preferring to go with there low end products for laptops and tablets.

 

[gamerk316]

The key difference here is how much work each CPU can get done per clock cycle. Intel's Sandy Bridge CPUs are much more efficient at that than any of AMD's processors, which are more competitive with the old Core 2 series as far as instructions completed per clock cycle goes. The result is when running at the same clockspeed, the Intel CPU will be about 20% faster than its AMD counterpart.

With AMD's latest architecture, Bulldozer being a poor performer outside of a small number of applications that can use many cores, Intel CPUs are considered the best in terms general performance. The only thing AMD has going for it is price, and that's really only on their older Athlon II and Phenom II lines, both of which are being discontinued for the most part.

If you are looking strictly for a gaming CPU, the Phenom IIs are still adequate for the most part, but because they are considerably slower, software is going to outstrip their capabilities far sooner than the current Intel CPUs, which will still be viable gaming CPUs for years to come.

Cosigned. What isn't listed is how much work the chip does per clock cycle, which is why Intel chips are SOOOO much faster: They do more work in the same amount of time.

 

[tomate2]

There is a lot more in a CPU than clock speeds...
Don't compare CPUs solely on their clock (3.2Ghz to 3.3Ghz) it's just silly
That's for those who are not tech savvy at all

 

[jsc]

Quite simply: performance.

 

[Ulkesh]

I would like to add for discussion, that even though Intel is superior to AMD in regards to performance does it really matter to the average user? Actually does it even matter to the power user? I primarily use AMD on my desktops and Intel on Notebooks and have no complaints with either. However, I feel like unless your into video editing, photo editing and or some scientific research AMD vs Intel shouldnt even be a question.

If you put an average person behind a computer with a Phenom II X4, SSD and really good and fast RAM, that individual would be blown away. So the real question should be is Intel worth the premium cost you have to pay to acquire?

 

[sarinaide]

Bad decisions by AMD have not helped their cause, I just sum AMD chip architecture down to one thing "conservative".

 

[Mousemonkey]

Quite simply: performance.

But what about 'Platformance'? *runs away*

 

[noob2222]

Bad decisions by AMD have not helped their cause, I just sum AMD chip architecture down to one thing "conservative".

Don't think conservative is the correct term.

Intel > 1.5B per quarter
AMD < 100M per quarter

It takes money to make things better

 

[jaguarskx]

I would like to add for discussion, that even though Intel is superior to AMD in regards to performance does it really matter to the average user? Actually does it even matter to the power user? I primarily use AMD on my desktops and Intel on Notebooks and have no complaints with either. However, I feel like unless your into video editing, photo editing and or some scientific research AMD vs Intel shouldnt even be a question.

If you put an average person behind a computer with a Phenom II X4, SSD and really good and fast RAM, that individual would be blown away. So the real question should be is Intel worth the premium cost you have to pay to acquire?

For the average person who does not play games or do anything intensive like video encoding it doesn't really matter whether you go with AMD or Intel and there would be no need to get a quad core CPU as well. A dual core CPU would be sufficient.

 

[sarinaide]

Don't think conservative is the correct term.

Intel > 1.5B per quarter
AMD < 100M per quarter

It takes money to make things better

Conservative and Broke [Fixed]

All in all it is largely down to bad decisions and poor products ever since Core2 Duo came out, if this rumour of discontinuing the Phenom2's is true then AMD will sink their own ship, stopping the only reason a sane person will even contemplate buying them over a Intel, the Bulldozers can't be termed as "cheap".

 

[HugoStiglitz]

Bulldozer is the reason i bought an i7.

I have had an AMD chip for a very long time (last intel was a Socket 370 Cel 566)
and for the most part AMD have been very compettitive. some generations of AMD's would slap the intel counterpart around. (Athlon 64 series and Early Phenom)

but since then AMD has not produced anything able to kick it with Intel's line up of high end chips.
I switched from a Phenom II 1090T to a 2700k and would not go back (currently anyway)

AMD has typically introduced their new tech quite early however with BD this has bit them hard. They went CORE CRAZY and there is just simply no mainstream apps / games that take advantage of it.

it was like having an early 64bit compatible chip. its great but nothing to use it with. thankfully it had other things going for it and would work well in a 32bit enviroment. BD however is struggleing to find it's place.

 

[brvnbld]

but, AMD has really put up a good fight in giving the consumers the best price/performance value..... below is a chart that shows the price/performance of top 50 CPUs, and you will not find any core i3 or i5 or i7 in those, just because that they are overpriced.

IMO, Every Software manufacturer or Game Developer creates softwares/games based to run efficiently on intel systems, In future if these manufacturers or developers create the need for multicore setups, AMD might get the ball.

 

[jaguarskx]

Interesting that you chose a very selective chart. There are are AMD Bulldozer and Piledriver CPUs in that chart. However, there is only one Intel Sandy Bridge CPU in there and that is the Core i3-2120 towards the bottom of the chart. Obviously this chart is skewed towards AMD CPUs since there is only one "low end" Sandy Bridge CPU and no Ivy Bridge CPUs. Note that PileDriver CPUs came out after Ivy Bridge CPUs were released so there's no excuse for having the FX-8350 in that chart and not the Core i5-3570k.

While that chart might impress the noobie / uninitiated person, most regulars here knows that Passmark is pure crap and should be tossed out with the garbage. Based on that chart you would think the AMD's A6-3650 (Llano APU) is more powerful than the A8-3850 (the most powerful Llano APU) and the FX-8350 (the most powerful Piledriver CPU).

Lastly, there is no reason to resurrect this old thread.

 

[rubix_1011]

This topic has been closed by Rubix_1011