10 Replies Latest reply on Dec 31, 2016 1:12 PM by hardcoregames™

    Comparing AMD to Intel processors

    monkeywrench

      I was wondering to why since being connected with communities about computers that when I asked about the differences about processors for gaming rigs they state to go with Intel Core i processors over top of AMD. I used a couple of websites to bench between an AMD to Intel but yet says Intel is better for processes over top of AMD regardless of AMD CPU????

          I've myself have ran in personal computers of mine 2 AMD processors and used a number of other AMD machines and never had problems compared to Intel starting on the Pentium 4 class line.

        • Re: Comparing AMD to Intel processors
          hardcoregames™

          I have used AMD for a long time. I also have Intel machines.

           

          AMD desktop is less costly to maintain as the socket does not change much

          • Re: Comparing AMD to Intel processors
            redfury

            If you need records(3DMark for example) - Intel top processors is your only choice

            Or if you use some specific applications that are well optimised only for Intel CPUs

            For HTPC/mini ITX systems Intel low power processors are better(less power and less heat)

            In other cases if you want to save your money and have reasonable and enough performance, than AMD CPU is good choice

            But AMD RYZEN will change situation to the benefit of AMD. How significant - we will see soon

            • Re: Comparing AMD to Intel processors

              I have got in touch with processors from both Intel and AMD since 1996. Frankly, I have to say that Intel processor has been all the time stronger than AMD, even including the days when Pentium D and Athlon 64 X2 were competing the personal computing market. Since Intel released their Core Microarchitecture based processors, AMD started to fall behind prominently again. There are several reasons below,

               

              1. The core of processor, microarchitecture. AMD's tends to be moderate and simpler, but Inte's tends to be smart and complex. So the core computing of Intel, AMD never defeat!

               

              2. The system interconnection. AMD never realised system bus smart enough as Intel provided since Pentium Pro. They expected the Hyper Transport Bus would defeat Intel's advanced FSB, but there lied another serious problem, Intel concerned at the beginning for the research their QPI interconnection. They smartly enough to put the memory controller and GPU onto the QPI bridge rather than sealing the memory controllor onto the processor chip, which could eliminate the latency arose by the seriliasation.

               

              As to game console, hardware configuration would not change too a lot, and deveoppers tend to develop games at a roughly lower level to exploit the power of the fixed computing resources. They need strong power of GPU and bandwidth, and most of all, the cost! So AMD has its processor core and comparatively strong GPU sourcing, so they won and feed game consoles both from SONY and Microsoft. But as to the PC games, developpers tend to develop at a much higher level, this needs the processor powerful enough to compute making up the limited bandwidth. Comparing towards AMD products, Intel and NVidia always play the best combination. The Ryzen might be the future ammo towards their opponents, and I also heard future Intel processors would incorporate the GPU core from AMD. If that is the true story, then AMD would have rewritten the whole story!