8 core AMD vs 8 core Intel

[TecHNooB]

Looking to build a new desktop. Need lots of cores for the application I'm writing. How does AMD compare to Intel in terms of performance these days?

 

[jhu]

8 core Intel will destroy 8 "core" AMD in performance. It will also destroy 8 core AMD in performance.

 

[Soulkeeper]

If you write well optimized code the AMD FX does relatively well in highly parallel tasks from what i've seen. Unfortunately the Intel solutions usually beat it, especially in anything that relies on single thread performance.
Also the question of budget and power usage can come into play. Who wins on budget is relatively debateable, but intel clearly wins on power usage.

Edit: not trying to open a debate/flamewar here. only my opinions/observations

 

[mikeymikec]

I thought the only Intel 8-core CPUs were Xeons?

 

[exar333]

LOL, 6-core Intel destroys 8 'core' AMD.

 

[mnewsham]

Depends on what you are doing, if IPC and clock speed are less important than more cores, then you can get an AMD 2.3Ghz 16-core CPU for $700, but in most cases intel will perform better because of the better IPC and faster clock speeds so it really depends on what your code runs best on.

 

[R0H1T]

I thought the only Intel 8-core CPUs were Xeons?

That is true but I guess others are referring to Intel's HT enabled models vs AMD's CMT ones, unless we're debating the "real/true core" stuff, Intel wins in almost each & every scenario barring certain rare cases where the HT cores diminish the performance of real cores.

 

[jacktesterson]

Depends on what your doing. Financially AMD makes better sense in some scenarios

 

[nwo]

Depends on what your doing. Financially AMD makes better sense in some scenarios

This is true. AMD's 8 core is about 1/4th of the price of Intel's cheapest 6 core CPU. But as far as performance is concerned, Intel's cores are much faster and as already mentioned, a 6 core Intel will smoke an 8 core AMD CPU in just about anything you can think of.

If you're lucky enough to live near a MC, you can pick up an 8 core AMD CPU for $100 :awe:

 

[Ferzerp]

Unfortunately the Intel solutions usually beat it,

Why is that unfortunate? Would you rather the Intel offerings be slower than they currently are?

 

[TuxDave]

If you write well optimized code the AMD FX does relatively well in highly parallel tasks from what i've seen. Unfortunately the Intel solutions usually beat it, especially in anything that relies on single thread performance.
Also the question of budget and power usage can come into play. Who wins on budget is relatively debateable, but intel clearly wins on power usage.

Edit: not trying to open a debate/flamewar here. only my opinions/observations

I think I've seen some throughput based benchmarks where AMD 4module/8core > Intel 4core/8thread. But an AMD 4module/8core > an Intel 8core/8thread? (let alone 8core/16thread) I would like to see those results.

 

[mikeymikec]

Why is that unfortunate? Would you rather the Intel offerings be slower than they currently are?

I suspect he meant that he wishes AMD's offerings were more generally competitive.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Not insignificant that AMD processors cost less. ME? I seem to just stick with Intel.

Just a thought: I see a lot of perfectionists and obsessives on these forums, and I cannot exclude myself from the category.

Maybe it depends on what you use computers for, how you dispose of "last year's" components and so on.

Maybe if you game a lot, your obsession is more pronounced.

ME? I make compromises. [Even so -- why do I pick Intel when AMD costs less? Can't say, really . . . except I'm pleased with the Intel cores and supporting hardware, and "old dogs don't like to change their habits much."]

 

[sm625]

If AMD released a 16 "core" FX for $300 then there would be a debate about which is better. But as it stands there is nothing AMD can offer to serve the >$200 market.

 

[Soulkeeper]

I think I've seen some throughput based benchmarks where AMD 4module/8core > Intel 4core/8thread. But an AMD 4module/8core > an Intel 8core/8thread? (let alone 8core/16thread) I would like to see those results.

I was thinking more along the lines of 4 module vs. 4 core + HT
You're right, i'm not trying to be pedantic or offer anything here nobody else already knows

 

[Soulkeeper]

Why is that unfortunate? Would you rather the Intel offerings be slower than they currently are?

unfortunate because some of us want faster more competitive AMD solutions
the second question is just silly

 

[Essence_of_War]

Looking to build a new desktop. Need lots of cores for the application I'm writing. How does AMD compare to Intel in terms of performance these days?

1) What's your budget, and where are you buying from?
2) Do need specific platform features?
3) Is your code heavy on integer or float operations?

 

[tweakboy]

Your forgetting HT for Intel gives it 12 threads.

 

[Fjodor2001]

I think a more relevant question would be:

How would an 8 core Steamroller based CPU compare against a 4 core Haswell based CPU, in well multi-threaded scenarios? Because they would be in the same price range.

 

[netxzero64]

Performance per watt. I'd go with intel.

 

[nwo]

Performance per watt. I'd go with intel.

Again, depends on the task... While AMD's 8 core CPUs are 125W TDP, they can offer a significant performance difference over Intel's 85W TDP quad cores in multi-threaded applications.

 

[serpretetsky]

Since intel doesn't make a consumer 8-core cpu, im assuming you may also be interested in xeons and opterons:

here is a review that may interest you.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6508/the-new-opteron-6300-finally-tested

 

[videogames101]

Again, depends on the task... While AMD's 8 core CPUs are 125W TDP, they can offer a significant performance difference over Intel's 85W TDP quad cores in multi-threaded applications.

most tasks

 

[escrow4]

most tasks

Name one. The 4770K spanks the 8350 in encoding tasks whilst sipping way less power:

http://www.techspot.com/review/679-intel-haswell-core-i7-4770k/page9.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/679-intel-haswell-core-i7-4770k/page10.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/679-intel-haswell-core-i7-4770k/page13.html

"The Core i7-4770K system consumed just 42 watts at idle, which is roughly the same amount as a Core i5 Ivy Bridge system and half of an AMD FX system. However when under load the consumption did climb considerably, all the way to 164 watts, which is more than that of the Core i7-3770K."

Note its 164w, vs 237w on the FX.

and yes I'm deliberately comparing flagship to flagship. The gap lessens with an i5, but even then, I'd still take Intel. AMD's FX are just pointless now up against Intel, the money savings are trifling, and with Broadwell and then Skylake . . . . . more nails in the coffin.

 

[Headfoot]

Looking to build a new desktop. Need lots of cores for the application I'm writing. How does AMD compare to Intel in terms of performance these days?

Intel's 4 core, 8 thread 4770k beats AMD's "real" 8 cores in nearly all tasks, even highly multithreaded ones, because Intel's individual cores are much faster. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/836?vs=697. The obvious additional benefit is that in serial tasks you also still have the fastest single core as well.

Intel's real 6 core, 12 thread CPU, the 4930k completely destroys both the 4770k and 8350 in highly threaded tasks.

If you have the budget the 4930k can't be beat unless you go Xeon 8-15 core server chips, and even then only in multithreaded apps since clockspeed falls as core count rises. The 4930k can be overclocked. I assume you have the budget since it sounds like this is a work application, however correct me if I'm wrong