• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

8 core AMD vs 8 core Intel

TecHNooB

TecHNooB

Diamond Member
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?
 
8 core Intel will destroy 8 "core" AMD in performance. It will also destroy 8 core AMD in performance.
 
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
 
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.
 
mikeymikec said:
I thought the only Intel 8-core CPUs were Xeons?
Click to expand...
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.
 
thebigbolgna said:
Depends on what your doing. Financially AMD makes better sense in some scenarios
Click to expand...

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:
 
Last edited:
Soulkeeper said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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."]
 
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.
 
TuxDave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
videogames101 said:
most tasks
Click to expand...

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.
 
TecHNooB said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top