Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel?

[thehotsung8701A]

My thread usually is longer but this question is pretty simple. I been doing massive and I mean massive amount of research on both these companies and still have more to learn.

In general, can you guys give me a overview of the pro and con of the top CPU of each company. I want a CPU that will give me the maximum performance efficiency at the best possible price for my build. Even though I don't have a budget, I still want to save as much money as possible and avoid "overkill" or extra features that I don't need or ever use.


Thanks

 

[EightySix Four]

I lean towards AMD when appropriate, but for "top of efficiency" you are probably better off with a Core i5 than with anything else right now. Best performance per watt per dollar available right now in my opinion.

 

[crashtech]

Not only is "top CPU" pretty vague, the answers you get will tend to be very subjective due to differing results on different software apps, and emotional reactions to one company or another will color the responses.

If you consider the top Intel CPU to be the exorbitantly priced, eight core i7-5960X, there just isn't anything from AMD right now that can compete in any respect. Unfortunately, although AMD has remained pretty competitive in the GPU space, they haven't been leading in CPU performance for many years now. Many of us hope to see them become more competitive once more with the release of Zen in 2016.

 

[Phynaz]

If you don't have a budget Intel is unmatched in the $2K plus range.

 

[thehotsung8701A]

I lean towards AMD when appropriate, but for "top of efficiency" you are probably better off with a Core i5 than with anything else right now. Best performance per watt per dollar available right now in my opinion.

How do the i5 compare to an i7? I'm not talking about specific cpu like the i5 4690K which is the most recommended versus the i7 4970K but just in general.

Is i7 needed for gaming or is i5 just as good? I don't plan on doing anything but gaming, meaning no video render, editing, recording, etc...

Will the i5 4690K be future proof for future GPU? Meaning it won't bottleneck the newer GPU years later?

I also want to know if i7 mean it newer than i5, or is that not the case?

 

[Yuriman]

Right now, most of AMD's 8-core CPUs are priced between Intel's i3 (2 core) and i5 (4 core) CPUs. In many cases even Intel's 2-core CPUs will outperform AMD's 8-core chips because not many day-to-day average user type activities really use more than 2-4 cores, and Intel's cores are 60% or more faster per clock. Intel also has 6 and 8 core chips available, though at much higher cost than AMD's 8 core CPUs. Not only are Intel's cores significantly faster than AMD's, they also use less power to get the same amount of work done, and produce less heat.

AMD has 2 niches, and neither of them is the ultra-high-end:
1) For scientific computing and perhaps video encoding and compression, AMD's 8 core chips are generally faster than Intel's i5's and a little cheaper, making them a good value, though they still don't usually compete with Intel's 4 core i7's, much less then 6 and 8 core models. You'll end up paying more for electricity every month though, and if you live in an area where electricity is expensive, the AMD chip will probably still be more expensive to own overall.

2) AMD's APUs (<$140) have faster integrated graphics than Intel's CPUs. The CPU portion is adequately fast for the typical user and the integrated GPU able to run more games at a reasonable speed than with Intel's integrated graphics. However, there are many cases where a cheaper Intel CPU and a discrete graphics card will be priced similarly (slightly more) but are significantly faster in both CPU and GPU tasks. Therefore, APUs make the most sense where you need something small-form-factor and can't take a full sized graphics card.

You generally don't see many new PCs with AMD CPUs at all, unless that person is simply curious or has brand loyalty.

 

[ShintaiDK]

If you game its Intel without question.

However if you can wait till August, then Skylake it out with new 100 series chipset and boards.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2428363

 

[Yuriman]

How do the i5 compare to an i7? I'm not talking about specific cpu like the i5 4690K which is the most recommended versus the i7 4970K but just in general.

Is i7 needed for gaming or is i5 just as good? I don't plan on doing anything but gaming, meaning no video render, editing, recording, etc...

Will the i5 4690K be future proof for future GPU? Meaning it won't bottleneck the newer GPU years later?

I also want to know if i7 mean it newer than i5, or is that not the case?

i3 = 2 cores, 4 threads
i5 = 4 cores, 4 threads
i7 = 4 cores, 8 threads

There are also i7 models that are 6c/12t and 8c/16t.

Generally speaking, after 4 cores / 4 threads you get into diminishing returns from adding more multithreading ability. i7's are all-around better chips than i5's, but i5's are frequently recommended as better values because most software (especially games) won't take advantage of the i7's superior multitasking ability, so the i5 frees up more budget for other system components.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

AMD is good if you can get it at a competitive price (ala MicroCenter's combos).
Intel is (was?) generally a little too pricey unless you absolutely need max perf (especially single-threaded), hence why the majority of my systems are AMDs, with the primary gaming/workstation rigs being an Intel.

 

[TeknoBug]

Intel basically owns high end.

 

[thehotsung8701A]

Can you overclock much on Intel CPU because I read that AMD CPU is better for OC? Is that still ring true?

@TeknoBug - I just read about that, disappointing there is no competition from AMD. Would your consider the i5 4690K to be high end?

@WhoBeDaPlaya - the only MicroCenter in Northern California close down sadly.

Would i5 4690k be good enough for triple monitoring multi-tasking and gaming?

It possible I won't build my computer until early to mid July so I might be able to wait for Skylake. Do we know what the price point of Skylake is and how much better it is compare to the current i5 and i7?

Also anyone know how good the AMD Zen processor will be when it come out? Would it only be on par with current i7 or would it content with Skylake?

 

[2is]

If you game its Intel without question.

However if you can wait till August, then Skylake it out with new 100 series chipset and boards.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2428363

Game and pretty much anything else for that matter.

 

[Roland00Address]

High end gamers and High End professionals really stop using AMD as a serious choice when bulldozer arrived in late 2011. From 2008 to 2012 AMD was competitive with the phenom ii vs intel core 2 duo/quad and intel 1st gen core (nehalem) both on pricing and close enough on performance. That said with sandybrdige (2011) intel became that much better than AMD for performance so AMD had to compete with price. Well starting about 2012 right when they were phasing out phenom ii because bulldozer had been around for months AMD found it very difficult to even compete on price in the high end for intel had a cpu that peform very good and was cheap for them to make, and AMD had a cpu that did not perform very well but it was expensive for them to make. Thus intel was able to release pentiums and core i3s that competed with AMD mid end on price per performance, and on AMD high end Intel slaughtered them on performance forcing the best AMD chip to go against the cheapest i5 and sometimes even an i3 on the cost of the cpu.

Luckily for AMD the high end was less of a market share overall, and AMD was more competitive in the low end with their small core fusion and their big core fusion architectures.

Someone can look up the SEC filings of AMD and Intels average selling price for their cpus and you can see that AMD chips over the last 10 years has both a lower ASP than intels but also has more of a decline compared to intel's decline in ASP. Now some ASP decline is normal due to moore's law, you can get more cpu per your dollar each year due to technology, that is why you need to compare AMD vs Intel to see the general market trend and how AMD has unfortunately not been competitive in the high end for quite a while.

-----

Now this is not to say AMD cpus are bad, just that they really do not have any good high end cpus over a $100 dollars. If you are getting an AMD cpu over a $100 dollars its because you do not want a dedicated gpu due to space saving reasons, not due to cost, thermals, and I would even argue integrated gpu performance for the integrated gpu for intel is now quite good for office work, and for gaming both intel integrated and amd integrated are not good enough and you would be better off with a dedicated gpu.

Now on laptops it is not as bad for AMD but even there AMD is mostly in the $599 or less category and not in the $600 or higher category, let alone $700+.

 

[Abwx]

for gaming both intel integrated and amd integrated are not good enough

That s deliberate misleading, only Intel integrated GPUs are not good enough to play games at acceptable FPS or settings, it s not like Intel is, or rather was, only 10-15% behind and that both brand are struglling.

This tengential argumentation has been used ad nauseam to downplay AMD s advantage, fact is that with an AMD APU you can do office or gaming tasks while Intel s are office dedicated CPUs, good for corporate but much less appaling for familial use.

Check Atenra s APUs War thread for further infos, a few pics are much more usefull than lengthy discourses....

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2420502

 

[2is]

That s deliberate misleading, only Intel integrated GPUs are not good enough to play games at acceptable FPS or settings, it s not like Intel is, or rather was, only 10-15% behind and that both brand are struglling.

This tengential argumentation has been used ad nauseam to downplay AMD s advantage, fact is that with an AMD APU you can do office or gaming tasks while Intel s are office dedicated CPUs, good for corporate but much less appaling for familial use.

Check Atenra s APUs War thread for further infos, a few pics are much more usefull than lengthy discourses....

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2420502

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9320/intel-broadwell-review-i7-5775c-i5-5765c/7

AMD has nothing on Intel. IGP was the one thing they edged them out in and even then, as stated, not really good enough for any real gaming, but they don't even have that anymore.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Intel basically owns high end.

This is your answer, OP. Anything else runs the risk of thread derailment as yet another Intel vs. AMD fight breaks out. In fact, you can see the first signs of that already happening.

Just look at the price of the most expensive consumer retail CPU sold by Intel (i7-5960x) and AMD (FX-9590). That isn't counting server/workstation and niche products that can be much more expensive. Then you will see all that you really need to know.

 

[DrMrLordX]

That s deliberate misleading, only Intel integrated GPUs are not good enough to play games at acceptable FPS or settings, it s not like Intel is, or rather was, only 10-15% behind and that both brand are struglling.

The OP is talking high-end here. Compare even the mighty i7-5775c or 7870k iGPUs to a TitanX or an upcoming Fiji card. They aren't even in the same ballpark in terms of raw graphics performance.

There's a time and place for arguing the benefits of iGPUs. This thread, today, is neither the time nor the place.

 

[Yuriman]

That s deliberate misleading, only Intel integrated GPUs are not good enough to play games at acceptable FPS or settings, it s not like Intel is, or rather was, only 10-15% behind and that both brand are struglling.

This tengential argumentation has been used ad nauseam to downplay AMD s advantage, fact is that with an AMD APU you can do office or gaming tasks while Intel s are office dedicated CPUs, good for corporate but much less appaling for familial use.

Check Atenra s APUs War thread for further infos, a few pics are much more usefull than lengthy discourses....

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2420502

Check out Anandtech's latest review of Broadwell:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9320/intel-broadwell-review-i7-5775c-i5-5765c/7

By and large, AMD's iGPUs perform better but are not in an entirely different league.

But anyway, that's not really relevant to OP's question.

@OP, you can only overclock Intel "K" model CPUs on the mainstream platform (4670k, 4690k, 4770k, 4790k) though I believe all "Core" branded 2011 chips and the anniversary edition Pentium are unlocked. All AMD models are overclockable.

A 4690K isn't "high end" but it's certainly a solid CPU for gaming that should provide you with a great experience for years to come. I wouldn't hesitate to buy an i5 for your intended use-case, though a 4790K (or Skylake equivalent, when it's released) would not be unreasonable either.

Skylake will replace Haswell at approximately the same prices, or at least this is how Intel has historically done things. Haswell will not drop in price, but will be phased out. So, expect 5-20% better performance while using significantly less power at approximately the same price.

Zen is still a long way off and we don't really know much about it; most talk about it is wishful thinking at this point, because if AMD doesn't deliver a great product, they're in serious trouble.

 

[Abwx]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9320/intel-broadwell-review-i7-5775c-i5-5765c/7

AMD has nothing on Intel. IGP was the one thing they edged them out in and even then, as stated, not really good enough for any real gaming, but they don't even have that anymore.

Lol, find me a single AMD review where the settings are so favourably organised..

Benches made at 720p, often at low settings to get the CPU being the bottleneck, and of course the 720P res being worthless when AMD had a huge lead is now the best res to play with , nevermind that Kaveri allow 1920p, why no 1920p at AT..??.

Perhaps because R. Smith didnt want to put his credibility at stakes by doing like THG that benched games at resolutions and settings that were constantly changed from a game to another to get the good results, only convenient settings to please the customer, as it s well known that THG does not do reviews for free.

Check out Anandtech's latest review of Broadwell:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9320/intel-broadwell-review-i7-5775c-i5-5765c/7

As said at res that the same people praising Intel currently deemed as unworthy to be used.

Jjust to get the "good" result seems thaT 1920p is not necessary after all, at least as long as Intel will not best AMD at this res..

 

[crashtech]

Take a look at the frame rates, and it is obvious why the test was performed at 720. 30 fps is the lower end of playable.

 

[Sweepr]

Take a look at the frame rates, and it is obvious why the test was performed at 720. 30 fps is the lower end of playable.

Not only that but Kaveri was outclassed in all 1080p tests too, it's just that some people are in a state of denial and running out of excuses.

I'm sure pro-AMD blogs will be happy to test unplayable 1080p settings with filters that might (or might not) give AMD a tiny advantage, meanwhile the rest of the world recognizes that Intel has the best CPU+iGPU combination right now.

 

[Abwx]

Take a look at the frame rates, and it is obvious why the test was performed at 720. 30 fps is the lower end of playable.

That has nothing to do with the res atualy, this game was selected because it use only one core, to load the GPU at 100% Kaveri need to be at 3ghz with four cores loaded, with only one core at 4GHz the GPU cant be loaded at more than 35%, so the difference you are witnessing is mainly due to the cores respective IPCs.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/325610/discussions/0/617328415057955130/?l=french

So business as usual, that is, pathetic shenanigans to get the good numbers...

 

[Abwx]

I'm sure pro-AMD blogs will be happy to test unplayable 1080p settings with filters that might (or might not) give AMD a tiny advantage, meanwhile the rest of the world recognizes that Intel has the best CPU+iGPU combination right now.

I already commented THG and AT, i will comment this one, funny that they made the comparisons with those games, for the annoying ones the comparison was Intel vs Intel, AMD APU were removed..

All those discretanpcies are not random, both Intel and AMD give a reviewer guide to the sites and reviews follow a guideline, thing is that AMD does not the single requirement in their reviewer guide, the reviewers are completely free to test the APUs at whatever res and with whatever bench, Intel on the other side has strict requirements if we are to look at the reviews..

 

[Silverforce11]

Re: Iris Pro, why is it a surprise a much more expensive part is out performing a cheaper part?

Gaming on iGPU is a niche, cheap gaming rigs need only apply. As soon as your CPU is approaching $300, that's no longer in that niche.

 

[soccerballtux]

Not only is "top CPU" pretty vague, the answers you get will tend to be very subjective due to differing results on different software apps, and emotional reactions to one company or another will color the responses.

If you consider the top Intel CPU to be the exorbitantly priced, eight core i7-5960X, there just isn't anything from AMD right now that can compete in any respect. Unfortunately, although AMD has remained pretty competitive in the GPU space, they haven't been leading in CPU performance for many years now. Many of us hope to see them become more competitive once more with the release of Zen in 2016.

"I've put my top CPUs on it."

"who!"

"TOP. CPUS."