How big is the performance difference between AMD & Intel?

[NTB]

Just wondering...My brother asked me to price out a system for him today, and I haven't kept up much with hardware since I built my own C2D system last year. It doesn't make any difference to me - or him, I don't think - which one he gets; I'm just wondering if, given an Intel and an AMD system running at the same CPU speed, there would be a significant difference between the two.

Nathan

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: NTB
I'm just wondering if, given an Intel and an AMD system running at the same CPU speed, there would be a significant difference between the two.

Speed when not mentioned which chip series is worthless information.



When comparing Core's to X2's the X2's are outdated. When comparing Intel Dual Core's to X2's the X2's come out on top. Asuming you want a dual core cpu that is.

 

[Fox5]

At equal cost/models: almost no speed difference, with a caveat
AMD tricores are priced against intel dual cores, so Intel dual cores will win any single or dual threaded benchmark, and the tricores may win more threads than that.
If you bring overclocking into the mix, then Intel dual cores may have a 50% performance advantage over AMD X2s once maxed out. Their quad cores may have a 10% to 25% advantage over quad core phenoms. The tri cores are in an interesting place, still maintaining that 10% to 25% behind the dual cores, yet having an extra core.

 

[z1ggy]

It depends on wat u r doing and how much u want to spend. I think that if you are going low budget and AMD will do you just fine. But like the above posts..if you want to OC and gain a good bang for your buck Intel is the 100% best choice in my opinion.

 

[Christobevii3]

You can gamble with am2+ boards getting the 45nm phenoms in october or have a dead platform with lga775 once nehalem shows up with a new socket. So really it doesn't matter?

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Fox5

If you bring overclocking into the mix, then Intel dual cores may have a 50% performance advantage over AMD X2s once maxed out. Their quad cores may have a 10% to 25% advantage over quad core phenoms. The tri cores are in an interesting place, still maintaining that 10% to 25% behind the dual cores, yet having an extra core.

i would say its a bit more if you took max OC into both aspects.

I will give phenom 3.5ghz for MAX stable safe arguing, and thats giving it a high mark.

Im am willing to say most of the first production Q9650's will hit 4.050ghz.

At that calibur AMD can only hope and wish on a falling star.


And this is after testing all the 9650 platforms.

QX9650
Q9650
X3370

:T

 

[boomhower]

Depends on what you are doing with it. Gaming? For the most part it won't really matter, you will likely be GPU limited. Surfing the net and office applications, doesn't matter both are fine. Encoding? Intel all the way. Folding or other distributed computing? Intel again. Intel is simply faster in pretty much every facet you can get. Overall speed, clock for clock, and speed/dollar. The only place AMD really gets close is speed/dollar on the low end with OCing taken out of the equation.

 

[nerp]

For a general use computer with occasional gaming, there really is no real difference in the enduser experience between AMD or Intel as long as you have a decent video card in there and enough ram.

Things change once you overclock but not every system needs or should be overclocked.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Is there a significant difference? For the most part, no, but it depends on entirely what we're comparing.

Phenoms and the Core 2 processors perform about the same clock for clock. Intel does hold the advantage, as I believe Phenom processors need about a 1-200 MHz advantage in clock speed to perform as well as Core 2 processor like the Q6600.

The 45 nm Core 2 Intel processors provide an even bigger disparity, clock for clock, than older 65 nm Core 2 processors and Phenoms.

Athlon X2s and the new Pentium Dual Cores (E2xxx series) are also fairly equal, clock for clock, but again Intel does hold a 1-200 MHz advantage.

The differences aren't going to significant to the end user, but Intel is the safe bet at multiple price points as far as processor goes. If you're talking about complete platforms, then AMD is even more competitive and can sometimes offer more than Intel at cheaper prices.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: boomhower
The only place AMD really gets close is speed/dollar on the low end with OCing taken out of the equation.

You forgot scalibilty of AMD still eats up Intel.

 

[Stageman]

I just built a new system with a Athlon 64x2 5000+ CPU that cost me $66 dollars US. I mostly game and surf with it so I'm quite happy for the price.

 

[SlowSpyder]

OP, will you be overclocking?

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Is there a significant difference? For the most part, no, but it depends on entirely what we're comparing.

Phenoms and the Core 2 processors perform about the same clock for clock. Intel does hold the advantage, as I believe Phenom processors need about a 1-200 MHz advantage in clock speed to perform as well as Core 2 processor like the Q6600.

The 45 nm Core 2 Intel processors provide an even bigger disparity, clock for clock, than older 65 nm Core 2 processors and Phenoms.

Athlon X2s and the new Pentium Dual Cores (E2xxx series) are also fairly equal, clock for clock, but again Intel does hold a 1-200 MHz advantage.

The differences aren't going to significant to the end user, but Intel is the safe bet at multiple price points as far as processor goes. If you're talking about complete platforms, then AMD is even more competitive and can sometimes offer more than Intel at cheaper prices.

I couldn't said it better. For the one who said that the performance difference was over 50% that's not entirely true. Only in some 3D Rendering scenarios, that can be seen, but in games, media encoding etc, usually when the comparison is done with two CPU's of the same category (Ex. Q6600 vs 9850BE) the performance difference is small. If you want a complete platform and lower prices, go to AMD, if you want overclocking and hence, more performance per dollar, go for Intel.

 

[OLpal]

Not giving us much to go on !!
If wanting onboard video. It's a Slam Dunk for AMD 780G motherboards with SB700 south bridge.. you could install a X2-4850 low energy... save on electricity & home cooling costs !
If you want to go with AMD 9850BE or 9950BE Quads , they are releasing the new SB750 southbridge chip which makes the Phenom OC & function better, & that would be highly recomended !!
Intel Core2Duo i'd go E8500 with a P-45 motherboard !!
ATI 4850 give a lot of video perf. for under $170

Originally posted by: NTB
Just wondering...My brother asked me to price out a system for him today, and I haven't kept up much with hardware since I built my own C2D system last year. It doesn't make any difference to me - or him, I don't think - which one he gets; I'm just wondering if, given an Intel and an AMD system running at the same CPU speed, there would be a significant difference between the two.

Nathan

 

[Gillbot]

I see this turning into a hornets nest soon. Prove me wrong! Let's all be sure to keep it on track and civil everyone!
Anandtech Moderator
Gillbot

 

[aigomorla]

You guys CANT LOOK CLOCK PER CLOCK if your taking overclocking into aspect. Because the two platforms overclock differently.

Its like saying i have a porshe GT2 and im racing a camry, BUT i purposely wont beat it. The camry is of course gonna be better, its only slightly slower, and uses less gas, but what happens when the guy in the porshe decides to GUN it?

If you want to overclock this is a no brainer, anyone pushing AMD when overclocking is not getting your priority straight.



Once again lets compare a 3.5ghz phenom vs. 4.0ghz yorkfield.

No thats more then 10% my friends.

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: boomhower
The only place AMD really gets close is speed/dollar on the low end with OCing taken out of the equation.

You forgot scalibilty of AMD still eats up Intel.

*sigh*

And that is why a 4phsycial core nehalem will chase down a 8 physical core Barcelona?

*sigh*

ATI Scales great! AMD, uhhh.... ok!
You have any links for this? i would like to see.

 

[nerp]

Yes, but as the OP is suggesting, if you sit down a normal user in front of two similarly spec'd machines, one AMD and the other intel, he/she won't be able to tell the difference in performance as they surf the web, do work, email, etc.

With the same video card in each of those machines, there won't be huge differences in gaming, either.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: nerp
Yes, but as the OP is suggesting, if you sit down a normal user in front of two similarly spec'd machines, one AMD and the other intel, he/she won't be able to tell the difference in performance as they surf the web, do work, email, etc.

With the same video card in each of those machines, there won't be huge differences in gaming, either.

Yeah this is true, but the part that went astray is OVERCLOCKING.

The thread is starting to sound like AMD has a chance in the overclocking field to keep up with an intel rig.

The truth is it doesnt, and anyone trying to promote that it does is not showing the OP the truth.

AMD is still far behind Intel in aspect to overclocking. If your building an Overclocking machine, AMD is not in your catigory.


To put things short, if you had to rank tiers.

1. Intel
2. AMD
3. Via

Intel is higher then AMD. Current and Future TECH will gobble AMD in overclocking.

The main drive you need to consider is does your budget include enough for INTEL?

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: nerp
Yes, but as the OP is suggesting, if you sit down a normal user in front of two similarly spec'd machines, one AMD and the other intel, he/she won't be able to tell the difference in performance as they surf the web, do work, email, etc.

With the same video card in each of those machines, there won't be huge differences in gaming, either.

I have seen many posts where this is not true also. Please going from an X2@2.7 to a 8400@4.0, and the frames went from 20 to 40, very noticeable. Also, I have seen the same for quads.

You first sentence on using for internet and word, fine, but a $69 Atom motherboard/cpu/video will do that.....

You really have to have a very specific case to buy AMD nowadays, Intel wins in every scenario IMO.

 

[lucky9]

Originally posted by: NTB
Just wondering...My brother asked me to price out a system for him today, and I haven't kept up much with hardware since I built my own C2D system last year. It doesn't make any difference to me - or him, I don't think - which one he gets; I'm just wondering if, given an Intel and an AMD system running at the same CPU speed, there would be a significant difference between the two.

Nathan

No. Buy based on price unless you have a need that's different than most people that say "It doesn't make any difference to me - or him". Mainly because he doesn't sound like a person that is interested in overclocking. If he games put him on a decent graphics card.

 

[Markfw]

OK, I think its clear we need more information here from the OP.

1) Do you want to overclock ?
2) Do you play games ?
3) What is the budget.

Again, I think Intel wins no matter what you answer on these, but at least we will have a specific area to discuss.

 

[nerp]

Yes, we're all speculating without the OP giving more information.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: nerp
Yes, we're all speculating without the OP giving more information.

my comment was only directed at the overclocking aspect.

As i said the thread was starting to sound like AMD was equal to Intel with Overclocking.

This is the only misconception i wanted to get rid of.


This is why i gave you guys that analogy with the porshe not trying to beat the camry.

But im with mark.

The Intel rig offers a longer service time when overclocked.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: nerp
Yes, we're all speculating without the OP giving more information.

my comment was only directed at the overclocking aspect.

As i said the thread was starting to sound like AMD was equal to Intel with Overclocking.

This is the only misconception i wanted to get rid of.


This is why i gave you guys that analogy with the porshe not trying to beat the camry.

But im with mark.

The Intel rig offers a longer service time when overclocked.

I wholeheartedly agree. I think I mentioned that the AMD/Intel comparisons are roughly equal for general use to normal users when overclocking isn't factored in. You did a good job clarifying this.

 

[Gikaseixas]

if you are not overclocking they'll perform pretty much the same for the majority part. If overclocking then get a Intel since they go higher then AMD's. Deneb sounds good and will most likely be a cheap cpu, reports say they can run at a average of 3.5 ghz on air