Why is AMD so inferior to Intel?

[endlessmike133]

I've been skimming through Anandtechs CPU benchmarks and Intel really just BLOWS away AMD.

Intel has low-end dual core processors that can outperform AMD's high end quad (and even hex) cores in a variety of tests; why is this?

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Intel uses Alien Technology.

 

[Markfw]

If you look closer, that quite an exaggeration. In general, Intel wins the performance crown, but depending on the application, AMD sometimes is quite competitive.

 

[Zap]

Are you comparing at the same street pricing? Typically AMD is somewhat competitive at the same street pricing. Performance is also not directly comparable. For instance with graphics cards you can pick an ATI card and a somewhat equivalent NVIDIA card, and game A might get higher framerates on ATI while game B might get higher framerates on NVIDIA. With CPUs, AMD typically gives you more cores at a lower price, while Intel doesn't want anyone to have a quad core without paying around $200. Some software really excels with more cores, so in these cases AMD would be the better choice.

Additionally, until the Sandy Bridge processors showed up Intel didn't have anything good for integrated graphics, plus even the Sandy Bridge IGP doesn't support the "proper" framerate for Blu Ray playback. If you want to make a cheap HTPC, AMD is a very compelling choice on a platform level, not just a CPU level.

My point is that it isn't a cut-dried "oh this benchmarks faster." After all, if all you cared about was the absolute "fastest" then you would buy an Intel Core i7 980X and call it a day. However, most of us don't have $1k to drop on a CPU, so we have to look at our budget and make the best choices at that price point for what we want our whole system to be. Sometimes it is an Intel CPU, and sometimes it is an AMD CPU.

EDIT: Damnit! My well thought out and well worded replies are always late to the party.

 

[Zorkorist]

Wasn't it AMD that first cloned IBM's BIOS?

They've never been much of a leader. (tongue firmly in cheek)

-John

 

[Arkadrel]

Intels top end performance is better than AMDs top end performance.... however thats how Intel makes billions of $, those top of the line chips dont come cheap.

You get alot of value typically with AMD... which is probably why they dont make billions, and why intel leaves the low end market to AMD.

IF your a normal person and on a budget.... AMD gets you alot of cpu/$.

 

[Stoneburner]

Intel has toshiba guts!

And billions of more dollars to spend on R&D. Some of us remember the a64 days when amd was sharting over intel. Even at that time AMD did not make enough money off their superior chips and reinvest in R&D. Part of that was uncompetitive practices we have since learned.

AMD has had alot of brilliant innovations and intel has copied their ideas in recent years. But Intel has more money and can keep things moving faster.

 

[nenforcer]

This is the same as how it was in the AMD K6, K6-2 and K6-3 days.

Don't forget that AMD was also the first to integrate the memory controller on the CPU, so they are not without their own innovations.

I still like AMD chip designs especially since with their multi core designs they don't just stick 2 dies together.

I think Bulldozer is going to have a number of new features that make AMD compelling again.

 

[nanaki333]

This is the same as how it was in the AMD K6, K6-2 and K6-3 days.

Don't forget that AMD was also the first to integrate the memory controller on the CPU, so they are not without their own innovations.

I still like AMD chip designs especially since with their multi core designs they don't just stick 2 dies together.

I think Bulldozer is going to have a number of new features that make AMD compelling again.

that's a pretty badass system you have there! it's really standing up to the test of time

 

[BD231]

Intel has been extremely aggressive with its product cycle as of late and AMD simply can't keep up at the moment. They are in fact behind again. Their current architecture has been soundly beaten into the ground and can no longer keep pace with the overly simplistic " slap some more cores on " methodology they've been on for so many years.

I don't think anyone was expecting a four core part to beat a six core part, much less do it with ease at the same price point as any x6 you can find. It's pretty amusing actually.

You have to wonder if AMD actually hurt themselves putting out the X6. Can you imagine a computer guy in best buy trying to sell Intel?? " Yeah well it takes six cores to reach Intel performance and even then you're not getting your money's worth in many applications due to lack of multi-threading ".

Phenom is over and done with from a top tier perspective.

 

[nenforcer]

that's a pretty badass system you have there! it's really standing up to the test of time

Just beat Quake 4 on it, only 5+ years after it came out.


I'm getting ready to load up Half Life 2 on it, which I've still never played.

Should run great on it!

 

[Rifter]

If you look closer, that quite an exaggeration. In general, Intel wins the performance crown, but depending on the application, AMD sometimes is quite competitive.

Its not really an exaggeration though, sure in a few benchs the AMD quads take the lead but in 80%+ of the tests a intel dual core is as fast or faster than a AMD quad, even at the same price point.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=88

Those two CPU's will both be in the $130 price point give or take a few bucks when the SB relaunch happpens.

Intel is even dead even or leading in the 4 games they tested.

The bottom line is at this point in time AMD needs to pull there heads out of there asses and lower the 6 core prices to compete. Cause as it stands right now they are only competetive under $100.

If building in the next month the only way i would reccomend a AMD system is if the ONLY use of the computer would be video transcoding/encoding as thats the only area that AMD quads actually beat the SB duals. Not to mention at the $200 price point(i5 2500k, AMD 1090T) the SB quad beats on the AMD 6 core even worse than the dual beats on the quad.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=146

The AMD 6 core wins all of one test, and does it using 40% more power.

I really want AMD to compete as it will be good for pricing, and out of the 5 comps in my house 3 of them are AMD systems but right now AMD is really in a bad place.

 

[magomago]

meh its a valid comparison within the understanding that you are using current offerings, but let us no kid ourselves and think that AMD is using any P2 X4 to challange any of intel's offerings. P2 X4 how been out how long...and SB has been out, what, barely a month? That doesn't mean that we ignore it...uhhh not really...

anyways I'd imagine that AMD would have to respond with its prices in kind...or it might not. Truth be told, outside of the very last benchmarks (save for encoding tests that matter for those who encode/transcode all day long) the rest of teh benchmarks are useless synthetic tests. Outside of the price factor, I'm buying a PC based on what I use...and I'm not running SYSMARK 200-whatever.

 

[Motorheader]

Intel has the OEM market "locked" for quite some time. That is guaranteed money - something that AMD - no matter how competitive or even better they've been at times - has never been able to overcome.

 

[sxr7171]

R&D budget. I don't know...

 

[Mopetar]

AMD is between architectures now. Once Bulldozer comes out the gap will most likely be narrowed or even possibly reversed. It wouldn't be the first time AMD surprised Intel. Regardless, Intel's newest architecture, which is based on an already good architecture, is competing against AMD's K10 architecture which has been around since 2007.

 

[Rifter]

meh its a valid comparison within the understanding that you are using current offerings, but let us no kid ourselves and think that AMD is using any P2 X4 to challange any of intel's offerings.

Thats just it though, AMD is using there current PH II quads and hex to counter SB, if they wernt they would lower prices as to not directly compete, which they havent done yet.

 

[frostedflakes]

Yeah, Intel's R&D budget just dwarfs AMD. Truthfully, I think it's pretty impressive that AMD keeps up as well as they do considering the resources they have. Both in terms of architecture and process technology, they've been ahead of AMD for a while now.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Yeah, Intel's R&D budget just dwarfs AMD. Truthfully, I think it's pretty impressive that AMD keeps up as well as they do considering the resources they have. Both in terms of architecture and process technology, they've been ahead of AMD for a while now.

I'm not sure what the actual CPU R&D differences are, but its less than 2x, from last comparison I did. Remember Intel's R&D includes process technology/SSD/Networking/Motherboard/Software(not just drivers).

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Yeah, Intel's R&D budget just dwarfs AMD. Truthfully, I think it's pretty impressive that AMD keeps up as well as they do considering the resources they have.

This. Instead of asking "Why is AMD so inferior to Intel?" I'd ask "Given that Intel's market cap is more than 20 times greater than AMD's, why is Intel ahead by such a narrow margin?"

 

[wuliheron]

This. Instead of asking "Why is AMD so inferior to Intel?" I'd ask "Given that Intel's market cap is more than 20 times greater than AMD's, why is Intel ahead by such a narrow margin?"

Intel is definitely the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room and, like Microsoft, a regulated monopoly with AMD as their token competition. They can easily outspend AMD and Nvidia combined. Nonetheless AMD caught them with their pants down once and just might do so again.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Short Answer

Francios Piednoel

 

[Zorkorist]

Why is Mototola making phones?

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Intel has creamed every chip manufaxturer, much like Bill Gates kills any OS.

-John

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Intel has creamed every chip manufaxturer, much like Bill Gates kills any OS.

-John

Its called running a business with top rated employees