Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

Intel or AMD

Discussion in 'Computer Tech' started by Goron2222, May 9, 2011.

  1. Goron2222

    Goron2222

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    84
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    I need to make a decision here, and I just can't decide. I am trying to pick between an AMD or an Intel Processor. I know AMD is way cheaper, but I have been an Intel man my whole life. Is there a difference? What do you guys think?
     
  2. Dr Super Good

    Dr Super Good

    Spell Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    26,134
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    3
    Intel is still seriously dominating the performance end of the market with some of its I7 models. However those are proabably out of your price range.

    Some Intel I5 models have been getting good price performance ratios that rival AMDs.

    A lot of I5 and 7 processors are apparently very good to over clock and capable of going deep into the 3GHz range on air cooling alone (4GHz for some expensive I7 models).

    If you have had good times using intel processors I advise staying with them as they are certainlly a viable choice. I have used a lot of Intel processors and all of them seem to run very well.
     
  3. The Reborn Devil

    The Reborn Devil

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,325
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    AMD is a lot cheaper and the 6-core CPU from AMD is awesomesauce, but the 12 core IS WIN!!!!

    Either get AMD Phenom II x4 (4 cores) or AMD Phenom II x6 (6 cores) (both running at 3.6 GHz). If you have a lot of munehz you could get the AMD Opteron 6174 (12 cores).

    AMD processors give a shitload of power for the buck.
     
  4. Dr Super Good

    Dr Super Good

    Spell Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    26,134
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    3
    I do not see the point of a 12 core... The memory bandwidth with the CPU is already a major limiting factor with quad core CPUs let alone a 12 cores. Yes larger cache sizes may compensate for that slightly but in the end you will probably not get more power than a 6 core CPU outside of physics or other simple yet repetitive opperations.

    Intel Cores have other boosts AMD lack. Such as hyper threading on the I7 range which reduces the number of wasted clock cycles on cache faults. Intel also have better overclocking support (like I said, 4 GHz on air some of their models can get).

    AMD might look good with high clock speeds for low cost, but clockspeeds mean nothing in the real world. Faster clockspeeds result in more wasted cycles during cache faults for example. More wasted cycles during a branch prediction fault as well. So even if your processor is slightly slower (lower clocked), it can be faster if it has more efficient pipelining, simultanious multi threading or faster memory access times.

    My intel I7 is 2 years old and still works amazingly. My brother uses an I5 which also works like a dream.
     
  5. Grey Nightmare

    Grey Nightmare

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,852
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Seconded i5 is the best bang for buck I've spent on a pc
     
  6. Goron2222

    Goron2222

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    84
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Alright, I think I am going with an intel i7
     
  7. The Reborn Devil

    The Reborn Devil

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,325
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    My CPU is 2 years old too and it works more than amazingly. The cpu usage is at 0% during full system scans and games (I'm talking Crysis and other demanding games) never use more than 50%, it's usually around 20%. My CPU is AMD Phenom II x4.

    Also, hyperthreading is, meh.

    Intel Hyperthreading vs AMD True Core Scalability
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Dr Super Good

    Dr Super Good

    Spell Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    26,134
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    3
    You need to read those results more carefully...

    Hyper threading is not a replacement for double the number of "cores"...

    The maximum processor performance is based on the number of clock edges occuring per second. As multi core systems allow multiple instructions to be run per processor clock as the cores are in parallel with each other you can work out the total number of clock edges a prcoessor perfoms per second. Hyper threading does not influence this measurement at all as it is an enhancement to a single core.

    In the examples show above, AMD has 8 cores at 2.4 GHz for 2 processors which is 38.4 GHz worth of clock edges per second. The Intel core however is only 4 cores at 2.93 GHz with 2 prcoessors which comes at a grand total of 23.44 GHz worth of clock edges per second.

    As you can clearly see, the AMD processors in the example rigs can execute more clocks per second.

    However, in reality a lot of clock cycles are wasted doing incorrect branch predictions, performing thread syncronization or just waiting for I/O. This is where hyper-threading helps, as what it does is it reduces the number of wasted clock edges due to I/O (especially memory). Where as the AMD cores are forced to just waste clock edges during that time, the intel cores can instead switch over to the thread loaded in their hyper threading core and thus save those clock edges by running instructions. Other bottle necks like multiple I/O requests may reduce the saving but overall it means more full utalization of the available processor resources. Making a core hyperthreading supporting is also a lot easier than making a whole new processor as all it needs are some control logic and double registers unlike a whole new processor which needs everything to be duplicated.

    Ok as for the diagrams shown.
    The AMD system with 8 threads is utalizing 50% of the cores. When upped to 16 threads it uses 100% of the prcoessors (full utalization) thus it should do double the work. The fact it only does 89% more shows that eithor the task does not scale well or that I/O bottle necks are wasting 11% of the power which is acceptable (can not fault this loss).

    As for the intel processor. The 8 threads are utalizing 100% of all the available cores thus the processors are already at full utalizition. When upping to 16 threads, it will load them onto the hyper-threading virtual cores (hich only get assigned clock edges which will usually get wasted due to I/O or other delays) so the 14% extra gain in peformance is from reducing wasted time.

    So why do hyper threading?
    Lets compare an 8 core AMD processor to an 8 core Intel processor with Hyper-threading with equivently same clock rate. At 4 threads they will perform about equally (only variations in execution processes from company specific developments) and will utalize about 50% of the processor cores. At 8 threads they will use 100% of available cores and perform about twice as well as when running 4 threads (like seen in the AMD graph).
    However now lets up to 16 threads (more than the number of cores both processors have). The AMD processor will infact run a tiny bit slower as some extra time is wasted with additional time splicing but for all maningful results it will run as fast as with 8 threads. The Intel processor with hyper-threading however will now be using all hyper threading virtual cores (which run when the corosponding main core is I/O locked) so will gain a slight speed boost (probvably somewhere near 14% but can be as much as 33% for some tasks) comapred with the AMD processor which has gained nothing.

    Thus why Hyper-Threading is I7 specific, as it does boost performance but you usually are better off with just more processors and larger caches. However combining it with a large multi core processor (Intel is planning an 8 cored HT processor) provides prety immense performance for huge thread numbers.

    Intel also has other technologies like tripple channel memory or quad channel memory which improve the I/O throughput.
     
  9. thelifelessone

    thelifelessone

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    369
    Resources:
    1
    Tools:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    'Hyperthreading' is Intel's way of saying 'Simultaneous Multithreading', which I'm fairly sure AMD has as well.
     
  10. Dr Super Good

    Dr Super Good

    Spell Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    26,134
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    3
    As far as I know, AMD does not have it on any top range CPUs for computers. I know that the processor the Xbox 360 uses has it though. Also different implimentations may have different performance efficiencies.
     
  11. Vercas

    Vercas

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,604
    Resources:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    I've always used AMD and beat the crap of all the Intel processors in this neighborhood and my school.

    BTW, reborn devil... You have 4 cores. 1 core at max = 25%... 2 cores = 50% and so on... Those games could do much better if they were better programmed! And you have a damn awesome processor O_O!

    With a Chinese motherboard I overclocked my processor to 160%... from 3 GHz to 5 GHz... It has a built-in utility that works only with Athlon II which constantly monitors the processor and adjusts the overcloaking so it doesn't get damaged. It's all on the motherboard manual but I don't know where I put it... :xxd:
     
  12. The Reborn Devil

    The Reborn Devil

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,325
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    DSG, I think you read the graph incorrectly. Both are at 100% with 8 copies, but the AMD CPU goes to 189% at 16 copies, while the Intel CPU only manages to go to 114% at 16 copies. This is relative performance.

    What this graph says is that the performance scales much better with AMD True Core Scalability than Hyper Threading.

    @Vercas, I know, when I mentioned those percentages it was the overall usage, not the usage on 1 core.
     
  13. Dr Super Good

    Dr Super Good

    Spell Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    26,134
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    3
    Yes, an 8 core CPU is better than a 4 core CPU when it comes to running more threads, and that is all those graphs actually prove. With intel it was 8 threads on 8 cores then 16 threads on 8 cores while with AMD it was 8 threads on 16 cores and then 16 threads on 16 cores. The fact intel showed any speed gain at all should astound you as 32 threads on 16 cores of AMD processors would run about as fast if not slower than 16 threads on 16 cores.

    What those graphs proved was that hyper-threading is not a replacement for twice as many cores. If you actually read what I said earlier you would see why. Where as more cores means more clock edges doing digital logic, hyper-threading just means less wasted clock edges waiting for I/O as it switches to the virtual core when the main thread on that core is I/O locked.

    The fact still remains that an 8 cored I7 (will be comming soon) with its hyper-threading running 16 threads will be faster than a 8 cores AMD processor running 16 threads. Where as the 8 cored I7 can run 8 threads continiously and the other 8 during times threads are I/O locked, the AMD processor can only run 8 threads at any time meaning that 8 threads will get no attention at all at any given time.

    Especially for I/O heavy tasks (like data processing), you can obtain a 33% increase in performance without any more cores with hyper-threading.

    People foolishly think hyper-threading means that they have twice as many cores (the mistake the comparison makes). Hyper threading instead allows other threads to run with virtually no distruption to the main thread on each core. Inorder to do this the processor appears in the opperating system as having twice as many cores so that threads can be placed to run when the other core is I/O locked. However if you run Windows 7 or other OS with good hyper-threading support you will notice that it will perfer to place threads on different cores before it places them on the hyper threading cores which is the true behaviour that should occur. Sadly it reports CPU usage out of both real and virtual cores meaning that from 50% to 100% usage can be nothing more than a 33% increase. Hopefully in future Windows will display the virtual hyper-thread cores inside the main core so that processor usage gets reported back correctly.

    So what does hyper-threading actually do for you?
    If you are processing data like video rendering, your 4 core CPU could run 8 threads of encoding and so get an up to 33% speed increase over a processor with only 4 cores and no hyperthreading.
    If you are running a game using 4 threads, your background tasks which eat nominal time could be running within the I/O locked wasted time of the game so equivently become free rather than having to time splice them to a main core to run.
    The kernal wastes less time perfoming time splicing in overloaded environments as the processor has twice as many threads load at any time (and will be running, even if slowly, on the virtual cores).
     
  14. noob134

    noob134

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    335
    Resources:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    But, which can you get better performance for the money you have to spend?

    That's how i would choose, just get the best for what you are willing to spend.
     
  15. The Reborn Devil

    The Reborn Devil

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,325
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Again, you didn't look closely at the picture. It says "2 processors" on both the AMD test and the Intel test. The conditions are equal. Also, even if they had used more processors on the AMD test, it wouldn't be relevant at all, since the point is how much performance gain there is from 8 threads to 16. AMD's True Core Scalability outclasses Intel's Hyper Threading.

    @noob134, AMD CPU's have a lot of power for the buck. I bought my AMD Phenom II x4 @ 3.6 GHz for a mere $150 USD (and that was in Norway where things are more expensive because we have the second richest inhabitants in the world).
     
  16. Dr Super Good

    Dr Super Good

    Spell Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    26,134
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    3
    You still do not get it... Yes they were tested with 2 prcoessors each, but the AMD was an oct core while the intels were quad cores. Running 16 threads on 8 cores yielding any performance boost over 8 threads on 8 cores is amazing as each core can only execute an instruction at a time, with or without HT. The fact HT showed a boot goes to show that it makes each core more efficient, so much so that multi threaded tasks gain even more performance with 2 threads on 1 core than with just 1 thread on 1 core.

    The test conditions are not equal. For them to be equal they would need to test 1 single ATI oct core agains 2 intel quad cores or a single intel oct core with HT. All the testing showed was that more cores is better than cores with hyper threading which is logical.

    2 oct cores can perform 16 opperations every clock cycle (16 logical processors each with their own core).
    2 quad cores with HT can perform 8 opperations every clock cycle (16 logical processors but each pair shares 1 core).

    Intel could make the same difference compairing their true cores to their HT logical cores by compairing 1 quad core with HT against 2 quad cores with HT but running only enough threads to saturate all 8 logical threads from the 1 (so the HT never gets used on the other).

    HT does not mean more cores, HT means more efficient cores.
     
  17. The Reborn Devil

    The Reborn Devil

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,325
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    The conditions are still equal, since the performance gain is relative.
    Also, this:
    Source: http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/03/30/intel-hyper-threading-vs-amd-true-core-scalability/
     
  18. Vercas

    Vercas

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,604
    Resources:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    This is becoming pointless. Just stick to AMD...
     
  19. Dr Super Good

    Dr Super Good

    Spell Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    26,134
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    3
    The consensis was to stick with intel...
     
  20. Vercas

    Vercas

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,604
    Resources:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    When choosing between Intel and AMD, numbers aren't real.