Processor Specifications

[Radicool]

So there Is Intel and AMD. Intel are typically more expensive while AMD are cheaper. Intel appear to perform better than AMD with lower clock rates and cores.

When looking at specs, AMD chips always have more cores and higher clock rates for the same price as Intel. They have the same (I think its transistor size? You know the 48nm, 32nm, that stuff). They have the same amount of threads, same cache size.

What am I missing? Do different processes have different coding? So Intel has better CPU coding or something? What makes Intel different to AMD?

Examples:

Intel: http://www.mwave.com.au/product/sku...l_core_processor#detailTabs=tabSpecifications
AMD: http://www.mwave.com.au/product/sku..._4core_processor#detailTabs=tabSpecifications

I dont want the answer to specifically refer to these processors, I was just pointing out that Intel is always more expensive. The AMD specs there look more attractive and it costs $9 less!

 

[Velgen]

Well first off they are pretty even on pricing the 4100 is an older generation so of course it's cheaper than Intel's current gen in that tier. This is AMDs current gen 2 core 4 thread processor.

The reason for the performance difference is architectural , but to simplify it's because the IPC (Instructions Per Clock) on the AMD CPUs is lower. There are lot of factors that go into IPC, and it's been awhile since I read into what the issues were with AMDs CPUs. The whole AMD has more cores really is sort of a marketing gimmick. They are referring to the amount of threads the CPU can run; so the FX4300 is a 2 core 4 thread CPU, 6300 is a 3 core 6 thread CPU, and the FX8350 is a 4 core 8 thread CPU. They function more like actual cores than Intel's Hyperthreading does though so I am not exactly sure how to refer to them (AMD refers to the cores as modules, but I am trying to keep like terms here).

As for manufacturing process atm Intel is currently on 22nm and AMD is on 32nm. This means Intel can fit more transistors on a die than AMD. For example a 4 core Intel CPU has about half the die size, but 1.4 billion transistors while AMDs 4 core (8350 in this case) has 1.2 billion.

Knowing me I probably missed something, but hopefully this helps somewhat.

 

[Radicool]

Thanks, that was helpful. I'll look more into IPC. And I didn't realize AMD was behind on the manufacturing process. Thanks for the response.

 

[Dr Super Good]

What am I missing?

Basic processor understanding.

Do different processes have different coding?

No, as processors have no coding since they are hardware and not software.

So Intel has better CPU coding or something?

No, as processors have no coding since they are hardware and not software.

What makes Intel different to AMD?

Some intel chips have built-in graphic accelerators which AMD processors generally do not (they except you to use a separate AMD graphic card). This makes them a very good choice for low end laptops which have no separate graphic card. Because the GPU and CPU are one one chip this also makes the more energy efficient than separate graphic cards. However this is for basic graphics (think DVD, powerpoint, youtube) and not gaming, it just lacks the power for that.

They are also designed considerably differently. Both AMD and Intel share a core instruction set but have their own unique extensions. They also focused on optimizing different instructions so the execution time of a program in clock cycles can be very different on an AMD processor compared to an Intel processor. Most good x86 compilers allow you to specify which processor type you want to optimize for and there can be quite a difference in performance although both will run it.

Generally AMD produces lower quality CPUs than Intel. They hide this by having higher clock rates or more cores but in reality lower performance instructions and bottlenecks make the gain nowhere near as large as they would like you to believe. AMD often consume more power to do the same work as well. Combined with their notorious design faults this can result in rather bad failures. That said they do often provide the most performance per unit money which is why both the PS4 uses an only AMD inside.

Intel prizes itself with the reliability and quality of its processors for the general public. Their top end range CPUs often beat AMD's by huge margines. They are also handle heat very well making them great for laptops which often lack cooling for maximum performance over extended periods. They also have a very well optimized instruction set for some computationally intensive operations (mostly related to video coding and graphics) which AMD lacks making them often the choice processor in professional industry.

A good example of the quality difference between the two is the old AMD vs Intel without a heat sink video. Although the processors show are dated now, it shows qualite clearly the difference in quality that AMD maintains. The intel processors immediatly shut back clock rate to prevent heat damage and the program even remains stable. The AMD processors catch fire (physically they burn out), logically the program, OS and computer crashes when this happens. Although one hopes AMD has sorted out this basic safety feature by now, you can be very sure Intel will still do it better.

As far as professonal performance goes, IBM still rules the market. Most banks will only use IBM for their most important servers. IBM processors are often used in game consols (I think Wii U uses one, and the Wii, Gamecube, PS3 and Xbox 360 all used one) although it seems both PS4 and the "xbox" are using AMD now to cut costs. The main problem is IBM uses PowerPC instruction set as opposed to x86 so are not suited for general home usage (you need PowerPC compiled software). To give you an idea of the performance IBM has, you are looking at 5GHz 8-core processors comming at a cost each that is several new cars. IBM always produces the best processors, Intel and AMD are only new using techniques that IBM have used for years.

 

[Zakamutt]

^ getting awfully close to intel fanboy there, bro. Though you might be right nevertheless...

Anyway, modern CPUs are complex as fuck (this reminds me, there's this book on computer architecture I really should have read for this uni course...) so benchmarks are going to be much more reliable than pure numbers.

AMD's new line of desktop processors (aka bulldozer) is a disaster, which is sad as prices will go up when Intel has no meaningful competition. AMD has said they will continue their bulldozer line though, and go for fairly small incremental improvements. Their real effort will likely be placed on making ARM processors... qq.

 

[Velgen]

Some intel chips have built-in graphic accelerators which AMD processors generally do not (they except you to use a separate AMD graphic card). This makes them a very good choice for low end laptops which have no separate graphic card. Because the GPU and CPU are one one chip this also makes the more energy efficient than separate graphic cards. However this is for basic graphics (think DVD, powerpoint, youtube) and not gaming, it just lacks the power for that.

Actually AMD does have some CPUs with integrated graphics, but only on the low end (all Intel CPUs except some of the Xeons and such have IGP these days). I think they intend to eventually add it to their high-end CPUs and offload the FP calculations to the IGP since the FP unit (not exactly sure how to refer to it) is currently shared (as in 1 FP unit per module). As for the performance of AMDs IGP it is faster than Intel's IGP, but they're weaker on the CPU side.

Generally AMD produces lower quality CPUs than Intel. They hide this by having higher clock rates or more cores but in reality lower performance instructions and bottlenecks make the gain nowhere near as large as they would like you to believe. AMD often consume more power to do the same work as well. Combined with their notorious design faults this can result in rather bad failures. That said they do often provide the most performance per unit money which is why both the PS4 uses an only AMD inside.

I think you should probably reword that lower quality makes it seem like they have a higher failure rate which is untrue (I may be wrong on this but either way CPUs are the least likely part to have fail). The current design path they decided to go with atm is questionable though I agree. It looks like they might be able to salvage it and stay somewhat competitive. So hopefully Intel doesn't end up with a monopoly on the consumer side (although I doubt their prices would go up much even with a monopoly with the shrinking PC market).

A good example of the quality difference between the two is the old AMD vs Intel without a heat sink video. Although the processors show are dated now, it shows qualite clearly the difference in quality that AMD maintains. The intel processors immediatly shut back clock rate to prevent heat damage and the program even remains stable. The AMD processors catch fire (physically they burn out), logically the program, OS and computer crashes when this happens. Although one hopes AMD has sorted out this basic safety feature by now, you can be very sure Intel will still do it better.

They fixed that of course. I don't think they are any different when it comes to safety features these days, but once again I could be wrong I don't look into it. Nowadays though Intel dominates on the power efficiency side since they are ahead in manufacturing process.

 

[Dr Super Good]

(I may be wrong on this but either way CPUs are the least likely part to have fail).

Actually RAM has the lowest failure rate, thus why a lot of RAM manufacturers offer life time warrentees for their RAM but CPU manufacturers do not for their CPUs.

So hopefully Intel doesn't end up with a monopoly on the consumer side (although I doubt their prices would go up much even with a monopoly with the shrinking PC market).

Atleast 1 of the next gen consols will use AMD CPUs (if not 2) so that is not really a concern.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

Intel is always more expensive than AMD but they are generally better at certain tasks especially in the GPU department where a AMD card will run Metro 2033 better than a Nvdiai one but Batman Arkham City performs better on an Nvidia card.

I view it like this, AMD is better bang for buck but always focusses on raw processing power while intel/nvidia have better architecture and driver optimization. Intel and nvidia will always be more expensive and better in certain cases but AMD is a lot more cheaper sometimes and performs just the same in some cases. It get's really complex with all these layers of hardware, drivers and game coding to determine what performance you will get out of your system.

But in this case how could you even think the i3 could be better than a quad-core, when a program will use all 4 cores it will decemate the dual core performance i don't care what processor you have it just does.

 

[Radicool]

Basic processor understanding.

Lol, you don't have to be mean. Reason why I'm here is to learn

No, as processors have no coding since they are hardware and not software.

I know a processor is hardware, but hardware have drivers, or some kind of software paired with it in order for it to function.

Thanks very much for your description though. It was very informative.

AMD's new line of desktop processors (aka bulldozer) is a disaster, which is sad as prices will go up when Intel has no meaningful competition. AMD has said they will continue their bulldozer line though, and go for fairly small incremental improvements. Their real effort will likely be placed on making ARM processors...

Lets only hope AMD remains a player then.

But in this case how could you even think the i3 could be better than a quad-core, when a program will use all 4 cores it will decemate the dual core performance i don't care what processor you have it just does.

This is a good point to make. I suppose an i3 cannot compare to a quad AMD since its only a dual core. No matter how effecient Intel gets, it still cannot outperform a quad core.

 

[Dr Super Good]

but hardware have drivers

Hardware does not need drivers to function. Drivers purely act an an abstraction model for other software to easilly interface with the hardware. For example, a Graphic Card will happilly run without any drivers, however an opperating system will need the drivers to make sense of the graphic card (map OpenGL and D3D functionality to it).

A processor runs machine code. It has a bootstrap loader which is used as the sofware entry point. The closest to a "driver" for a processor is the Operating System which manages processor resources in an abstact way for other software to easilly use.

 

[Edhel-dur]

I will not argue what has been said. I offer my conclusion in parallel.

AMD vs Intel

The principle of 'You get what you pay for' really shows between these two.

Let's say you buy an AMD CPU now. The good side is that it's cheaper, and the CPU cooler that comes with it is more resilient than the Intel one, because it attaches to the Motherboard using metal screws. For gaming, you won't really notice a difference, loading will be slower than an Intel, but really what's 30 seconds longer loading? This is mostly because AMD is always one step behind in terms of architecture, while Intel is now at 22, AMD still uses 32. However there are two obvious downsides to an AMD.
First of all, when you want to work, photoshop, encode videos, coding or something CPU heavy, Intel will do a much better of a job than AMD by a significant difference (because of Intel Hyper-Threading).
Second of all, in time, AMD will prove to be less competent than Intel. Mostly because while an Intel is on 22nm, AMD is still on 32nm. To give an example, both a friend and I have a Core2 Quad from Intel. The difference is he sits on 45nm while I sit on 65nm. Although I have more GHz on each core, his CPU performs way better than mine, after 6 years or so.

Now let's talk about Intel. Sure it's more expensive, and the coolers which come with the CPU are made out of plastic and if you aren't really careful you can easily damage that plastic resulting in having to buy a new cooler.
But there are good sides to Intel. Generally speaking they consume less power to run, because of which the temperature doesn't rise quite as much as for an AMD. Also, if you are unlucky and somehow your cooler dies, you are at least safe that your PC will be shut down to avoid damaging the CPU.
Furthermore, they always seem to be one step ahead of AMD when it comes to the Architecture and technology, which means better loading times for OS, software, encoding. It also means it will stay competent through-out the years.

All in all, if you want to run a business like an Internet Cafe, or you are on a low budget and all you care about is gaming, definitely go for an AMD.

But if you are like me, and you want to invest in your PC, do other stuff than just play games, have less power usage, have longevity of your CPU, go for Intel. It's more expensive, but imho it's worth every penny.

Edit: Neither Intel nor AMD will eliminate one another, because there will always be people who don't know anything about PCs and just want to have one to surf the Internet and all they really care about is for the machine to cost less. The problem we will be facing is that people, over the years, might turn away from PCs and turn to mobile phones, tablets and maybe to laptops for Internet connections. And if gaming transfers to consoles, than the general demand for PCs will be lower, and PCs will be used only at offices to make software, and in that case I think PCs will get super expensive and there will be no more low-end PCs for general usage. Though I don't think that will happen in our life-time.