AMD equivalent of Intel

[4ycr]

I have not kept up to date with AMD processors so I was hoping someone could say what the equivalent fir an I3 and I5 are.

Thanks

 

[JustInspired]

I always use www.cpubenchmark.net for comparisons.

 

[angry_geek]

I haven't used amd for so long. I used to be a big fan of them, then they just died on the vine. The best amd chips on the market can't keep up with even mid-range i5's. In the i3 range, you can probably find an equivalent, but you're talking maybe a $20 difference.

 

[RedFoxComp]

I have not kept up to date with AMD processors so I was hoping someone could say what the equivalent fir an I3 and I5 are.

Thanks

For what use? It really depends. If you're talking video editing or gaming you have to look at the Fx8000 to compete with intels mid range. If you're talking about highly threaded apps like compilers or renderers then the 8 cores on the 8350 crushes, but it's only in really specialized situations.

In a nutshell though, AMD sucks right now. They have more heat and power draw and lower performance overall. Their newest top end chip can almost compete with a last generation I5 2500K. Factor in overclocking potential and power and heat and it's no competition again.

Frankly the only real reason to buy an AMD cpu right now is if you already have your motherboard.

 

[4ycr]

For ages I have not had to buy office computers but I am getting asked a lot more now. Some are doing more intensive operations than others but I have been so far away from AMD I never recommended them.

Thanks for the updates and I also used to love AMD

 

[NYJimbo]

If you look at the charts at www.cpubenchmark.net you see AMD mixed in with all the Intel chips.

On the high end chart we see many AMD chips that are listed higher than Intel chips.

So putting aside overclocking, motherboard or chipset considerations, what are all of you using to say that AMD cannot keep up to Intel ?

Just not sure how lets say a AMD Phenom II X4 980 is worse than a Intel Core i5-3470T when the performance chart shows the AMD to be better.

Maybe I am missing something here ?

 

[angry_geek]

It's not all about benchmarks. It's about thermals, reliability, and performance during day-to-day operation. In these arenas, AMD has disappeared down the rabbit hole. I'm basing my judgement on personal and business experience. For my money, I'll stick with the i3 and i5 series over anything from AMD. At least until AMD can show me the kind of ingenuity and performance they displayed 7 or 8 years ago. Heck, I still have an Athlon 2800 and a 64-bit Athlon 3200 running around the clock with no issues after all these years. My gaming buddies almost cried when I brought my rig in and smoked all their high-end P4-based machines. Then came the Core 2 and then the i series. AMD has done nothing but disappoint since then.

 

[NYJimbo]

Well, I have seen AMD on many gaming machines so I am not sure if AMD is really worse or if they just lost market share and nobody cares anymore. Right now I am on a AMD Athlon II X3 455 machine, its running 20c which is cold and it has never crashed or hung even playing games or movies (its on 24 hours a day).

The point I am trying to make is that I don't think AMD is any less reliable or less performance when all other variables are equal. I'm not sure if you can really compare chip to chip since they are different technologies, but just seeing the performance charts there are tons of AMD chips that rate better than Intel chips even in the i5 range.

I think Intel gets more market share because Intel is and always will be bigger and can afford more growth, advertising and control of market share.

 

[pc-quebec]

Maybe I am missing something here ?

Those charts are useless. Usually benchmark are done with 1 app running, today I'm working with Dreamweaver on my FX-8350 and at same time I fold a 8 cores SMP. I don't notice lag, so meaning even with the 8 cores load at 100% , the AMD find the way to make Dreamweaver work, simply amazing. If you are a web designer and open few Adobe products, the i7 and AMD 8 cores have a great advantage on a i5 and even more on i3 because they can do more when more software run at same time.

I forget I have also Adobe Muse Open

 

[RedFoxComp]

If you look at the charts at www.cpubenchmark.net you see AMD mixed in with all the Intel chips.

On the high end chart we see many AMD chips that are listed higher than Intel chips.

So putting aside overclocking, motherboard or chipset considerations, what are all of you using to say that AMD cannot keep up to Intel ?

Just not sure how lets say a AMD Phenom II X4 980 is worse than a Intel Core i5-3470T when the performance chart shows the AMD to be better.

Maybe I am missing something here ?

You are missing something, the AMD CPU is faster in that case.. if you bought it to run Passmark.

Passmark and other synthetic benchmarks are completely irrelevant. Is it more important that your AMD FX8350 scores 5% higher than whatever intel CPU in a synthetic benchmark, or that it is 30% slower playing games and rendering in Adobe Premiere. Then you get into power draw and heat on top of that and AMDs latest CPUs are a giant fail.

(This coming from someone with a Phenom II 965 for my main desktop. AMD had really s**t the bed over the last few years.)

 

[NYJimbo]

Passmark and other synthetic benchmarks are completely irrelevant. Is it more important that your AMD FX8350 scores 5% higher than whatever intel CPU in a synthetic benchmark, or that it is 30% slower playing games and rendering in Adobe Premiere.

Ok, but show me real numbers of how AMD cannot produce chips as good or better than Intel. If I am going to spend $200 on a chip which will give me more bang for the buck ? Which really is cooler or more reliable. I dont want "facts" from a game site that prefers Intel because they are fanboys, I want real numbers. This is what I am trying to determine. Thanks.

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

Ok, but show me real numbers of how AMD cannot produce chips as good or better than Intel. If I am going to spend $200 on a chip which will give me more bang for the buck ? Which really is cooler or more reliable. I dont want "facts" from a game site that prefers Intel because they are fanboys, I want real numbers. This is what I am trying to determine. Thanks.

Intel usually outperforms AMD in gaming but really how many games are there thats going to even use all the cores of an AMD.

I stick to intel for their chipsets I simply find them to be far more reliable.

 

[NYJimbo]

I stick to intel for their chipsets I simply find them to be far more reliable.

Yes, Intel chipsets are more reliable than AMD. I guess since most motherboards now tend to have the chipset of the processor maker it makes the CPU questions less important when it comes to reliability.

 

[RedFoxComp]

Ok, but show me real numbers of how AMD cannot produce chips as good or better than Intel. If I am going to spend $200 on a chip which will give me more bang for the buck ? Which really is cooler or more reliable. I dont want "facts" from a game site that prefers Intel because they are fanboys, I want real numbers. This is what I am trying to determine. Thanks.

So you want people to compile research and present it in a way you can understand? The facts are out there if you look for them.

The FX-8350 is the fastest CPU AMD offers right now. Look at the real world benchmarks and tell me what you think? Reviews like this are all over the internet and they are pretty universally conclusive. I'm currently running a Phenom II 955 on my main desktop but my next board and CPU will be Intel, hands down. (Unless AMD pulls a rabbit out of their hat in the next 6-8 months.)

Real numbers:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/1

 

[NYJimbo]

The FX-8350 is the fastest CPU AMD offers right now. Look at the real world benchmarks and tell me what you think?

But are we talking about AMD vs Intel for the fastest chip OR are we talking about AMD vs Intel for comparable chips.

The OP asks about what are the comparable AMD vs Intel chips. There are MANY. If we took a AMD chip and is comparable to an Intel chips (again, forget overclock, chipsets, motherboards) what would we see ? In my tests I can get AMD chips cheaper than Intel for the same out of box performance.

 

[RedFoxComp]

But are we talking about AMD vs Intel for the fastest chip OR are we talking about AMD vs Intel for comparable chips.

The OP asks about what are the comparable AMD vs Intel chips. There are MANY. If we took a AMD chip and is comparable to an Intel chips (again, forget overclock, chipsets, motherboards) what would we see ? In my tests I can get AMD chips cheaper than Intel for the same out of box performance.

First you said:

Ok, but show me real numbers of how AMD cannot produce chips as good or better than Intel

So I did, AMD's top CPU is slower in pretty much everything vs Intels mid range and it also runs hotter with less overclocking room(if you care about that)

Now you're talking about price/performance. Which is it? The only instance I can think of where AMD is better value is for a few pieces of software that are highly multi-threaded.

In my tests I can get AMD chips cheaper than Intel for the same out of box performance.

In what tests and with what CPUs, specifically?

 

[NYJimbo]

First you said:

So I did, AMD's top CPU is slower in pretty much everything vs Intels mid range and it also runs hotter with less overclocking room(if you care about that)

You and others are mixing messages here and then asking for debate on them.

This is not about Intels top chip or overclocking. I still believe that AMD does produce chips that are equal to or possibly better than Intel. Intel is always going to be ahead of the race, but when we go to the available chips there are comparable chips. I use a price/performance measure because if all other things are equal you would want to find something to make the decision on.

 

[compnet]

Go read up on tom's hardware or anandtech.. i5 pulls better fps in almost every game than any amd.

8 cores means nothing except in a few specialized circumstances.

 

[NYJimbo]

Go read up on tom's hardware or anandtech.. i5 pulls better fps in almost every game than any amd.

8 cores means nothing except in a few specialized circumstances.

8 cores means A LOT to non gamers. I have servers all around the country running Linux and FreeBSD and I can run a stat and see all 8 cores in use.

Here is a "mpstat -P ALL 1"

02:48:57 PM  CPU    %usr   %nice    %sys %iowait    %irq   %soft  %steal  %guest   %idle
02:48:58 PM  all    6.07    0.00    0.87    4.09    0.00    0.12    0.00    0.00   88.85
02:48:58 PM    0   21.00    0.00    2.00    1.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00   76.00
02:48:58 PM    1   11.76    0.00    0.98    4.90    0.00    0.98    0.00    0.00   81.37
02:48:58 PM    2    6.93    0.00    1.98   22.77    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00   68.32
02:48:58 PM    3    1.94    0.00    0.97    0.97    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00   96.12
02:48:58 PM    4    1.00    0.00    0.00    1.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00   98.00
02:48:58 PM    5    2.00    0.00    1.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00   97.00
02:48:58 PM    6    2.91    0.00    0.00    2.91    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00   94.17
02:48:58 PM    7    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00  100.00

So cores do matter. Not saying Intel doesn't also have 8 cores, they both do, but measuring FPS while gaming is not going to mean much to a business that has an environment that actually can use more cores.

 

[angry_geek]

There are far too many factors to account for to make me want to debate which one is faster in particular applications or with whatever benchmark. For my shop and customers, the price difference is not enough for me to tell my customers to shop AMD. I feel perfectly happy when I install an Optiplex with an i5 and a decent chipset, and I don't tend to deal in the Walmart $400 crap boxes. If you want to talk about which one will play "Call of Duty" faster, go ahead. However, who cares about 1 or 2 fps difference?