Why is Intel CPU so much faster then AMD even the low end i3 outperform the higher end FXseries

Why is Intel CPU so much faster then AMD even the low end i3 outperform the higher end FXseries.

Other urls found in this thread:

stallman.org/intel.html
wccftech.com/intel-starts-10nm-factory-cannonlake/
eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review
cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1781&cmp[]=2468
cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-FX-6300/3511vs1555
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Amd puts more money into their GPU lines but they do not have nearly as much money as Intel or NVIDIA

Why is intel's perf/price so shit tho?

Thanks for your post, Intel employee. You may now leave while we laugh at your obviously wrong post.

AMD stopped trying. Now they just make cheap CPUs with cheap GPUs slapped together and call it an APU.

e.g, a10 7850k is just an athlon 860k and r7 250 together.

It's not Intel actually has a fair price performance considering their dual cores beat AMDs six cores in every benchmark

> The last High end "shit"dozer came out years ago

It's a bad architecture thats old, that's why your new Intel cpu is better than an old amd cpu

Proofs?
My i7 2600k still works really well and i feel no need to upgrade.

What?
Find me something, anything, better value than the i3 6100.

They didnt stop trying they ran out of money. Which is why theyre putting all their eggs in the zen basket and why its taking so fucking long to release. With more resources theyd probably be on the second generation of zen by now, or at the very least the proposed zen+.

We can only hope by whatever time they release, they wont be so far behind they fail to capture any sort of relevance.

>dual core
>in year 2016
Youre better off buying an older generation 2500k or something like that

AMD is choking its great potential with its affordability fetish. Intel doesn't give a fuck.

Will zen be good lads?

now it all makes sense, just another poo

Sandy bridge is still functional while even the best amd clues get btfo by any i3

But the i3 6100 is as fast as the quad core 2500k in raw cpu performance (not including oc), and with ddr4 it's as fast as an overclocked 2500k in games while using much less power and putting out less heat.

If you can get the 2500k+board+ram for the same price as the 6100 on its own then its worth it.

AMD has the entire Console Community programming games for it's Architecture now...
Where a few years ago programmer didn't give a fuck about Multi-treading because everything was rehash 2001 Program with newer fancy interface for 2010 ( when FX came out )

Proper programs did show the FX line of AMD competing with I7 lines of intel for a 100$ less . You know Programs that aren't shit.

Intel completely shit on AMD with the i series for the last few years. AMD said fuck it, just put the bare minimum into our retail CPUs for the next bit , and gamble on RnD for a new architecture (Zen) that will hopefully compare to and surpass the i series.

Intel has been sitting on the success of the i series can hasn't done too much with it, allowing AMD to sneak in the new architecture, will it be good enough? Have to wait and see.

Also AMD has been putting a lot in GPUs lately, and it looks like it will pay off with their RX400s. 480 sold out everywhere in every AIP for weeks at a time. 479 and 460 hasent even launched yet.

I feel like AMD has a chance to catch up to their competition this year and the next, and reclaim some market share.

Kek even if Zen arrives I doubt AMD has the production capacity to have a decent markets are. Most likely it will be delayed to 2018+ until the new consoles have shipped and by then Intel will release the next gen 10nm architecture.

Hell, the i3 6100 even outperforms the i5 6400 in many titles.

There is no reason to buy anything more than the i3 6100 for video games and general use computing.

>Why is intel's perf/price so shit tho?
Intel is too expensive for you because they can. That's what happens when there's no competition.

>Reasons not to use Intel

>Don't use Intel processors newer than Core2, because they have the "management engine" back door and no one can shut off.

stallman.org/intel.html

wccftech.com/intel-starts-10nm-factory-cannonlake/
Maybeee
But it seem like the price per size of the die is climbing quickly (from the charts)

Why is AMD FX performance per watt so abysmal?

AMD BTFO yet again, dual core i3 outperforming 8 core fx

Look at those min frames on the AMD in crysis, how can anyone consider a CPU with such abysmal performance to be good value?

Because they think they can keep up by just having a stock overclock on the chips that gets pushed higher and higher each gen. That 9XXX chip that was like 250w TDP was just an overclocked FX8350.

Because you expect 6 year old harware to compete with current gen Cool Story Bro.

AMD Needs Zen very badly and it seem your OKAY with Intel Charging whatever they want on their CPU Line also ?
Enjoying that price increase in the 2011 ?

I only play mine craft and go on Facebook

What do I have to hide?

But Intel also offers factory over clocked chips of 4ghz like the 6700k out of the box that work with a stock cooler! They don't even draw a lot more power!

>charging whatever they want
But CPU prices have gone down lately, if anything.
Idk about murica, but i3 6100 is almost 20aud cheaper than i3 4170 was.
Which is same price as fx6300, even though the fx can't compete.

I'm expecting it to compete because it's advertised as being an 8 core. Quad core i5 2500k competes with i3 6100, why can't a 6 core or 8 core AMD?

dubs knows

That's because intel isn't retarded and doesn't start with a chip that's already been overclocked 3 times. That and a much smaller and thus more efficient die.

MOAR CORES approach they went with Shitdozer.

>I only play mine craft and go on Facebook
Then why do you need an intell chip?
A low tier AMD does all that.

Kek I think the Cores meme is about as awful as the muh 5 megapixels meme for cameras was before nobody started to give a shit after about 12 megapixels.

AMD is such a fucking joke. They wouldn't exist if it wasn't for their garbage APUs powering console market - And they're still so god damn terrible that current gen didn't even last 3 years and they already have to jump ship with Xbone S and PS4 neo.

Hopefully they repeat that mistake, a 6 core zen with Ivy bridge ipc and ddr4 would destroy any i5 in dx12/vulkan

Probably not. Their first Zen based CPUs focus on servers/ultra high end enthusiastic rigs. Think of Haswell-E performance and price.

Only considering Zen if it's equal to Haswell in terms of IPC.

>480 sold out everywhere.

First - It didn't. Majority of their AiB is garbage tier and only decent companies like Sapphire actually sold out. Rest of them gathers dust in stock

Second - It's just another paper launch like everything else in 2016 so saying shit like "1070/480RX sold out" is just laughable as those cards were never available to begin win. Also aftermarket coolers never ever.

So what's better? A i7 2700k or a i3 6100?

I'm not even upgrading from my i7 870 until I start seeing a cpu bottleneck.

For what?
Rendering: i7
Gaming: i3

>their dual cores beat AMDs six cores in every benchmark
Nice meme.

Arent AMD still on 32nm?

I find it crazy that they are still able to be in touch of some of the intel chips. Intel should really be destroying them.

This. They're equal maybe went a little bit down if you consider the gain in performance. I had to pay $200 for my 3570k. Now I can get something like a 6500 for the very same price. Only thing that pisses me off about Intel is blocking overclocking feature behind premium price CPUs - Probably because the difference between 6500 and 6600 non-k is non existent if you manage to OC 6500.

>Cinebench

Maybe something that utilizes the cores to their peak capacity but gaming streaming ect an i3 wins hands down

This. After 1156 overclocking became a premium and people fell for it.

I can cherry pick benchmarks too

I think some motherboards like MSI allowed you to overclock stock Intel CPUs but they updated them again so you can't

Pretty sure it was asrock and biostar, but you can also still find the bios online if you want to try it

Not really. Intel went for small gain in performance and insane reduction in power drain/temperatures. High end Intel 8-cores are still monsters when compared to AMD.

Kek an 8 core being virtually the same as a dual core CPU. Intel really doesn't have any competition.

Intel almost doubled the ipc since Sandy bridge.
The gains are there, people are just too mentally retarded to acknowledge them

>We live in times where companies deliberately gimp their own mid range products because they're simply too good and would go equal with high end products.
>mfw I know that cost of making a 970 gtx and 980 gtx is probably literally the same but 970 is just a cut to pieces 980 so they sell their end game cards at premium price
>mfw days of releasing hardware and pricing it accordingly to production cost are long gone.
>mfw Intel/Nvidia probably have something like a 1600% profit margin on their rip off high end products.

The difference in your pic comes from ram not CPU btw.

Ram helps, but cpu has improved too.

differences between pure performance are probably minimal but the architecture moving forward helped so me saying ram helps the most is kind of lying since big majority of old CPUs and MOBOs couldn't even handle 2000+ MHZ speeds on RAM.

>gaming streaming ect an i3 wins hands down
NICE MEME.

>Kek an 8 core being virtually the same as a dual core CPU
That dual core CPU also costs as much as the eight core CPU, and is absolutely smashed to pieces by it in anything that uses multithreading effectively. See AMD CPUs remain a far better price/performance option than an i3. Only a retard would buy a dual core CPU in [current year].

>Intel almost doubled the ipc since Sandy bridge
Fucking bullshit. I notice you posted your cherrypicked screenshot to deceive, but unfortunately I know where it comes from and can post both the full video and article to go with it.

eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review

>doubled the ipc
Stock 2500K Cinebench single thread: 129
Stock 6100 Cinebench single thread: 156
>doubled
>doubled
>doubled
Nice meme.

Thats why theres always people doing the lookieloo with new graphics cards trying to see if you can flash them to act as a different card to unlock their potentiel.

>being so obvious

Only AMD is stupid enough to hide same specs behind a GPU bios. Nvidia simply grabs a 1080, cuts off few chips here and there, drops a tiny bit of performance in drivers and there you have it - 1070 gtx! Difference in production cost? $10. Difference in retail price? $300.

Those benchmarks are done by retards who fail to realize that games like Overwatch will ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS be capped by GPUs before they start being bottlenecked by CPU. Honestly differences in this bench probably come from ram speeds, not actual CPUs. Find me something like a GTA5 bench with enabled custom radio and you'll see real fucking difference.

A great man once said: "There are little sacrifices you must take for your freedom."

That man was pic related

Now kiss my ass jewtel shill

>gets
No. Arma. Always Arma for CPU

AMDs top-toppest-top model at 4.7GHz with 8 cores losing to Intels stone-age quad core at 3.3GHz

GPUs this year were all paper launches so far.

Both Nvidia and AMD cucked everyone.

6700K doesn't have a stock cooler.

AMD saw that the future was going to be driven by multi-threading and as we can clearly see, they were right. Instead of going the route that Intel took with hyperthreading (SMT) they went down the route of CMT (Clustered Multi-Thread). CMT was first used by DEC in 1996 with the Alpha 21264.

With SMT design one core is able to process two threads at the same time. first thread has priority, second thread gets the left overs. With CMT each thread has its own physical core and as the name applies, you have a cluster of cores that are grouped together in a single "module." Either two cores sharing one module or four cores sharing one module. Each module has its own dedicated resources where each core share those resources.

The modular architecture consists of multithreaded shared L2 cache and flexfpu, which uses simultaneous multithreading. Each physical integer core, two per module, is single threaded, in contrast with Intel's Hyperthreading, where two virtual simultaneous threads share the resources of a single physical core. The module is equal to a dual-core processor in its integer power, and to a single-core processor in its floating-point power. For each two integer cores, there is one floating-point core. The floating-point cores are similar to a single core processor that has uses SMT, which can create a dual-thread processor but with the power of one (each thread shares the resources of the module with the other thread) in terms of floating point performance.

The benefit of using CMT over SMT is you have actual physical cores processing each thread with more resources available for each thread since none fills in the gaps and gets the "leftovers."

Using the CMT route allowed for the easy creation of creating multi-core cpu's with low power usage. People may call the FX line a house fire, but in comparison to intel on a core count bases, they're not.

The problem with CMT? It's not great at being a single threaded processor. CMT is deigned around creating many cores and utilizing multi-threading capabilities. It sacrifices single threaded performance for increased core scaling capabilities. AMD thought they could compensate for this by increasing frequency speeds. To do this they had to lengthened the CPU’s pipeline which increased latencies throughout the architecture. This is awfully similar to Intel's Netburst architecture which was used in the Pentium 4's.

The problem with going with a design like Netburst, where you focus on increased frequencies to squeeze out higher performance is increased latencies, power usage, and consequently because of it, increased heat. You simply hit a wall with how high you can increase frequencies before power consumption goes through the roof.

>They were right
>5 years later 4 cores of i5 is still more than enough.

for tech savvy guys Sup Forums sure is filled with "muh future proofing" retards. If anything AMD is the finest example that future proofing doesn't make sense in this industry. Can't wait for poo retards to learn the same lesson with their "next gen" 480RX when it turns out that by 2018 you'll have whole 50 DX12/Vulkan games to play.

Nvidia gimping progress does not mean that the idea behind it was bad.

Sorry dude, I support performance, not ideas and promises.

But isn't smt better because when you don't need as many threads, your ipc goes up?
Clusters of smaller cores can't compete in single thread performance against a small group of larger cores.

Nvidia doesn't gimp though, that's just a meme.

What puzzled everyone was that AMD knew the problems with such a design like Netburst. AMD after all showed the world back in the late 90's to mid 2000's that Intel's Netburst design was highly inefficient. They proved clock speed didn't matter the most, that it was the overall architecture design. Such as shortening the pipeline and lowering latency.

AMD figured having a design that allowed for easy scaling of cores would make up for the lack of single threaded performance since programs would be able to take advantage of them. AMD at the time, the execs in charged, truly thought multi-threading was going to take off. Well, they were right, but underestimated at which the speed of the growth was moving at.

i'm slowly getting there.

SMT does impact single thread performance iirc, so when an i7 3770 and an fx 8350 use only 4 threads, the i7 threads will be much stronger since they're full sized cores, unlike the smaller cut down fx cores.

For 8 threads though the fx wins since smt hurts single thread performance but the fx scales much better across the 8 threads with its 8 physical cores.

I'm not wrong, am I?

They've delayed other products to make sure Zen is released on time, pretty sure they realise how important it is

Intel CPUs are more expensive and slower

cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1781&cmp[]=2468

>I'm expecting it to compete because it's advertised as being an 8 core. Quad core i5 2500k competes with i3 6100, why can't a 6 core or 8 core AMD?

KEK

So should a quad core Q6600, from 2008 compete with a 2016 Intel quad core processor?

I'm not sure if you're retarded or trolling.

>1.6 ghz 85 w 6 core Intel is 25% slower than 4.1ghz 95w 6 core AMD

>Lower clock rate is now a good thing!

Let's all get ARM processors since the only thing that matters is IPC and not the total speed.

>comparing a server processor to a desktop processor
>thinking power consumption doesn't matter

>Thinking the CPU branding matters
>10 W difference

>damn amd from trying to push the industry forward

Meanwhile a dual core consumer Intel processor manages to destroy a 6 core AMD while consuming half as much power

>GAMING

Single threaded performance on bulldozer, and even piledriver was absolutely abysmal. Bulldozer was weaker than AMD's very own previous architecture found in the likes of Thuban clock for clock. Piledriver, which was quickly released brought the FX line up to at least match Thuban in single threaded performance but still weaker to even Intel's first generation i series processors based on nehalem clock for clock. It took a 8350 at its boost speed of 4.4ghz to match a i7 920 in single threaded performance.

This also resulted in the FX line to be weaker than Intel's even in multi-threaded scenarios. Take AMD's 8350 (8 core), 6300 (6 core), and 4300 (4 core) for example. In usages that used four threads all three where slower than even the lowest clocked i5 quad from intel's second generation i series, sandy bridge. They even failed against many i5 (non-ht) first generation nehalem quads.

Single threaded still mattered the most, and AMD realized this quickly. They realized it before even the launch, but they had to release it anyways. Processor design takes YEARS to develop and even if it was a failure, launching it was better than nothing. At least they would recoup some of the cost back. This is the reason why AMD never bothered to update the FX line since piledriver and kept it on 32nm. The node is matured and insanely affordable to build on.

SMT can hurt single threaded performance if the program your running, that should be priority, isn't the priority one because scheduling issues. Doesn't really happen much anymore since scheduling has gotten much better since 2000 on both Windows and Linux.

ikr i bought a prebuilt the other day $400 on sale with i3 and performs better in crysis 3 than the amd fx my friend has they just suck

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-FX-6300/3511vs1555

Autism.

What are you trying to show with this?

>Slightly faster multi-core speed +6%
>Faster OC multi-core speed +22%
>FX-6300 is faster

Looks like AMD wins again.

isnt their new chipset supposed to outpreform intel?

at least, that's why their stock went up. no idea how true it is.

>22% better
>when it's a 200w housefire

>30% benchmark difference
>~30% difference in price
don't see anything wrong here

AMD's CMT design only shined against Intel's quads and quads with hyperthreading in heavy multi-threaded usages where all 6 to 8 cores could be utilized. So they had some niche usages.

Game wise they aged somewhat decently with the 8350 for games that took advantage of all 8 of its cores, such as Battlefield 4. They at least matched stock Intel i5's at the time, though the i5 "k" variants where able to easily out overclock the 8350 and made them an overall better value.

Now with 6 - 10 core's Intel's on the X99 line, and skylel its hard to recommend any FX processor for most usages. Even from a price+performance ratio its still hard to recommend them now. There might still be a few niches, but not as many as there were at release of bulldozer.

Because the architecture is shit, and hasn't been updated in years

Apparently it's better value tho

AMD has decided that it was not worth further polishing the turd that is bulldozer thus they have not released a new CPU in years.

However developing a new architecture and getting it ready to ship takes time and a FUCKLOAD of money.

AMD Zen Q4 2016