Are there any AMD CPUs that are better than their Intel counterparts? In any kind of way?
I am tired of being forced to support Intel but AMD's CPUs seem like arse. Even the competitive ones performance-wise fall behind because they drain more power.
Other urls found in this thread:
support.amd.com
ark.intel.com
sgi.com
hardwarecanucks.com
01.org
twitter.com
First stop measuring "performance" as "how well do proprietary video games for Wintendo work on the CPU".
>1/100th the R&D budget of Intel
>In any way possibly better
no
Not really, no. There's a reason intel is on top.
Is this a bot?
I said, "in any kind of way", maybe that's worded wrong but I didn't even mention how I measured them. I don't play video games.
How do they stay afloat? Who keeps buying AMD CPUs then?
Theyre pretty neat bang for the buck parts. Thats about it really, when all cores are tuilized they beat the similarly priced intel equivalent. Well see what Zen brings to the table though.
Console manufacturers.
Considering the budgetary limitations and patent restrictions they are up against, they are pretty much amazing. You'd think the 'underdog' loving FOOS community would embrace AMD as a poster-child.
First off, for the PS4 Sony paid AMD a shit ton to make a nice APU.
The 8350 is pretty good and actually performs on par with the i7 3770 if all eight cores are used.
>Who keeps buying AMD CPUs then?
fanbois on Sup Forums and boomers who shop by sticker price and number of Ghz
Athlon 5350 25 watt cpu with 4 cores and a little gpu on die .
>it performs on part with a cpu which runs at 20% slower clock speeds and half the number of cores while using 50% more power
amd fanbois will defend this
>Who keeps buying AMD CPUs then?
I buy AMD CPUs and GPUs because:
* AMD contributes a lot more to libre software than Intel or Nvidia
* AMD CPU model ranges are not artificially inflated like Intel who sell the same CPU in 50 different variants, with ECC, without ECC, with AES-NI or without, overclockable or not ...
When I buy an AMD FX CPU I definitely know that it has ECC, AES-NI and can be overclocked (even though I refrain from the latter).
* The price/performance ratio of AMD FX CPUs is decent when you run multi-threaded software on GNU/Linux, with Piledriver optimizations enabled in GCC.
>Sony paid AMD a shit ton
[citation needed]
AMD got the deal becase they were the lowest bidder and desperate.
Multitasking.
AMD is just fuckingbetter when you can utilize 8 cores with 16 threads.
Also AMD is great in SUPER cheap segment.
they have 30$ atlons that fucking destroy intel Atom shit.
>fanbois
It is not that much that i like AMD than it is that i just cannot support Intel's tactics. Theyre horribly anti competitive and heavily oppose FOSS
And yet, My PS4 (and all other AMD based items) work without fail every time I use them. Lowest bid doesn't always equate to lowest quality.
Look man, if I'm paying 150 bucks for a processor that performs on par with a 350 Dolla processor, I know I'm getting a good deal.
>AMD contributes a lot more to libre software than Intel or Nvidia
Why don't they have any drivers for Linux then?
>anti-competitive
That's what you do when you've been winning nonstop for decades
>Why don't they have any drivers for Linux then?
What are you talking about?
Nvidia consoles is just way too much hype to release yet. It's the ace in the hole once the console/PC gaymen wars come to a culmination
don't reply to bots
Of course your PS4 will work without fail gathering dust on some shelf because no games.
>he only has 8 cores
>I dont understand OpEx vs CapEx
If AMD is so pro FOSS, why do their (GPU) drivers on Linux suck so much?
The AMD Athlon is pretty good if you have one or two 3dfx 3D accelerator cards. There are drivers that use 3DNow to accelerate T&L calculations (Software will see your 3D accelerator as HW T&L capable).
So what, I can afford a few bucks more on my electricity bill each month, also, the top isn't that much higher, 90 vs 125 watts.
My FX-9590 heats my room better than any Intel I've seen. I underclocked it to 4.2 so I could tolerate being close to it.
LGA2011 CPUs tend to be up there with AMD too. 125W.
Wait for Zen™~
>If AMD is so pro FOSS, why do their (GPU) drivers on Linux suck so much?
[citation needed]
support.amd.com
>FX-9590
This is probably the worst cpu released in the history of mankind.
>underpowered
>expensive on rlease
>requires expensive watercooling
>system stability is a joke
>burns more electricity than AC
What the fuck were they thinking
They have used lots of malicious tactics to laim AMD when they were competing, as you might have heard. For instance making their compiler purposely output code running like shit on AMD side and bribing manufacturers to for example exclusively ship PCs with intel hardware.
Propably just wanted to see how far they could go with current arch
>90 vs 125 watts.
You mean 77 watts
ark.intel.com
>So what, I can afford a few bucks more on my electricity bill each month,
And over its lifetime it will cost more than the i7
Paying another company to use their shit is not malicious.
The AM1 Athlons are generally better than intel's equivalent J-series. The J-series consume less power but lack quite a bit of the functionality (encryption, graphics) that the AM1 Athlons include.
>cost more than the i7
Depends entirely on where you live. Fpr instance i have free (static price) electricity in my apartment.
They have also been hit with antitrust bills for their actions. Really any amount of googling gives you results, have a look.
>Fpr instance i have free (static price) electricity in my moms basement
ftfy
>i have no arguments left... I know!! Ill attack his person instead! Yeah.. That'll show him!
>had K6 and Athlon growing up
>poopy and housefirey
AMD should have vanished and ATI should have continued on their own, it's no wonder AMD survives on GPU sales.
Dunno boss.
They don't - as a company the overwhelmingly large percentage of their income is from their cpu division, not gpu.
Price and their APUs, but that is really about it.
If you can utilize 8 cores and 16 threads, your only choice is Intel. Because AMD has 8 cores with 1 thread each.
AMD has 16 cores.
You can have up to 64 cores on one motherboard.
>amd only supports 64 cores
laughingsluts.jpg. Intel can do 256 sockets
sgi.com
AMD APUs are great if you can't afford a decent GPU.
Except there APUs which have far superior integrated graphics and the lack of feature cut down no. Bulldozer is an old arc and while they have been good about pulling better IPC out of it in newer iterations the architecture was inherently flawed.
The good news is AMD is coming out with a new architecture soon (Zen) that looks like it has slightly better IPC than intel's newest Broadwell chips.
he was talking about 1 motherboard, not a cluster you retard
and 256 isn't that much. my universities clusters have more
>I dont know what NUMA is
>I dont understand the difference between a cluster and a machine which has cache coherency
>retard
that projection
Define "better"
FX8k series gave 20% less i7 ,ulti performance for 70% less setup cost.
Phenom 2 was a dirt cheap quad core
Its only recent i-series that have pulled way ahead due to the focus staying on single thread power.
AMD gambled on early multi thread adoption, they got it wrong.
They don't even have HW HEVC encoder. Kill yourself
too bad tyhings are moving to tegra then... fuck i hope zen is good
And with Intel you can have 96 cores and 192 threads on 1 motherboard. Kind of a meaningless figure.
He also specified 2 threads per core with an arbitrary limit of 8 cores, which AMD cannot do until Zen SKUs enter market.
If the new APU's are near to having a 460 I would call that a win.
Bulldozer released in 2011. The HVEC standard didn't release until 2013. How are they going to have hardware for something that didn't even exist when they where designed?
The only company moving to Tegra is Nintendo who are slowly killing themselves.
Nintendo Nvidia Xtreme™
Now with Gameworks™
Don't forget you need the new 1080p Gsync monitors since Nvidia can't even do 4k.
They are as good as Intel. Processor power hasn't mattered for fucking years because everyone hit a wall.
Intel's just spreading FUD that they are superior with viral marketing bullshit and fake (paid) benchmarks.
Wait for Zen.
2 threads per core is a fucking joke when it comes to heavy multi threaded computational workloads as it only gives ~20% tops if you optimize for it and more often than not just causes exesive cache misses. Real cores >>> meme threading
Too bad millennial video game developers can't into proper multi-threading so CPU vendors have to resort to meme threading to satisfiy the manchildren posting """benchmarks""" of their games
Are you saying that 20% performance increase is insignificant? Because that's a pretty retarded thing to say. If CPU performance increased by 20% over generations, that'd be a revolution in CPU design.
>your capacity to perform a task directly scales with the amount of cash you throw at it
>both intel and amd are strictly working on x86 architectures and nothing else
dumb post
>comparing clock speed across different architectures
school is out but summer Sup Forums persists
>lowest bidder
who else can make SoCs that are powerful enough for that kind of use? neither intel nor nvidia have the means to do so without the other's IP.
there was no other bidder. it was that, or go back to ultra expensive custom chips like cell broadband.
amdgpu is part of the kernel. as in it's all on github for you to browse.
3d perf is coming on nicely but it's not nvidia-proprietary tier yet except for some GPUs.
nvidia has no x86 license. console manufacturers are no longer interested in building gaming systems without it.
yes, this means sony and nintendo too.
what else do they have? ARM? or they could dump billions into engineering their own shit only to end up with a supbar product that needs you to build dev kits from scratch and makes development way harder for engine devs.
Learn to read twat, all I'm saying is that HT is no substitute for real cores in those workloads. 4 core intel chip with HT, no matter how much marketing bullshit they pour, is far from performance that real 8 cores would deliver
AMD CPUs aren't that bad when you consider the raw multicore performance. But they lack in everything else. The 8350e can barely compete a 4790K and needs twice the GHz / cores to archieve that. High clocks create extreme power draw, higher than -E and -EP platforms. AMD cannot compete them anymore.
You can wait for Zen forever or just buy some used Intel. Just got a 5820K bundle under 400 € almost new. Maybe take a 6600K when the Intelfags buy Kabylake. Get a Xeon if you render on it, or the mentioned 5820K if you do both. You don't need to pay twice for the extra 5%.
>What the fuck were they thinking
there are people with much money and little sense.
they see flaming red CPUs with 5niggawattz clock speeds and think that's worth paying 500 bucks for.
it is, which is why they were taken to court, lost and were forced to pay a hefty settlement.
No, but it increases performance so why the fuck wouldn't you have it unless you're retarded?
8 core with HT beats 8 core every time. 16 threads is better than 8. Basic math.
I'm not who you're arguing against, but there are a handful of fringe cases where HT reduces performance. But few and far between and only by a few percent normally.
>I cant read a two sentance post
>i'm going to call people summer
dat projection
pic related, just give up, amd is finished
Moving goal posts there, mate. 8 cores > 8 threads*** (only 4 cores).
they have GPUopen which is open source.
I'm not moving goal posts, the discussion was always about 8 cores and 16 threads and you're welcome to read back to confirm this. With AMD you can't get that. You can only get 8 cores 8 threads.
Remember when Sup Forums claimed AMD's going bankrupt and its stock would never break 3 burgers again? Fun times. In fact Sup Forums has been consistently wrong about AMD's comings and goings for the last 6 months.
it r a fact
Yes their APUs have better graphics than Intel's so it will perform better in graphical applications in laptops etc without a dedicated GPU.
>In fact Sup Forums has been consistently wrong about AMD's comings and goings for the last 6 months.
you're absolutely right, Xen will never be released and AMD's stock will hit zero.
>hey guys this $600 8 core 16 thread processor is better than $150 AMpoo 8 core
>holy shit AMD bankrupt
kys
I have an fx-8320, I love it. Never had issues with it. It was only 130$ and for the performance it gives it's more than worth it. Also my entire system runs on a 450W psu so it's not taking a lot of power
>needing a 400 watt PSU to run a single processor system without discrete graphics
Um no I have a 750ti geforce
Pleb tier I know
>he doesn't turn his 95w tdp cpu into a nearly 200w monster
Not since skylake.
A10 7850k was better than i3 4160 though, similar multi thread performance but much better igpu and cpu was unlocked for oc
About 30% uplift in throughput per core for SMT is really good, 40% would be a freak occurrence. It can be as low at 10% in some case in fact. In a few oddball workloads it can have no uplift, or a slight regression, but this is usually a firmware issue with register tagging.
Real core are always better for adding performance, this is true. SMT exists for trying to increasing throughput without paying the total cost of another core though.
Again, this is incredibly disingenuous to post without also looking at 1st pass results.
>Again, this is incredibly disingenuous to post without also looking at 1st pass results.
There are no results for 1st pass at the source.
hardwarecanucks.com
People who don't want to give their money to feminists and Israel
AMD's main benefit is it's cheap and you don't lose too much performance compared to Intel. I wouldn't have it any other way.
>you dont lose too much performance compared to intel
this is what amdniggers actually believe
>H264
what year is it? do you know about H265 ? no?
X800 or whatever is better to intel cekeron for low end pcs
>AMD contributes a lot more to libre software than Intel [...]
lol?
01.org