AMD Processor

AMDhardcore

Standard Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
46
Reaction score
8
Points
16
Age
48
Location
SF
Maybe you notice my username is AMD***. And I have been using AMD processor for the last couple of years. Oh anyway, my laptop has an intel I3 CPU (for light use, browsing, typing, movies). My current AMD processor costed me about $200. And it's an 8 cores CPU. While the cheapest Intel 8 core processor costs more than $300. I have checked the specs including the L1 to L3 caches. Well they are all about the same. Maybe someone can tell me what is the difference between an 8 cores AMD processor and an 8 cores intel processor? And why AMD CPU is cheaper than Intel.
 
Assuming you're talking about the FX-8300 models then calling it an '8 core' processor is AMD's marketing department's attempt to simplify/sell a design that doesn't use conventional cores. It'd be more accurate to call it a 4 module processor because it has four independent units. As it is a different design comparing 'the specs' won't tell you much, it's only relevant to compare them to other processors using the same 'Piledriver' modules. (FX-_3__ models, 5000 and 6000 APUs).

Intel's cheapest 8 core processor is the $150USD Atom C2730 but their desktop/laptop processors have fewer cores because that's preferable. More cores is the last resort for increasing performance as it's better to have few fast cores than lots of slow ones for typical desktop/laptop tasks.

If you wanted to compare it to Intel's competition then the only sensible way to do so is using benchmarks of your intended usage. AMD's most expensive processors are similarly priced to Intel's mid-range ones because they deliver similar performance for most uses.

AMD don't sell any faster processors because their high power design is behind technologically and their current design is pushed to the limit with high clockspeeds and large die sizes (an FX-8350 is physically bigger than an i7-5960X).
 
Regarding performance, I think I did a benchmark a couple years ago. I had a Celeron CPU dual core and a cheap FX CPU (dual core). Both have a similar price, around $60. The numbers are pretty close. note that I just switched the CPU and the motherboard and every other components are the same (RAM, GPU, etc). so IMO, if they have the same price range, the performance would be similar?

And I want to know what is the equivalent AMD CPU for Intel's i7 4 core processor?
 
While I was browsing for an AMD CPU, I came across this motherboard:
MSI AM1I AM1 2 x SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 HDMI Mini ITX AMD Motherboard - Newegg.com

Looks good for a HTPC setup. It has a VGA/HDMI port so you can connect this to a TV. But it doesn't have an onboard Video chipset (read the specs). So do you still need an additional GPU for this or not?

if you just want to play movies and browse the internet using a LED TV, is this motherboard going to be sufficient?
 
so IMO, if they have the same price range, the performance would be similar?

Computing performance yes, things like energy efficiency can vary substantially between two processors of similar performance.

And I want to know what is the equivalent AMD CPU for Intel's i7 4 core processor?

At the moment there isn't one in most desktop applications. The FX-9590 can keep up in the occasional use that heavily favours it's design and an 8 module/'16 core' opteron would be equivalent in something that's heavily threaded.

While I was browsing for an AMD CPU, I came across this motherboard:
MSI AM1I AM1 2 x SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 HDMI Mini ITX AMD Motherboard - Newegg.com

Looks good for a HTPC setup. It has a VGA/HDMI port so you can connect this to a TV. But it doesn't have an onboard Video chipset (read the specs). So do you still need an additional GPU for this or not?

Yeah. AMD's low power designs are more competitive and that's a good choice next to Intel's Silvermont/Bay Trail equivalents (J1900 etc.) if you're primarily after low power consumption with sufficient performance.

Integrated graphics these days are part of the CPU rather than the motherboard as they used to be (except for the old FX series) so you wouldn't need a PCI-Express graphics card unless you wanted something more powerful than was available on the CPUs.

Don't expect much in the way of 4k and next generation codec (HEVC, VP9 etc.) support from current platforms but for normal H.264 and FHD they'll do perfectly well and should be fine for web browsing too.
 
OK watched some videos on youtube. Some gamers made a comparison between intel vs AMD cpus. And they raved about the price (obviously?). Most of them said AMD cpu is more optimized for 3D rendering. So if you play games that use a lot of CPU processing game such as Crysis 3 or use 3D animation softwares, then AMD is a better choice? is that statement true or not?
 
3D Rendering is a big field with different types of workloads. Highly threaded integer workloads suit the chip well and on release an FX-8350 happily matched an i7-3770k in something like solidworks. Gaming is the opposite though, primarily floating point and often poorly threaded. It's rare that an FX-8350 can keep up with an i5, and sometimes falls behind an i3.

You didn't specify which chip you're talking about, but the only ones I'd consider for gaming are the 860k and an overclocked FX-8320. Up front price is reasonably attractive but don't forget to factor in the cost of the extra power use, 100W extra for an hour a day is £5 per year. I certainly wouldn't say they're clearly the better choice, they're competitive at most.

Generally the sensible choice is the most popular one. Developers have limited time and they'll focus their efforts on the most popular hardware. Sometimes a brand new bit of technology that's not quite up to scratch is worth considering - I'd go for a R9 285 over an R9 280X because of adaptive sync, despite the slightly lower performance. But a two and a half year old processor has had it's day in the sun.

If you've already got an FX-8000 of some description then it's not going to affect you as it'll be a while before it's worth upgrading the CPU and by then AMD are likely to be using a different design.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom