AMD vs Intel
- Thread starter Skibur
- Start date
- Status
AMD vs Intel Processor Comparison 2012
Although Intel dominates the market with its high-end, coming-of-age processor technologies like the well-received Core i series and the fresh and upcoming Ivy Bridge range, AMD is not far behind and occupies considerable mindshare due to high performance processors at economical price ranges. Let's take a brand-by-brand look at AMD and Intel processors to get to know what products each offers and how each has something to say about its prominent presence in the CPU market before jumping to a parallel Intel vs AMD processor comparison 2012.
AMD Processors
Those of you who have experienced the functionalities of AMD's FX series of processors (FX-8150, FX-8120, FX-6100 and FX-4100) enabled with the oven-fresh Bulldozer microarchitecture would understand how the first generation Bulldozer enabled processors absolutely dazzle at certain functions while fall below expectations at certain other areas of computing requirements. The Bulldozer is a totally new architecture design and not an upgradation or modified version of any existing ones. Hence, the expectations from the FX range as well as the hype created around it before its launch were sky-high. However, once the FX series was launched, it received mixed responses from commercial as well as retail users. FX-8150 has been considered as a major failure as far as its performance in moderately threaded processes are concerned. In fact, many users are of the opinion that its performance in less intensively threaded benchmarks reaches lower standards than AMD's Phenom II X6 when the latter is clocked at a slower speed. In highly threaded situations, FX-8150's performance is almost at the same levels as that of Phenom II X6. In fact, being priced higher than Intel's Core i5 2500K with a fluctuating performance, given different benchmarks, as compared to the latter, AMD's FX-8150 comes across as something of a disappointment. The FX series of processors are also known to consume a lot of power when overclocked.
AMD has announced the launch of the second generation Bulldozer processors by the end of Q1 of 2012, which would mean that you should be able to get your hands on them by March this year. The second generation Bulldozer core architecture, codenamed Piledriver, is expected to take care of the first generation series' lacunae in terms of consistency and enhanced performance under all kinds of threading benchmarks. The second generation FX series processors are being expected to pack at least 25% higher performance capabilities, even in situations of heavy-duty multimedia overloads. The latest Opteron series is also all set to enhance server performance and efficiency in an economic way as far as prices and power consumption are concerned. If the second generation Bulldozer architecture does manage to live up to its claims, it is certainly possible for Intel's Sandy Bridge to face some stiff competition, both in terms of price and energy efficiency. While competitive pricing has always been AMD's strength, the upcoming Piledriver processor range also promises low power consumption, the latter being one of AMD processors' biggest weaknesses till date. Therefore, if AMD can get the energy usage figures down to Intel processors' levels, Intel may have something to worry about.
Intel Processors
Not to be outdone by AMD, Intel is a tough contender when it comes to the Intel vs AMD battle. With its new Ivy Bridge microarchitecture enabled range of processors (Core i5 and Core i7, though not to be confused with the Intel processors of the same name that was built on Nehalem and other earlier microarchitecture types) slated for release by Q2 this year, we have some great Intel processors to look forward to. An immediate successor to Sandy Bridge, the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture claims to bring the energy consumption figures lower than all its predecessors such as Sandy Bridge, Nehalem, Clarkdale, Wolfdale, etc. Add superior integrated graphics output and smaller, faster transistors to that and you have a product that is every heavy-duty computer user's dream! To put it simply, those of you who have used Sandy Bridge processors before would be able to realize the improvement Ivy Bridge offers - the latter will give the same performance as the former with lesser power consumed and higher, faster performance at the same power consumption as Sandy Bridge. You will also experience better multimedia quality as the graphics core of Ivy Bridge processors have been significantly enhanced as compared to processors belonging to older Intel microarchitecture types. Prices would be slightly on the higher side as compared to AMD, but given the consistency, superior performance specs and its downward-traveling energy consumption curve, Intel may not have that much to worry about after all!
TL
R V: No point in deciding pros:cons right now until PileDriver and Ivy Bridge come out.
Although Intel dominates the market with its high-end, coming-of-age processor technologies like the well-received Core i series and the fresh and upcoming Ivy Bridge range, AMD is not far behind and occupies considerable mindshare due to high performance processors at economical price ranges. Let's take a brand-by-brand look at AMD and Intel processors to get to know what products each offers and how each has something to say about its prominent presence in the CPU market before jumping to a parallel Intel vs AMD processor comparison 2012.
AMD Processors
Those of you who have experienced the functionalities of AMD's FX series of processors (FX-8150, FX-8120, FX-6100 and FX-4100) enabled with the oven-fresh Bulldozer microarchitecture would understand how the first generation Bulldozer enabled processors absolutely dazzle at certain functions while fall below expectations at certain other areas of computing requirements. The Bulldozer is a totally new architecture design and not an upgradation or modified version of any existing ones. Hence, the expectations from the FX range as well as the hype created around it before its launch were sky-high. However, once the FX series was launched, it received mixed responses from commercial as well as retail users. FX-8150 has been considered as a major failure as far as its performance in moderately threaded processes are concerned. In fact, many users are of the opinion that its performance in less intensively threaded benchmarks reaches lower standards than AMD's Phenom II X6 when the latter is clocked at a slower speed. In highly threaded situations, FX-8150's performance is almost at the same levels as that of Phenom II X6. In fact, being priced higher than Intel's Core i5 2500K with a fluctuating performance, given different benchmarks, as compared to the latter, AMD's FX-8150 comes across as something of a disappointment. The FX series of processors are also known to consume a lot of power when overclocked.
AMD has announced the launch of the second generation Bulldozer processors by the end of Q1 of 2012, which would mean that you should be able to get your hands on them by March this year. The second generation Bulldozer core architecture, codenamed Piledriver, is expected to take care of the first generation series' lacunae in terms of consistency and enhanced performance under all kinds of threading benchmarks. The second generation FX series processors are being expected to pack at least 25% higher performance capabilities, even in situations of heavy-duty multimedia overloads. The latest Opteron series is also all set to enhance server performance and efficiency in an economic way as far as prices and power consumption are concerned. If the second generation Bulldozer architecture does manage to live up to its claims, it is certainly possible for Intel's Sandy Bridge to face some stiff competition, both in terms of price and energy efficiency. While competitive pricing has always been AMD's strength, the upcoming Piledriver processor range also promises low power consumption, the latter being one of AMD processors' biggest weaknesses till date. Therefore, if AMD can get the energy usage figures down to Intel processors' levels, Intel may have something to worry about.
Intel Processors
Not to be outdone by AMD, Intel is a tough contender when it comes to the Intel vs AMD battle. With its new Ivy Bridge microarchitecture enabled range of processors (Core i5 and Core i7, though not to be confused with the Intel processors of the same name that was built on Nehalem and other earlier microarchitecture types) slated for release by Q2 this year, we have some great Intel processors to look forward to. An immediate successor to Sandy Bridge, the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture claims to bring the energy consumption figures lower than all its predecessors such as Sandy Bridge, Nehalem, Clarkdale, Wolfdale, etc. Add superior integrated graphics output and smaller, faster transistors to that and you have a product that is every heavy-duty computer user's dream! To put it simply, those of you who have used Sandy Bridge processors before would be able to realize the improvement Ivy Bridge offers - the latter will give the same performance as the former with lesser power consumed and higher, faster performance at the same power consumption as Sandy Bridge. You will also experience better multimedia quality as the graphics core of Ivy Bridge processors have been significantly enhanced as compared to processors belonging to older Intel microarchitecture types. Prices would be slightly on the higher side as compared to AMD, but given the consistency, superior performance specs and its downward-traveling energy consumption curve, Intel may not have that much to worry about after all!
TL
R V: No point in deciding pros:cons right now until PileDriver and Ivy Bridge come out.snicker said:
Well, mainly 'cus I hate the pin argument, I'll agree with you. Though, that would require AMD to switch to a full LGA lineup. They'll get there eventually. At least the Opterons are there. I'd rather see the actual performance before judging it on the FM2. Plus the upgrade to the Radeon 7k series will definitely help the series. Also, being lazy and copy/pasting is easier than typing out my thoughts in the same fashion. xD
*sigh*
Well-known member
Except that Intel can be more budget friendly for certain things... Intel is multi-core too, and they are just as easy to overclock.Skibur said:
Oh and AMD's are just as stable and secure as intel if you know what you are doing... the only advantage Intel has on that list is Hyperthreading, but you only get that in $300+ chips, and by that point all the AMD chips have twice as many cores so it's really a wash...
Get what works for you, I hate when people try to stack them up against one another, same goes for AMD/Nvidia... they both have their place
The only reason I like amd is the cost, yes amd typically runs a little hotter, but thats a given, just buy an aftermarket heatsink/fan or a water cooler (i have a box fan blowing air into mine)
I'm going to wait for piledriver to come out and get that, or get an 8core with an upgraded mobo
I'm going to wait for piledriver to come out and get that, or get an 8core with an upgraded mobo
*sigh*
Well-known member
They don't run hotter... the current generation chips may, but that always changes. Heat means nothing anyway.Flock said:
fishy
Well-known member
I had a Phenom X2 250 processor for two years, worked great.
Now I have an Intel I5, works great.
Now I have an Intel I5, works great.
*sigh*
Well-known member
No it really doesn't... At least it won't be enough to be noticeable to you.Copper said:
As long as you aren't near or over the threshold on for our CPU, you're not going to know the difference.
Also... overclocking doesn't really change temperature, it's when you start adjusting voltages that temperatures really start changing. But still it really doesn't matter as long as you aren't near or at the threshold.
*sigh* said:
Well, overclocking is mainly limited by two things. The amount of voltage the CPU can handle, and the temperature. Usually you'll bake the CPU before you short it out. I'm currently running a h70 aftermarket cooler with a I7 950. Temperatures go past 90c before I even start to reach a voltage that risks serious damage.
That's why i prefer Intel. Overclocking an AMD cpu is possible, but don't expect better performance from it.
- Status