Jump to content



Photo

AMD vs. Intel

amd intel

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 AwayfromHere

AwayfromHere

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 03-January 12
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z3

Posted 14 June 2014 - 11:48

Hey guys. This will be quite a long topic so just bare with me. TDP will be excluded at first but I will get to that later on, don't worry.

 

This whole thing is purely my opinion and nothing else.

 

Most of the benchmarks are done within Windows but I will also include some benchmarks from Linux, since the OS itself can not show the pure performance of an CPU if it is not optimized for it.

 

Whenever possible I will be comparing the 4770k vs the 9590.

 

First off lets start with CPU Zlib

 

 

This integer benchmark measures combined CPU and memory subsystem performance through the public ZLib compression library. CPU ZLib test uses only the basic x86 instructions but is nonetheless a good indicator of general system performance.

 

FX-9590-41.jpg

 

As we can see the 9590 can easily keep up with any CPU from that time (We should also consider that Piledriver arch is already 2 years old)

 

Next up - CPU Hash

 

FX-9590-40.jpg

 

And once again we can see that the 9590 can easily hold it's own ground.

 

We need to consider that these two benchmarks take full advatange of every core/thread they can.

 

Next up FPU benchmark.

 

FX-9590-42.jpg

 

While better than the 8350 it still lacks power to compete with Intel. If you keep up with the reviews you should already know the the FPU unit in BD and forward is actually weak.

 

Next up Cinebench (I should note that I am a little biased at this bench, since Maxtron only uses Intel compilers that are said to cripple AMD hardware to some point.)

 

FX-9590-43.jpg

 

 

But it still uses every thread it can take so I'm guessing at this point that the 5GHz clock is helping the 9590 and it actually can keep up. Not bad I'd say.

 

Next up, CIV V (Very CPU bound game)

 

FX-9590-45.jpg

 

 

Here you can easily see the weak point for AMD FX series. If the game is CPU bound rather than GPU it'll lose even to an 2600k.

 

Now to the very weak point for the BD arch and its newer brothers, single threaded performance.

 

FX-9590-44.jpg

 

 

You can easily see how it falls flat of every Intel CPU there is, even the i3's. This inculdes Prime, it's the same in that benchmark, it just can't handle its performance there, atlhough once again I should mention my bias against Prime, it's and x87 arch, already dead but for some reason people still keep taking it as an performance suggestion.

 

Next up MediaCoder x64

 

FX-9590-53.jpg

 

When it comes to media decoding it's easy to see that the new arch has paid off easily. The more "cores" the better of you will be.

 

The same goes for x264 media and truecrypt (I guess thats dead now huh?).

 

My point is, when ever you have enough threads/cores in your program support the FX can easily hold its own.

 

Now, lets get to gaming. First off, Dirt 3.

 

FX-9590-65.jpg

 

 

As we can see (we know that Dirt 3 is AMD optimized) it has no problem going ahead of most Intel CPUs. But what about games that are not optimized for both CPUs? We will find out now.

 

This what happens

 

FX-9590-67.jpg

 

It just falls flat. Thats it.

 

Anyway, back to newer games (that use newer engines) the FX can easily keep up thanks to devs that actually put multi-threaded support in.

 

FX-9590-75.jpg

 

 

As we can see here. 1 FPS short...well, should really matter.

 

Now lets see some figures for power consumption and after that I will say my own opinion.

 

 

With a TDP of about 220W, it the FX-9590’s chart-topping performance shouldn’t come as any surprise.

 

FX-9590-73.jpg

 

On idle, it has no problem. Sure the 4770k is about 20W lower but we need to understand the Intel CPU is on 22nm and AMD is stuck on 32nm thanks to GloFo. On load, oh well, that is another story. If you want a space heater (like me) you should get one :p If not, keep to an Intel CPU.

 

Now lets get to the point I said earlier about TDP.

 

Sure, the TDP of 220W of the 9590 is big but that doesn't mean it will draw it all the time. It will, sure, under load and even more than the 220. But imho this chip is meant for AMD enthusiasts as well.

 

220W TDP - lets get to that. I personally have around 9-10 light bulbs in my house, all of them 100W bulbs and most of the time 4-5 are always on. I don't see a big problem. Also, most of our newer gen GPU's take way more than that, why shouldnt we complaing about that? Sure, AMD is the only one with that TDP but Intel just came out with an 140W part...before that people were furious about AMD releasing an 125W part but now, no one blinks an eye. (leaving perofmance aside)

 

While we might not see a new CPU from AMD for 2 years (said to be working on a new arch with Jim Keller) I think the Piledriver can keep up with Intel. I saw some of the benchmarks of DC (Devil's Canyon) and I am impressed but..still the same as always. Not a very big improvement that enthusiasts are after.

 

I have and I will always admit that Intel has it's own strong points but so does the FX. The more multi-threaded you go the better off you'll be with an FX even with a bigger TDP.

 

 

Final words: I will be happy to discuss any of this until you can keep an open mind. If you are so stuck on your opinion, please don't even..
 




#2 Praetor

Praetor

    ASCii / ANSi Designer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 7
  • Joined: 05-June 02
  • Location: Lisbon
  • OS: Windows Eight dot One dot One 1!one

Posted 14 June 2014 - 12:14

I love my AMD (1090T) but the TDP is hideous; as soon as i power my computer it goes into 300W, then a stable 285W (idle); if i play a game that is GPU demanding then it goes way above that. My i7, on the other hand, deals with power quite well.

 

Having said that i find that CPU demanding apps like rendering work better in my AMD then in my Intel (by a small margin); the fact that it has more cores and more speed (the 1090T is OC) helps, of course; single threads apps perform great in both CPUs (i have lots of RAM and SSD in both computers and in reality the differences are, most of the time, quite small).

 

In the end, since they are so similar i chose the AMD for my desktop because of price: the mainboard + CPU + RAM saved me some bucks when compared with a similar system by Intel; for my laptop i chose Intel because nowdays it's damn hard to find a good AMD CPU in a OEM laptop...



#3 Xahid

Xahid

    Anokha Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-November 01
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate

Posted 14 June 2014 - 12:14

its nice to see AMD is competing once again.

At least they can say,

 

close-enough.png



#4 ShadowMajestic

ShadowMajestic

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 16-April 10
  • Location: Netherlands
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro 64bit
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 14 June 2014 - 12:15

I would suggest replacing those 100W light bulbs with some LED ones. At least here they're ~5 euro's, which they easily save ten times over in a few years :)

 

But some impressive benches from the FX, did not expect it to climb so high with the i7's.

The development is surely interesting, they are not to far behind Intel and have rumored to solved the piledrivers bottleneck. And vastly increasing single threaded performance should also in turn mean greatly improved multi-threaded performance. And if they hold up, next year I can see them bypass Intel.

 

I have an FX4100 myself, fairly old and starting to show its oldness. Hopefully the next gen stays AM3+ but I'm afraid they'll go FM2.



#5 Mark

Mark

    (: ollǝɥ

  • Joined: 22-October 04
  • Location: Derbyshire, UK

Posted 14 June 2014 - 13:17

I would suggest replacing those 100W light bulbs with some LED ones. At least here they're ~5 euro's, which they easily save ten times over in a few years :)

 

Totally agree with this, I have a bunch of daylight LED's which certainly provide a less 'dingy' feel to my flat :)

 

Anyway, back to the point, what is the 'best' bang for buck AMD processor at the moment? I'm about ready for an upgrade and I really don't know where they stand right now. Currently have a Athlon 2 x4 2.8ghz @ 3.2ghz.

 

I imagine sufficient time has passed to make buying a mid tier AMD processor a worthy upgrade, I just don't know where to put my money :) Looking for the best performance for price.



#6 Tony.

Tony.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 10-February 05
  • Location: Liverpool, UK
  • OS: Windows 7

Posted 14 June 2014 - 13:22

I can imagine that games will be more optimised for AMD's since both the Xbox One and PS4 use AMD APU's.



#7 vcfan

vcfan

    Straight Ballin'

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 14 June 2014 - 13:45



But some impressive benches from the FX, did not expect it to climb so high with the i7's.

The development is surely interesting, they are not to far behind Intel and have rumored to solved the piledrivers bottleneck. And vastly increasing single threaded performance should also in turn mean greatly improved multi-threaded performance. And if they hold up, next year I can see them bypass Intel.

they havent. even though they doubled the decoder fabric, single threaded performance only went up in single digit percentage. this suggests they have some other major bottlenecks somewhere else in the design. maybe its fetch, brand prediction, or its the dedicated pipelines. they will never catch intel anyways because of the node advantage. amd is at 28nm while intel is already at 22nm. even if amd somehow got out of its contractual obligations with GF and went with TSMC, TSMC is still years behind intel. 



#8 ShadowMajestic

ShadowMajestic

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 16-April 10
  • Location: Netherlands
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro 64bit
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 14 June 2014 - 13:58

they havent. even though they doubled the decoder fabric, single threaded performance only went up in single digit percentage. this suggests they have some other major bottlenecks somewhere else in the design. maybe its fetch, brand prediction, or its the dedicated pipelines. they will never catch intel anyways because of the node advantage. amd is at 28nm while intel is already at 22nm. even if amd somehow got out of its contractual obligations with GF and went with TSMC, TSMC is still years behind intel. 

I was not talking about this chip, but for their next gen.



#9 vcfan

vcfan

    Straight Ballin'

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 14 June 2014 - 14:14

I was not talking about this chip, but for their next gen.

 

I was talking about steamroller. whats the rumor about excavator?



#10 OP AwayfromHere

AwayfromHere

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 03-January 12
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z3

Posted 14 June 2014 - 14:22

 

Anyway, back to the point, what is the 'best' bang for buck AMD processor at the moment?

 

Probably the FX-8320.

 

 

I love my AMD (1090T) but the TDP is hideous; as soon as i power my computer it goes into 300W, then a stable 285W (idle);

 

This actually isn't possible. You are talking the same wattage that an 9590 takes under load what your 1090T takes idle? Yeah, no. Maybe from the wallsocket but the CPU itself, no.



#11 Master of Earth

Master of Earth

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 18-March 12

Posted 14 June 2014 - 15:04

 

In the end, since they are so similar i chose the AMD for my desktop because of price: the mainboard + CPU + RAM saved me some bucks when compared with a similar system by Intel; for my laptop i chose Intel because nowdays it's damn hard to find a good AMD CPU in a OEM laptop...

Intel pay enormous amount of money to OEM for not using AMD CPU so it's not surprised that you barely able to seek a good amd processor in laptop.



#12 tsupersonic

tsupersonic

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-September 06
  • Location: USA
  • OS: Win. 8.1 Pro. x64/Mac OS X
  • Phone: iPhone 5S/Nexus 5

Posted 14 June 2014 - 15:36

Hey guys. This will be quite a long topic so just bare with me. TDP will be excluded at first but I will get to that later on, don't worry.

 

This whole thing is purely my opinion and nothing else.

 

Most of the benchmarks are done within Windows but I will also include some benchmarks from Linux, since the OS itself can not show the pure performance of an CPU if it is not optimized for it.

 

Whenever possible I will be comparing the 4770k vs the 9590.

 

 

FX-9590-73.jpg

 

On idle, it has no problem. Sure the 4770k is about 20W lower but we need to understand the Intel CPU is on 22nm and AMD is stuck on 32nm thanks to GloFo. On load, oh well, that is another story. If you want a space heater (like me) you should get one :p If not, keep to an Intel CPU.

 

Now lets get to the point I said earlier about TDP.

 

Sure, the TDP of 220W of the 9590 is big but that doesn't mean it will draw it all the time. It will, sure, under load and even more than the 220. But imho this chip is meant for AMD enthusiasts as well.

 

220W TDP - lets get to that. I personally have around 9-10 light bulbs in my house, all of them 100W bulbs and most of the time 4-5 are always on. I don't see a big problem. Also, most of our newer gen GPU's take way more than that, why shouldnt we complaing about that? Sure, AMD is the only one with that TDP but Intel just came out with an 140W part...before that people were furious about AMD releasing an 125W part but now, no one blinks an eye. (leaving perofmance aside)

 

While we might not see a new CPU from AMD for 2 years (said to be working on a new arch with Jim Keller) I think the Piledriver can keep up with Intel. I saw some of the benchmarks of DC (Devil's Canyon) and I am impressed but..still the same as always. Not a very big improvement that enthusiasts are after.

 

I have and I will always admit that Intel has it's own strong points but so does the FX. The more multi-threaded you go the better off you'll be with an FX even with a bigger TDP.

 

 

Final words: I will be happy to discuss any of this until you can keep an open mind. If you are so stuck on your opinion, please don't even..
 

I like competition, but it is hard to make that argument today that AMD makes the better CPU for purely power users. The 9590 can hold its own, but I would much prefer the 4770k simply because the TDP is a lot lower overall. Not sure why you would have 100W bulbs in your house - you should be using CFL's and even LED bulbs are becoming reasonable. A 100W equivalent CFL bulb consumes about 25W - bottom line CFL's are very efficient and last longer than incandescent bulbs. I guess this depends on your location, but the US has started to phase out incandescent bulbs. In your case, rather than having 9-10 lights on at 100w a piece (900-1000W), you'd be looking at 9-10 lights on at 25W (225-250W). LED lights are even more efficient, and typically consume about 6-8 W/each. If you are power user with a 9590 or 4770, you probably (doesn't mean ALL) have a nice power hungry GPU. Anything that keeps power usage down while retaining performance is a win win in my book. 

 

I miss the good ol' days of when AMD was kicking Intel's butt, and then finally Intel responded and they have been fairly dominant ever since. I will always choose the better product, but for me that right now is Intel. I like Intel's desktop CPU line up, and their mobile (ultrabook) CPU's are great. AMD also has some nice products with those nice APU's and performance per price value is great. I want nothing more than AMD to succeed to keep consumers winning with better CPU's & other products. 



#13 OP AwayfromHere

AwayfromHere

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 03-January 12
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z3

Posted 14 June 2014 - 16:10

Hey there.

 

Thanks for your feedback. First off, we do have LED's here as well but since we live in an old apartment (built in 1960's) it's quite hard to switch them all over, I started to do it tho ;) It was an example only anyway.

 

Sure, like I said, I dont have anything against admitting that TDP wise (perf-per-watt) Intel has better products but this topic was just to show that people who keep screaming that AMD is so behind and suck that much, that just isn't true. Even with the low amount of cash, problems with foundries etc they still can keep up. Like I said, PD is already 2 years old, on a bigger node (22vs32nm) but still has some life in it.

 

All in all, we all profit if we have two players on the market rather than just 1.



#14 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 21-January 13
  • Location: USA
  • OS: W8.1 u1
  • Phone: Nokia 521

Posted 14 June 2014 - 16:16

Wait, these are Ivy Bridge, that is last generation.

#15 OP AwayfromHere

AwayfromHere

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 03-January 12
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z3

Posted 14 June 2014 - 16:18

Wait, these are Ivy Bridge, that is last generation.

 

Sure, there arent any Haswell to 9590 comparsions out there. :(

 

Didn't want to include APU's aswell, even Kaveris. While the iGPU is far better than Intel's (excluding Iris Pro just for the fact the CPUs that that cost a arm and a leg) the CPU itself is pure garbage.