Intel VS AMD

[Dobby]

Stress tests are to make sure the fucking CPU works as it should. I dont think AMD tests their CPUS when they exit the factory? Do they?
I know intel runs really heavy stress tests on their Xeon line atleast to throw away malfunctioning ones.
I dont like APUs either. I need a proper graphic card. I just dont belive it.

When im overclocking CPU or GPU. I run prime95 for like 24 hours atleast to make sure it is stable  with the speeds. Only idiot belives that the CPU is stable if it boots to windows with the overclocks.
Also what happens  when AMD overheats? it just burns away. Intel shuts itself down to prevent the damage. (experienced on Athlon 2400 and then i5 2500k which was using the stock cooler temporary, I didnt push the stock cooler in properly so the heat was at 100C constantly. It raised to 110 and shut itself down.)

Why would you need a Xeon? aren't they server based CPU's? I'm overclocking once i save up enough money to buy a decent watercooling kit, then i'm gonna stress it like a boss

I'm sure you can enable/disable that sort of thing in the BIOS, seeing as i was looking at a friends AMD build the other day and he can how old is the Athalon 2400? D:

[Hobo]

I have a laptop with an AMD CPU and one with an Intel CPU. The one with the Intel CPU is a few years older. Granted the AMD laptop has better graphics, it is much slower in comparison to the Intel laptop. Both have the same number of cores and about the same GHz. The Intel laptop turns on faster, launches programs faster and is just plain better than the AMD laptop. The Intel laptop also has less RAM.

[Dobby]

I have a laptop with an AMD CPU and one with an Intel CPU. The one with the Intel CPU is a few years older. Granted the AMD laptop has better graphics, it is much slower in comparison to the Intel laptop. Both have the same number of cores and about the same GHz. The Intel laptop turns on faster, launches programs faster and is just plain better than the AMD laptop. The Intel laptop also has less RAM.

Meh i'll take that one, as AMD aren't good at laptops xD i'll win this one What specs are the laptops?

Wait. You're a hobo you're not supposed to own laptops D:

[Hobo]

I have a laptop with an AMD CPU and one with an Intel CPU. The one with the Intel CPU is a few years older. Granted the AMD laptop has better graphics, it is much slower in comparison to the Intel laptop. Both have the same number of cores and about the same GHz. The Intel laptop turns on faster, launches programs faster and is just plain better than the AMD laptop. The Intel laptop also has less RAM.

Meh i'll take that one, as AMD aren't good at laptops xD i'll win this one What specs are the laptops?

Wait. You're a hobo you're not supposed to own laptops D:

No idea on the specs as I'm at school and leaving town until tomorrow. I'll update you when I get home.
And I have 3 laptops and one desktop. 2/3 laptops have Intel CPU's and the desktop has an Intel CPU.

[Joshy]

AMD has nothing on Intel in the test of raw power, just look at benchmarks and you'll see for yourself. AMD does have the upper hand in the number of cores, but as it stands not a lot of applications use more than 4-cores now so on a per-application basis only the raw power of the CPU is reflected. It is nice having 8 cores with AMD since the OS can then assign applications to their own core, but each of those cores are weak in relativity with a core from a Intel CPU so you'll get all of your applications running at the same time with a AMD CPU, just wouldn't be as fast as a Intel CPU. Also OS schedulers are smart enough to make the most out of anything, so really the Intel CPU would win the multi-tasking trophy since it probably has more combined power than a AMD CPU.

Clock speed isn't the only factor in the performance of a CPU, don't forget higher clock speeds mean higher temperatures and as all physics/electronics-interested people will know, higher temperature = higher resistance in the "wiring" (it isn't wires but I'll call it that) = exponential temperature growth. Depends on your cooling system really.

Add more factors like cache speed + size, memory controller specs, and so on and you'll probably realise that the numbers you should be looking at are benchmarks, preferably for practical things like gaming, video / photo editing and so on.

CPU performance ≠ numbers of cores * clock speed

Also, this is a new processor so it would be unfair to compare old with new, let's wait until Intel gets Haswell going, and then get some benchmark figures otherwise it's like saying the PS4 will beat the 360... no shit Batman.

[Dobby]

I have a laptop with an AMD CPU and one with an Intel CPU. The one with the Intel CPU is a few years older. Granted the AMD laptop has better graphics, it is much slower in comparison to the Intel laptop. Both have the same number of cores and about the same GHz. The Intel laptop turns on faster, launches programs faster and is just plain better than the AMD laptop. The Intel laptop also has less RAM.

Meh i'll take that one, as AMD aren't good at laptops xD i'll win this one What specs are the laptops?

Wait. You're a hobo you're not supposed to own laptops D:

No idea on the specs as I'm at school and leaving town until tomorrow. I'll update you when I get home.
And I have 3 laptops and one desktop. 2/3 laptops have Intel CPU's and the desktop has an Intel CPU.

Nice and ok then

You Intel fans will change your mind once my build is complete if i dont convince you AMD is 30% better than originally though im going to pay each one, $1,000,000 In game money

AMD has nothing on Intel in the test of raw power, just look at benchmarks and you'll see for yourself. AMD does have the upper hand in the number of cores, but as it stands not a lot of applications use more than 4-cores now so on a per-application basis only the raw power of the CPU is reflected. It is nice having 8 cores with AMD since the OS can then assign applications to their own core, but each of those cores are weak in relativity with a core from a Intel CPU so you'll get all of your applications running at the same time with a AMD CPU, just wouldn't be as fast as a Intel CPU. Also OS schedulers are smart enough to make the most out of anything, so really the Intel CPU would win the multi-tasking trophy since it probably has more combined power than a AMD CPU.

Clock speed isn't the only factor in the performance of a CPU, don't forget higher clock speeds mean higher temperatures and as all physics/electronics-interested people will know, higher temperature = higher resistance in the "wiring" (it isn't wires but I'll call it that) = exponential temperature growth. Depends on your cooling system really.

Add more factors like cache speed + size, memory controller specs, and so on and you'll probably realise that the numbers you should be looking at are benchmarks, preferably for practical things like gaming, video / photo editing and so on.

CPU performance ≠ numbers of cores * clock speed

Also, this is a new processor so it would be unfair to compare old with new, let's wait until Intel gets Haswell going, and then get some benchmark figures otherwise it's like saying the PS4 will beat the 360... no shit Batman.

Haswell looks great, but we'll see when it's released until then, i refuse to pay an extra £100 for something i can get for under £100.

Yes higher clock speed may contribute to more heat, easy way to counter it, make sure you have a failsafe there just incase it overheats, and it'll turn off automatically. Stick in a decent cooler that isn't stock. there nice easy solution. But as you said, depends on the cooling system i do plan on going full watercooled eventually

Im comparing that CPU because it just looks amazing :O Yeah Intel may have Haswell on the way. But 5.0Ghz if that's stock, i may start saving now!

Imagine that paired with a GTX Titan

Edit: just been checking out the Kaveri

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2013/3/5/amd-kaveri-unveiled-pc-architecture-gets-gddr5.aspx

[Spekter]

You Intel fans will change your mind once my build is complete if i dont convince you AMD is 30% better than originally though im going to pay each one, $1,000,000 In game money

AMD is, and always will be in Intel's shadow. Looking forward to my million.

[Vinny]

You Intel fans will change your mind once my build is complete if i dont convince you AMD is 30% better than originally though im going to pay each one, $1,000,000 In game money

AMD is, and always will be in Intel's shadow. Looking forward to my million.

[Dobby]

You Intel fans will change your mind once my build is complete if i dont convince you AMD is 30% better than originally though im going to pay each one, $1,000,000 In game money

AMD is, and always will be in Intel's shadow. Looking forward to my million.

Give me proof. Upcoming solid hard proof. until then, my point remains strong. Also, while you're checking the google for upcoming Haswell specs. Feel free to check for AMD too gotta make it fair

[Dr_dog]

Why would you need a Xeon? aren't they server based CPU's? I'm overclocking once i save up enough money to buy a decent watercooling kit, then i'm gonna stress it like a boss

I'm sure you can enable/disable that sort of thing in the BIOS, seeing as i was looking at a friends AMD build the other day and he can how old is the Athalon 2400? D:

Because most boards require Xeon i use. Also Xeon requires most of the time Buffered ECC ram. Its all just for reliability and redundancy. Xeons are generally more reliable because they are enterprise hardware. Made from better parts and built to last. Same goes with the enterprise hard drives. The motors and parts are better quality than consumer. I would say a dual Quad core Xeon beats your single 8 core AMD.
Disable what in BIOS?

Athlon 2400 is from like 2003 i would say.
(the dual pentium III server is from 1999 when P3 was introduced)

---

Know what? a 3.0Ghz Single core is better than 2.3 Ghz dual core.

---

AMD has nothing on Intel in the test of raw power, just look at benchmarks and you'll see for yourself. AMD does have the upper hand in the number of cores, but as it stands not a lot of applications use more than 4-cores now so on a per-application basis only the raw power of the CPU is reflected. It is nice having 8 cores with AMD since the OS can then assign applications to their own core, but each of those cores are weak in relativity with a core from a Intel CPU so you'll get all of your applications running at the same time with a AMD CPU, just wouldn't be as fast as a Intel CPU. Also OS schedulers are smart enough to make the most out of anything, so really the Intel CPU would win the multi-tasking trophy since it probably has more combined power than a AMD CPU.

Clock speed isn't the only factor in the performance of a CPU, don't forget higher clock speeds mean higher temperatures and as all physics/electronics-interested people will know, higher temperature = higher resistance in the "wiring" (it isn't wires but I'll call it that) = exponential temperature growth. Depends on your cooling system really.

Add more factors like cache speed + size, memory controller specs, and so on and you'll probably realise that the numbers you should be looking at are benchmarks, preferably for practical things like gaming, video / photo editing and so on.

CPU performance ≠ numbers of cores * clock speed

Also, this is a new processor so it would be unfair to compare old with new, let's wait until Intel gets Haswell going, and then get some benchmark figures otherwise it's like saying the PS4 will beat the 360... no shit Batman.

Amen, software guy.
8 Core AMD < 4 Core intel

---

You Intel fans will change your mind once my build is complete if i dont convince you AMD is 30% better than originally though im going to pay each one, $1,000,000 In game money

Watch out, your AMD crap build will bite in your ass eventually..
I will never ever use AMD in my builds unless it was given for free to me.

[Dobby]

Underlining the text isnt doing anything i've already gone over it in a previous post

It's hardly crap since it sh**s on most modern day builds and you can enable a temperature thing to shut off the computer at a certain temperature

Care to back up the 3.0Ghz statement?

[Dr_dog]

Underlining the text isnt doing anything i've already gone over it in a previous post

It's hardly crap since it sh**s on most modern day builds and you can enable a temperature thing to shut off the computer at a certain temperature

Care to back up the 3.0Ghz statement?

Ah for fuck sakes, i hit previous page and lost most of what i just wrote. Too lazy to write it all over so i just write most important things
I read the topic late so i just quoted whole Joshy's post over again and highlighting the important sentences.
AMD comes with possibility to ENABLE that feature (Must be in the newest CPUs only, I cant find such ability from my Opteron server)
Intel has it by default on and i belive you cant even disable it.
I derped with the sentence about single core vs quad core. Actually ment 3.0Ghz single core is better than 2.3 Ghz Dual core. No porgram can efficiently use multiple cores. (I noticed this huge impact on performance when i upgraded from Pentium 4 based server to Core 2 Duo, when the Core 2 was the newest line of CPU. The hardware was same, no more ram added or removed, nothing else than a CPU upgrade and motherboard.)

[Spekter]

You Intel fans will change your mind once my build is complete if i dont convince you AMD is 30% better than originally though im going to pay each one, $1,000,000 In game money

AMD is, and always will be in Intel's shadow. Looking forward to my million.

Give me proof. Upcoming solid hard proof. until then, my point remains strong. Also, while you're checking the google for upcoming Haswell specs. Feel free to check for AMD too gotta make it fair

Your point is based on this: "AMD has higher clock speed, therefore it is better." I am sorry, but i don't see that as valid.
About the price, you are right. Intel is more expensive, but there is a reason for that, don't you think?

[Dobby]

Noo :O what gave you that impression?

Would any of you guys say that a 1000w PSU is overkill? I do plan on shoving 3tb HDD's in there, along with GPU, CPU, RAM and whatnot.

[Dr_dog]

Totally overkill. 850 will do fine
1000W is enough for my 24 HDD file server. Though the 12 volt rail cant handle the drive spinup so i had to use 1500W so it wont overload everytime i boot it.
GPU = 140-200W
HDD = <10W
CPU = 95W (Check TDP)
RAM = 4W (stick)

Those are about numbers