Intel Core i's vs. AMD

[Diab]

So I'm a little confused. I have wondered this for a long time and never really got an answer. Time and time again, I have looked at numbers with various processors and a lot of the time, when an AMD processor seems to be way better in every way over an Intel processor, benchmark charts show otherwise.

This thread was mostly prompted over a bit of research looking at this thread:
http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/s...o-3-want-input

I compared the two processors of the two builds:
Intel Core i5-2300
vs
AMD FX-4100

By the stats under details, the AMD processor seems to be better in EVERY SINGLE WAY.
Intel vs. AMD:
Speed: 2.8GHz (3.1GHz Turbo Boost) vs. 3.6GHz (3.8GHz Turbo)
L2 Cache: 4 x 256KB vs. 2 x 2MB
L3 Cache: 6MB vs. 8MB
Not to mention the Intel one costs $70 more.

Yet, all the benchmarks I've looked at, show the Intel one excel over the AMD processor:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AR-1110171AR82



I don't know what L2/L3 cache means, but I assume it's some kind of memory thing, thus bigger is better. So... I ask, what am I missing here? Are there some other kinds of numbers that I should be looking at and paying attention to?

[Namik]

Don't look on numbers. It's the whole architecture of CPU that metters. When you look for CPU read reviews, although if you look for gaming CPU don't look on benchmarks. Look on how the game performs in game tests.
As for gaming FX-4100 is on pair with Intel i3 2100 (with i3 taking lead pretty often).

[Tilitoon]

Yup, and your first stat is a bit misleading, it should read "Frequency" and not "Speed". The performance of the CPU is much more dependent on the architecture than the bare frequency, although, generally speaking the more you increase the frequency the better performance you get.

Yes L2 / L3 are the internal cache of the CPU. The bigger the better, you can't simply compare L2/L3 size of one CPU architecture to another and conclude it's better solely on that.

The way the Bulldozer / FX CPU work is by using "modules" which share information between the cores. It is very different than what Intel does. The price points are accurate, the i3 is generally better than the FX, especially in games.

[Diab]

So you're saying that besides looking at benchmarks/reviews, a good approximate way to tell if two CPUs have similar performance, is by price?

[Tilitoon]

Yes, generally speaking it is true, for CPU or GPUs within the same categories. But obviously looking at specific benchmarks for what you are planning on doing with the component is probably the best method.

[Evilfury]

Im no tech expert, but I am learning of the different comp hardwares out there with the eventual intent to utilize said knowledge to build my own computer. I couldn't help but read this thread and have a question to ask.

The way the Bulldozer / FX CPU work is by using "modules" which share information between the cores. It is very different than what Intel does. The price points are accurate, the i3 is generally better than the FX, especially in games.

Would the post pertaining to the fx cpu architecture in the thread link below, authored by the user Mu_engineer, be accurate fact? Or might this guy be talking out his hind end?
The post, the way the facts were presented, made a rather interesting read.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/pa....html#t2486883

[Tilitoon]

Would the post pertaining to the fx cpu architecture in the thread link below, authored by the user Mu_engineer, be accurate fact? Or might this guy be talking out his hind end?

Which part exactly ? In any case, it might be a good read but it won't help you very much to build your own computer. Actually it is pretty simple, if you are building a gaming rig, you want to go for Intel (i5 ideally), or if you are on a very tight budget you can go for AMD with a Phenom II X4 or the FX, just because they are "good enough" and you can save money on that and put it in the video card which will yield you way better results in game.

[Buu]

Which part exactly ? In any case, it might be a good read but it won't help you very much to build your own computer. Actually it is pretty simple, if you are building a gaming rig, you want to go for Intel (i5 ideally), or if you are on a very tight budget you can go for AMD with a Phenom II X4 or the FX, just because they are "good enough" and you can save money on that and put it in the video card which will yield you way better results in game.

I've been told to go with the i3 if you are gaming on a budget. Similar price to the AMD counterparts, but they seem to do better for games.

[Tilitoon]

I've been told to go with the i3 if you are gaming on a budget. Similar price to the AMD counterparts, but they seem to do better for games.

Yea when I said "you want to go for Intel (i5 ideally)", I meant if you can afford the i5 then go for it, otherwise go for the i3, and if you are on a very very tight budget then go for AMD. The i3 are just slightly more expensive than the Phenom, same thing for the sandy bridge boards VS AM3.

[Diab]

Looking at your responses, it seems that the tables have turned since a few years ago and Intel is the prime gaming CPU maker now. What about for non-gaming uses then? I do work with Autodesk 3DS Max (very processor-intensive, but only uses a single core so far), and some video encoding with Adobe Premier/Media Encoder/After Effects (very processor-intensive; uses all four of my cores), besides gaming. Are the Intels still the best choice for that, or is AMD overall a better choice for that? Or what would AMDs better serve as, PC wise? Servers?