Let's talk about hardware. I'm lurking around Internet, collecting the info about modern motherboards in planning the upgrade. So, my first question is as fundamental as it is endless - Intel or AMD?
Intel is:
+ powerfull
+ reliable
+ well-known
+ very high-techy leader of industry, BUT
- unreasonably priced
- and Intel likes to manipulate their customers. I remember that at 2010-2011 Intel changed mainstream 4 chipsets per year, and all of them had troubles with compatibility. (Well as always when you faced with monopolic structure.)
AMD is:
+ almost as powerfull as Intel
+ much cheaper.
+ much compatible, BUT
- not so reliable as Intel
- a bit slower than Intel
- it's an AMD! I.e., glitches is possible....
So, what to choose?
Till this year I thought about dual processor motherboard for AMD Opterons, but then a thought better, and - now I think that it's not the best choice for my tasks (c++/C#/php coding, 3D modelling, VMs, physics simulations and fast modern games). For this it's better to get Intel with fast RAM + two NVidia videocards. But - AMD is cheaper... But Intel is Intel!... Well, you see. ;D
Also, the next question is about Intel. If to take Intep processor - what chipset would be better. I thought about X79 or Z87. X79 is more powerfull, but Z87 is newer. What to choose?..
It'd be interesting to read your opinion.
Intel has higher performance.
Intel contains more high-tech solutions.
AMD has less performance (about 5-10%), but it's up to 40% cheaper than Intel.
Also AMD has some specific features, which isn't supported by Intel, and it supports wider range of peripheria, like a classic PCI.
Reliability today is almost same, but I remember the times when AMD inflames under high loads.
TDP? You forgot to mention the respective TDP problems.
Daniil is right, it all boils down to the old saying "you get what you pay for". Despite the fact that I fully aware that Intel is faster than AMD - more instructions per clock cycle and other goodies - I've been using AMD forever and, quite frankly, I have no complaints. Their CPU's meets my need perfectly and have never failed despite the fact that they're not as fast. Right now, for example, my rig has an FX-8350 CPU and corresponding motherboard. I know perfectly an i7-4770 and it's board are faster, but there's also a huge price difference too.
My opinion: unless you're looking for a real speed demon and/or have the money, it's safe to go with whatever AMD chip will suit your needs.
@shhnedo
TDP is not a problem. If it's absolutely enormus, I can set up a water cooling system.
@humbert
Comrade Humbert, that's great that you are AMD adept. Can you explain me, please, the way of naming of AMD CPUs? Because if in case of Intel it's easy to understand, then in case of AMD it's a "dark wood" for neophyte.
Товарич Daniil -> AMD CPU's have family names such as Athlon, Sempron, Phenom and FX. They also use nicknames specific nicknames for them. The one I had before was the Phenom II X4 975 (code name Piledriver) and now I have the FX-8350 (code name Vishera). The one they're trying to market now is the A series APU which includes and AMD (formerly ATI) GPU as well as the standard CPU. The FX and before don't have that, which means you must get yourself a good video card.
Despite the fact that the FX-8350 is and 8-core CPU that runs at 4.0 gHz and can be overclocked to 4.2 gHz, it can't do much better than an Intel i5 core. Another disadvantage is that it eats 125W compared to the i7's 84 watts. This makes it unusable for laptops. But hey, it's about half the price of an i7-4770, and if it does what you want, go for it. :) Frankly I have no complaints and I recommend AMD highly.
Товарищ humbert, thank you very much. :)
I took a look to a hardware forums, and get some more understanding about current situation in Intel/AMD confrontation.
Dear humbert, can you tell, how long you use an AMD FX-8350 (since what year)?
I asking because, as I can see, today AM3+ socket is an old platform, coming to its dusk. And maybe buy it today wouldn't be good idea.
But - an alternative is modern Intel, which costs (in the same "weight category") from 2 to 5 times higher. If to take note that processor/chipset generations changes every 2-3 years, it looks stupid (for me) to spent 3000$ to a thing which you'll change 3 years later.
But - today for gaming and "living" with PC, CPU means almost nothing - the main thing, as I can conclude from my experience with my current PC, is a videocard, very fast RAM and very fast storage. (dual 3GHz Xeon processors means nothing when you have slow DDRII-400 RAM, GeForce 8800 GTS 640 allows you to play even some modern games with this slow RAM, and fast Hitachi HDD allows you to reduce 50% of the boot time and 30% of game loading time).
I think, it'd be interesting to calculate a performance of the system I can create on AMD and on Intel, and also a price of cooling system. (AMD is much hotter than Intel, indeed.) Because the price of big water-cooling system may level the cost benefits of AMD.
@Ð"аниил - first of all Ñ,оварищ, thanks for correcting my spelling. I have a hard time distinguising pronunciations of ч, ш and щ :).
The AM3+ socket is not dead yet. AMD continues selling its FX processors, and this is the socket they use. As you know, their selling point is price - nobody is going to buy an AMD system is the price were the same as Intel. Honestly AMD's aren't that bad, I've been using them forever and they perform OK.
AMD's do run hot compared to Intel, but honestly I've never had a problem. The cooling fan included with the processor works OK, and in my case I see no reason to overclock.
And yes, you're absolutely correct that simply upgrading a CPU alone does nothing. You also need better peripherals if you want your system to run as it should.
Oh, and yes, no matter what you buy your turn around time will be 2 to 4 years depending on what you have.
The reason I will probably choose intel over amd is because it is way easier for me to know which is whoch and what is better than the others. I think the naming for AMD is a mess. It used to be a mess for the graphics cards too and one of the main reasons I didnt pick Nvidia in my latest purchase was that I was able to understand faster and easier which other amd cards were similair with the one I bought. It has only crashed once, when I underclocked it and took the voltage too low.
For me a cooler cpu means alot, I dont enjoy when my room turns reamly hot after just 6hours of playing CPU intensive games.
Also, is anyone interested in joining my teamspeak one day, just chill out and talk?
Of course anybody in their right mind will choose Intel over AMD if the price were similar. Remember AMD's sticking point is price. Also, I'm not too clear about why their naming system is so confusing. Families are Sempron, Athlon, Phenom and FX. The rest are just model numbers and specs. I have a much harder time with Intel's naming system. I know their latest CPU's are Haswell, but I'm not to clear about what they mean by Ivy and Sandy Bridge, not to mention all the others. It's very confusing.
I've run Diablo under full power with a bunch of bombs exploding and characters moving constantly, to the point where it's a little too much for my NVidia GFX-660 (it freezes the image briefly under very heavy load). However, the AMD CPU shows no sign of heat-related stress and keeps on going.
Quote from: humbert on March 28, 2014, 03:18 AM
Of course anybody in their right mind will choose Intel over AMD if the price were similar. Remember AMD's sticking point is price. Also, I'm not too clear about why their naming system is so confusing. Families are Sempron, Athlon, Phenom and FX. The rest are just model numbers and specs. I have a much harder time with Intel's naming system. I know their latest CPU's are Haswell, but I'm not to clear about what they mean by Ivy and Sandy Bridge, not to mention all the others. It's very confusing.
I've run Diablo under full power with a bunch of bombs exploding and characters moving constantly, to the point where it's a little too much for my NVidia GFX-660 (it freezes the image briefly under very heavy load). However, the AMD CPU shows no sign of heat-related stress and keeps on going.
I just think their numbers are really confusing. (amd)
Intel is quite easy I'd say.. I3 I5 I7 are the main things you want to look at I3 = entry level gaming, everyday browsing. I5, everyday use, gaming. I7, to show off, and to render heavier stuff.
Haswell, Sandybridge and Ivybridge, the core difference is the power consumption (what I've seen) there isn't much speed difference between 2600k 3770k 4770k (if I recall correctly.)
Anyways, 1:20 AM, school at 8:15 AM, time to go to bed :D!
Quote from: Shadow.97 on March 28, 2014, 03:22 AM
Intel is quite easy I'd say.. I3 I5 I7 are the main things you want to look at I3 = entry level gaming, everyday browsing. I5, everyday use, gaming. I7, to show off, and to render heavier stuff.
Haswell, Sandybridge and Ivybridge, the core difference is the power consumption (what I've seen) there isn't much speed difference between 2600k 3770k 4770k (if I recall correctly.)
Are you sure about that? I have a hard time thinking the difference in performance between the 2600k, 3770k and 4470k isn't that great. Besides, low power consumption makes sense for laptops, but for desktops it's almost immaterial. AMD's FX-8350 eats 125W - any desktop can do this. The 4770k eats 84W.
Quote from: humbert on March 29, 2014, 02:00 AM
Quote from: Shadow.97 on March 28, 2014, 03:22 AM
Intel is quite easy I'd say.. I3 I5 I7 are the main things you want to look at I3 = entry level gaming, everyday browsing. I5, everyday use, gaming. I7, to show off, and to render heavier stuff.
Haswell, Sandybridge and Ivybridge, the core difference is the power consumption (what I've seen) there isn't much speed difference between 2600k 3770k 4770k (if I recall correctly.)
Are you sure about that? I have a hard time thinking the difference in performance between the 2600k, 3770k and 4470k isn't that great. Besides, low power consumption makes sense for laptops, but for desktops it's almost immaterial. AMD's FX-8350 eats 125W - any desktop can do this. The 4770k eats 84W.
I'm not very confident about it, but I think that is so.
Quote from: Shadow.97 on March 29, 2014, 04:29 PM
Are you sure about that? I have a hard time thinking the difference in performance between the 2600k, 3770k and 4470k isn't that great. Besides, low power consumption makes sense for laptops, but for desktops it's almost immaterial. AMD's FX-8350 eats 125W - any desktop can do this. The 4770k eats 84W.
I'm not very confident about it, but I think that is so.
I'd have to research this, but honestly it makes little sense. Why invest in a 4470k when you'll get only a small performance difference compared to a 2600k? So what if it eats more watts, I have a desktop with a 720w PSU.
@humbert, @Shadow.97
BTW, a power consumption may be an important factor! For example - big AMD eats up to 180-200W. Intel with same computing power consume only 70-80W. That means, that you need bigger power block => more expensive block.
Also, for cooling AMD, (and cooling it quiet! :) ) you need bigger cooler => more expensive cooler.
The performance/price ratio of computer components grows in non-linear manner (geometrically, I think; specialist scarface can calculate its rate more exact). So, we can get the situation, when the price of our power unit and cooling system eats the profit from cheap AMD CPU.
If to talk about Intel - it's way of naming is simplier than AMD if take in mind that they naming processor series, not the cores. In case of AMD CPU core name === brand name. In case of Intel (as correctly said Shadow.97) the main is the processor series (i3, i5, i7), and core name isn't so important. (In fact it is important, but Intel's marketing is so marketing. :) )
@Daniil - When I bought and installed my AMD FX-8350, it included a cooling fan in the box. I installed that fan and I've never had a heat problem - not even when I'm running Diablo III at full power with all the bomb going off and characters moving and shooting. My case has a single 800mm fan. I've never had to buy extra cooling hardware.
Did you say the 2600k, 3770k and 4770k microprocessors have roughly the same performance? That can't be. Who's going to buy a 4770k if a 2600k is just slightly slower?
@Humbert
I have a server case (Intel SE5275E chassis). So I must think about a better cooling than the stock AMD fan. (BTW, now Intel server case is more a trouble then a feature, for example, it have no separate connectors for power & reset buttons and LEDs, but a single floppy-like flat cable...)
As I can understand, each of processors in Intel's range (i3 -> i5 -> i7) is about 15-20% slower between each other. I mean, that i5 is 20% slower than i7, and i3 is 20% slower than i5.
Anyway, brothers, I choose for me an AMD FX-8350. It is cheap, it is 4 GHz, and it have true 8 cores (Core i7 have 4 HT cores).
BTW, I want to make a test, to check one my suspect.
We know, that AMD have true 8 cores, when the Core i7 have 4 cores with Hyper-Treading ability, which means that 8 calculating threads in fact is a fake (in Corei7 there is 4 real threads).
Also, that is indirectly confirmed by the thermal output - Intel processors outputs less heat not because they are so effective, but because they have only half of cores. Smaller number of cores -> smaller heat output.
So, I think that in tests AMD is less effective not because they are really slower, but because there is no software to load all 8 cores.
Now I'm thinking about how to make this experimentation.
Everybody and his brother knows that AMD's selling point is price. Who would buy it if the price were the same? And of couse, AMD-based motherboards are also cheaper. It's my experience that if you don't intend to seriously overclock this thing, the fan that came with the microprocessor does the job perfectly. I have no need to overclock, and even running the most CPU-intensive apps I have, there is no heat problem.
I've also noticed that video-converting software does indeed use all 8 cores - at least in the configuration, choosing all 8 cores is an option. I also looked at Windows Task Manager, it says "4 Cores - 8 Logical Processors". Do you know something about all this that I don't?
Quote from: usmangujjar on May 01, 2014, 12:26 PM
Quote from: humbert on May 01, 2014, 04:01 AM
Everybody and his brother knows that AMD's selling point is price. Who would buy it if the price were the same? And of couse, AMD-based motherboards are also cheaper. It's my experience that if you don't intend to seriously overclock this thing, the fan that came with the microprocessor does the job perfectly. I have no need to overclock, and even running the most CPU-intensive apps I have, there is no heat problem.
I've also noticed that video-converting software does indeed use all 8 cores - at least in the configuration, choosing all 8 cores is an option. I also looked at Windows Task Manager, it says "4 Cores - 8 Logical Processors". Do you know something about all this that I don't?
also i want to know what is meant by logical processors, as my too older pc is saying in Task Manager 2 Logical Processors.
Use sysinternal... more details or aida
Brother Usman,
as is the discussion which one you choose the
Amd (http://tinyurl.com/kao74gh) FX 8350 4GHz octa, core or
Intel (http://tinyurl.com/lvz3gct) i7 3770K
3.5G quad core. and as the consideration Price? or necessity?
The price more lower AMD of course in my country $100 lower...
Quote from: usmangujjar on May 01, 2014, 06:41 PM
Quote from: iih on May 01, 2014, 01:34 PM
Use sysinternal... more details or aida
Brother Usman,
as is the discussion which one you choose the Amd (http://tinyurl.com/kao74gh) FX 8360 4GHz octa, core or Intel (http://tinyurl.com/lvz3gct) i7 3770K
3.5G quad core. and as the consideration Price? or necessity?
The price more lower AMD of course in my country $100 lower...
brother Ismet, i'll not choose anyone, i have no money for computer purchasing,,,,
Don't so like that, we're not talking about the money, it's just for the consideration
Ok let i choose for you take it easy, i will choose for you AMD FX 8350 8 core, here the price roughly $215
why i choose AMD for you..I see you oftenly and having talent in graphics work.. and office also encoding
and rendering of video.etc..for me of course certainly i choose intel i7 3770K even just have 4 core
because i'm game enthusiast with high graphics and i don't need 8 core no software runs in 8 core..
how is my choices? he.he.he.. please don't mind if my words not so nice. :)
DON'T BUY OEM AMD PROCESSORS IN ANY CASES !
I bought one today to built my new system. It was in dark polythene pocket. I opened it when I built my PC, tried to install it to socket, but it don't want to fall down into socket pins.
I turn it over, and saw that copper legs from one side was bent, and one of them was broken away.
I think it's because it was transported to store in that damn pocket, not in solid package. Also, it looks like it is no way to interchange it - I wrote the appeal letter to store, but I don't think it could help...
Damn. That was 250$. :( :'(
Brothers, If you ever buy AMD's OEMs, don't believe the good package - torn it apart and check the CPU... but the better way is buy BOX versions.
To daniil: this Is probably something You could have bought to retailers in your village, there must be at least one seller in St Petersburg. For fragile components, its better to go into a shop. That's what I did when I bought my hard drive (a borrough Is dedicated to computer shops in Paris 12) Anyway Im like Usman, I keep my device, even if its old and broken (screen Is dead, faulty contact in the power cable...) because I customized it (lot of ram, fast hybrid hd).
And you know, even if you had the money Usman, perhaps you wouldnt change your computer. Don't forget that "the things you own end up owning you". whats important Is not what you have but what you can do with it. Thats why Im not even planning to change my old laptop.
For information I also have an AMD, the old P320 2.1ghz (dual core). In 2010 it was already a cheap cpu.
Thank you all for your understanding and support, brothers! I resolved the problem - after writing a letter and a voyage in the central office of reseller company, I get my money back, and buy the same processor in another shop.
Installed it, all works fine.
@scarface - I named this shop "a store" under effects of my emotions.:) In fact this is a shop - one of the shops of "Ulmart" shop network. Ulmart is one of 3 great computer/gadget shopping networks, presented in St.Petersburg (Here is "Ulmart", "KEY" and "Compumir" shops, which are selling computers, software, hardware and different gadgets like a smartphones).
I undestand you very good when you talking about keeping old computer "till it will be done". That's wise way, and I really agree with you (why change things which is working good? My cell phone for work is 5 y.o. Nokia1110 with black-and-white screen, and I see no reasons to change it). But you should also understand me.:) I don't "running after the trend". I have some tasks where my old dual Xeon wasn't so fast as I want. (That is Siemens PLM CAD system, Adobe Premiere, Blender and Unity 3D). Also, I'm enthusiast, I want to test AMD, I want to check my thoughts about architecthure and train my brain in optimising modern AMD system.
@Usman - I can repeat to you all I said to specialist Scarface. :) As about your question about logical cores - I'll answer it later.
All CPU's I've bought were boxed and with a cooling fan, even a warning that not using the enclosed cooling fan will void the warranty. The only "strange" one's I've bought say "black edition". I don't know what this means, but I do know I've never had a problem. Also, with the enclosed cooling fan I've never had an overheating problem, not even running the most processor-intensive apps. I've found that with AMD, only if you plan on some serious overclocking do you need to invest in a better cooling fan. Otherwise no need, my FX-8350 cost me $199 - fan included, no heat issues.
Here's a question. Some of you keep saying nothing supports 8 cores. Why then does Ultra Video Joiner in its menu prompt for the number of cores to use, and all 8 cores is one of the choices it gives me. If nothing supported all 8 cores, this program wouldn't even see them, let alone use them.
The time to upgrade a computer (or anything else) is when it can't do what you want it to do. If that's not the case, obsolencence is a state of mind. Mine hasn't reached that point yet.
Quote from: humbert on May 03, 2014, 04:13 AM
All CPU's I've bought were boxed and with a cooling fan, even a warning that not using the enclosed cooling fan will void the warranty. The only "strange" one's I've bought say "black edition". I don't know what this means, but I do know I've never had a problem. Also, with the enclosed cooling fan I've never had an overheating problem, not even running the most processor-intensive apps. I've found that with AMD, only if you plan on some serious overclocking do you need to invest in a better cooling fan. Otherwise no need, my FX-8350 cost me $199 - fan included, no heat issues.
Here's a question. Some of you keep saying nothing supports 8 cores. Why then does Ultra Video Joiner in its menu prompt for the number of cores to use, and all 8 cores is one of the choices it gives me. If nothing supported all 8 cores, this program wouldn't even see them, let alone use them.
The time to upgrade a computer (or anything else) is when it can't do what you want it to do. If that's not the case, obsolencence is a state of mind. Mine hasn't reached that point yet.
Black editions is easier/better to overclock I believe.
"Black edition" is a processors with unlocked ratio. I.e., with extended ability to overclock. They also have better reliability, because they must survive after overheating and other overclockers activities.
@Usman
You can read about logical cores in wikipedia article "Intel's Hyper-threading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading)". If to explain simplified, we can represent an HT CPU as an oven with two bakers near it. Oven produce bread only when baker puts a dough into it, but - baker can't put dough always (he must make dough, take out ready bread, sleep sometimes, and so on...) So oven brings profit only at half of its working time. A solution is - to hire one more baker. While one baker sleeps, other making bread.
Intel's HT CPU is the same. It have one real processing core, invisible to operating system ("an oven"), and 2 logical cores - visible to system "threading units" (an electronic devices, each of which can store a state of incoming commands and throw them into processing core when it reports that it is free). This cores is, in our model, "a bakers".
Does the OS address logical cores or hyperthreading units to do parallel processing, i.e., each one takes a part of the problem? I hope I'm making myself clear.
@humbert
Quote from: humbert on May 07, 2014, 01:13 AM
Does the OS address logical cores or hyperthreading units to do parallel processing, i.e., each one takes a part of the problem? I hope I'm making myself clear.
This is just partially correct, in this case this is quasi-parallel processing. Because physical core in fact is only one.
As I can understand from my expirience, this trick works fine only if we have high frequency CPU with low frequency RAM. For example, NetBurst-based Pentium 4 @ 3 GHz with slow DDR1 400 MHz RAM. I.e., when we have a big idle time between calculation tasks, provided by OS. In this case we can get up to additional 50% of performance. If the RAM is faster, an idle "gaps" between the requests of OS becomes shorter, and performance gain lowers.
@Usman
You're welcome, comrade! :)
I need the opinion of the specialists (iih, shadow97...) : what do you think of the AMD Quad-Core A4-5000 (HP Pavilion 15-n253nf)?
You know that I have a very old computer. It's still working though, even if the screen is dead (a secondary screen is plugged in). Ive searched and the prices are higher than I thought. the Lenovo ThinkPad T500 is the cheapest I found, but it's a bit oudated. I think I'm going to wait.
you can buy it(web browsing,word,excel etc) or else buy lenovo g500(I use) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lenovo-G500-15-6-inch-Laptop-Integrated/dp/B00HR6U4DS
With HP u have dual gfx while g500 has intel hd 2500.
I use Pentium M Dothan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M#Dothan) (2004) on my last 4 laptops. It is still powerful enough for all my needs. Many new Pentiums and Celerons are sh*** small-core Atom CPU (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2040401/intel-shifting-celeron-pentium-chips-to-atom-architecture.html) now anyway and give me worse score in CPUmark99 (http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2057154) (single thread) than Pentium M - lol. :D :P
ninaholic, welcome.
I can't say that Intel CPUs is s[beep]it today, big Core i7 is good. They are much powerful than any AMD.
But I prefer the AMD, because their marketing policy is more comfortable to me (If I want buy new CPU, I shouldn't replace half of PC, and they are much, much cheaper).
And, after all, main and most powerfull part in modern PC is not the CPU, but videocard.
UPD:QuoteMany new Pentiums and Celerons are sh*** small-core Atom CPU now anyway and give me worse score in CPUmark99 (single thread) than Pentium M - lol.
This isn't correct test for check the performance of modern CPU, respectable
Nina. Maybe you should check your CPU with УК-ÐЦ ИП1 software? ;D It will show you that Intel Atom is slower than soviet КМ1801Ð'Ðœ2 CPU. :) Because it can't use well modern CPU instructions and extensions, same as CPUMark99 can't.
Certainly one big reason people buy AMD is precisely because the price is right. I've been using AMD forever and honestly my experience has always been positive. My FX-8350 runs like a champ, so much so that I see no reason to upgrade my desktop for at least another 3 years. Also, I'm using the stock cooler with came with the CPU and so far I have never had a problem, not even when running CPU-intensive apps. Of course I don't overclock - if I did then I'd invest in a better CPU cooler. Use AMD with confidence.