Intel Vs. AMD Smackdown - Is Core i5 the Leader?

IDF Preview: Intel's Developer Forum is just around the corner but we get the goods on what to expect on Intel's latest mainstream processor, and find out what AMD has up their sleeves!

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• idf
• intel
• developer
• forum
• core
• i5
• amd
• eyefinity
• direct
• x11
• improbableinsights
• com

[JackBandicootsBunker]

A single word is enough to scare Intel: FUSION.

Intel needs to buy a GPU manufacturer or create an efficient GPU development department. While AMD is behind Intel in terms of CPU power, they are ahead on APU platforms and cost-saving solutions, and I'm not even gonna mention the top-notch chips being WAY CHEAPER than its Intel counterparts.

Also, Intel should rethink their ARM strategy, their chips are energy-guzzling bitches with worse performance than a Snapdragon.

[Xoog23]

Is it only me or audio is out of sync ?

[USEYAHOO]

companies will have to do a looooot of catch up on the consumer market. GPU drivers and mainboard chipsets must act hand in hand to reduce idle power consumption to preferably 0W and boot and loading times must be minimized to a degree comparable to TV screens/ changing channels xD

Plus downward compatibility (pisses me off I cant play classic games from before 2003 on modern AMD cards (the fuck?) Only because architecture was changed... and drivers fail to emulate. AMD? Intel? dont give a fuck!

[USEYAHOO]

All I care about arnt the companies (greedy Intelfucks and loudmouth AMD who happen to have aquired ATI boohoo) but the overall lifespan, overclocking capability and undervolting. I dont want to waste a lot of energy and money, especially because I can get the same shit on a phone or tablet which runs half a day and costs 5 cents for recharging the battery compared to a desktop that runs 2 graphics cards and a high class CPU which cant be fully used by most programs and needs 1kW PSU.

[JackBandicootsBunker]

@point6000x "Also many applications are more optimized for Intel than AMD." That's AMD's biggest problem so far. Well said.

Bulldozer was too much bragging, I agree. While it's a good processor, it doesn't justify changing the socket and overall architecture just yet. And what you pointed out about its performance is one of the reasons.

[point6000x]

@JackBandicootsBunker It's just the truth that for users Intel CPUs are faster than those by AMD. Also many applications are more optimized for Intel than AMD.

Bulldozer was a complete fail. They announced 50% performance increase but you don't notice much. That's why I'm still on my X6 1090T which is however enough for many applications. It's not that AMD processors are shit but as AMD themselves said - they don't have any fight with Intel anymore.

Lastly: AMD is good, Intel is faster.

[JackBandicootsBunker]

@point6000x I understand you're being guided by benchmarks, but in real-world applications, you can't compare a server chip against a consumer chip. Server chips were designed for other kind of computing. i7s rivals are the FX Bulldozer chips, which are cheaper and albeit inferior, they are so by quite a small margin. I can also say that the 8-core architecture by AMD was, say, rushed a bit?

[point6000x]

@JackBandicootsBunker I'm comparing the best of each company and not in gaming, no but in passmark or other benchmarks.

[JackBandicootsBunker]

@d3adlym00Se777 It's not about megahertz anymore, but pipelines, overclocking, lifespan, software optimization and such.

[JackBandicootsBunker]

@point6000x Wait a minute, you're comparing a HOME PC CPU against a SERVER CPU. Opterons, even in Bulldozer architecture, weren't designed to be gamer CPUs. That's like comparing a Phenom to a Xeon.

[point6000x]

@JackBandicootsBunker i7-3930K costs about 500$ and is way more powerful that the best CPU from AMD the AMD Opteron 6272 which is about 500$ too but has only 68% of the power on 8 physical cores while Intel is using 6 physical and 12 threads.

[Mr123pspfreak]

at 1:45 what the hell is that behind the guy???