Intel vs AMD

[Chewy509]

Hi Guys,

I'll start by stating this is not an attempt to start a flamewar, but more of an interest in the current Intel vs AMD situation, particularly at the higher end of the scale.

With the buzz of Haswell now out, most are building Haswell based systems. However is anyone here building AMD based systems based in the FX-83xx series? While the FX-83xx doesn't have the same raw performance as the Intel SB/IB/HW offerings at the top end, price competitiveness at similar performance at the mid level favours AMD. Or is this more about quality of the motherboard as well? The CPU might be good, but you need to spend $$$ on a decent board, in which case it's cheaper just to get an Intel CPU and motherboard combination anyway.

I certainly see extreme value in the AMD A6/A10 APUs at the lower and mid range, decent CPU coupled with excellent gfx, but was wondering about the level above that? Or is no-one buying at the upper-mid level anymore? Heading straight for the top end stuff?

Part of this is also looking at my next upgrade. While my current system still suites my needs, it's now 3.5yrs old and worried about hardware failure and would like at least a plan on what to do if there is a failure. (I would upgrade the RAM and to a SSD, but for the price of just a RAM upgrade I can get a new system and still doesn't negate a 3.5yr old CPU, motherboard, PSU).

As I said, more out of interest than anything.

PS. The AMD FX-9590 has a turbo mode of 5GHz...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7066/amd-announces-fx9590-and-fx9370-return-of-the-ghz-race

 

[CougTek]

The performance per thread of AMD's processors sucks. Unless you're heavily multi-threading, you're going to have a better user experience with Intel's hardware currently (when compairing the FX-8350 to Intel's i5). Plus, the AMD platform generates a lot more heat than the comparable Intel platform. For someone like you who lives in a hot climate and pays to be cooled down, a power-hungry system shouldn't be too appealing.

I only have one AMD system now and it's only because I had spare parts. Not too long ago, I sold a lot of Athlon II systems, but now, I don't see the point to go the AMD way. Since I no longer have a shop, I'm no longer interested to sell cheapo boxes and at the middle-to-high-end segments, AMD has no place until they severely revamp their offerings.

 

[Mercutio]

I think Intel has better standards for motherboards. I also appreciate that Intel has inexpensive boards of its own, but a good while back Tannin made a remark that Intel boards don't really have the good sense to die. And they don't. At least, not very damned often. I just retired dozens of C2D systems. In five years I saw a total of five failed boards and at the end of their service I was aware that a couple more had specific issues with, say, one set of USB ports.
With Intel-branded boards leaving the market, I'm probably going to have to reevaluate at some point, but my long-term experience with the Intel side of things suggest that systems are better off with an Intel chipset regardless.

I do think there's a reasonable value proposition in getting ATI graphics with an AMD CPU, but not to the point where I'd be willing to forsake per-core execution speed. We just don't do enough with GPU to make the trade off for any but $400 home systems.

 

[timwhit]

I don't know the specific numbers, but didn't the Haswell CPUs significantly enhance the GPU performance for Intel onboard video?

 

[Mercutio]

I don't know the specific numbers, but didn't the Haswell CPUs significantly enhance the GPU performance for Intel onboard video?

"It depends." The speed of the Haswell IGP is supposed to be around the same as the nvidia GT640 or AMD 6670 at the top of the food chain, but to get that sort of graphics power, you're talking about having a high-end (mobile?) i7.

 

[sdbardwick]

Expanding a bit on Merc's comment: The desktop-oriented SKUs get a minor boost, while the embedded/mobile get huge boost. The top-end mobiles get (essentially) 128MB L4 cache, which can help with both video and CPU performance. Oh, the top-end mobile has a projected cost of $650+ (so we won't be seeing many of those...)
Anandtech has a lengthy article with more detail.

 

[timwhit]

Do you have a link that shows how each Haswell CPU compares? I tried to find it but all I find is how fast the fastest i7 is.

 

[sdbardwick]

From the article above

 

[Mercutio]

Oddly enough, I find a lot of embedded images that are from Intel press releases and not much of anything from anyone else. Wikipedia has a nice table listing what CPU has which IPG, but you can safely assume that most of what will be sold will be from the GT2 line, which is supposed to be in line with the GT630 rather than GT640.

 

[LiamC]

Given that Haswell is at best, 5 to 15% faster than Ivy Bridge, and in a lot of cases only a little bit better than Sandy Bridge, you can extrapolate from any Sandy/Ivy article. Just go a model down compared to the previous gen or two. Multi-threaded performance shows the most gain. Single thread, hardly any.

This article has some nice comparison to older processors (page 14)

http://techreport.com/review/24879/intel-core-i7-4770k-and-4950hq-haswell-processors-reviewed

 

[P5-133XL]

The benefits of Haswell over previous chips is power usage much more than performance. For desktops, power is likely to be relatively insignificant but for mobile platforms it is likely to be all-important.

 

[LiamC]

Agreed, but very few people build there own laptops So power is likely to be of lesser consideration.

 

[LiamC]

And back on topic, I am thinking of an AMD 8320 build at the moment. But it will be used as a VMware box, so it's a specific use-case. In this case, the AMD build should work out significantly cheaper than a VT-d enabled Intel build. Even finding all the requisite parts for a IOMMU support on the Intel side is enough to make your head hurt.

As an aside, my son is using an Athlon X4 635, and I see no reason to upgrade it. It's more than fast enough.

 

[Tea]

The sky has fallen in!

Tannin has been selling Intel kit for more than a year now! I couldn't believe it - he has always loved his AMD stuff and never really cared for Intel stuff at all. Well, not since the Pentium M (which was good for notebooks) and the 486DX/2-66 (which was a humdinger in its day). And he thinks Intel chipsets are grossly overrated.

So why the change? What is the key performance difference? I put the question to him and he just shrugged and said "who cares?" Well, to be honest, he's right. Who does care? Any CPU you can buy today is probably fast enough for any sane person. Hell, Tannin's cost-no-object desktop machine with a mountain of 3TB hard drives so big you couldn't fit them into Mercutio's sack, runs a lowly Pentium Um. (Pentium Um - you may not have heard of it. It's a very cheap little dual-core thing that you use for your granny's system. Pentium G630, Tannin says, not that it matters. The point is, he couldn't see any reason to put anything bigger in that unit. It never, ever does anything where an i7 or equivalent AMD would make a noticeable difference. The only reason it has even that CPU is 'cause we needed a motherboard with more SATA ports and it was easier to swap out the whole thing. The old one was an AMD dual core of some sort and effectively indistinguishable from the new one. The main workshop system has an Athlon 64 265 or something. We can't remember and we don't care.

So why the change?

 

[Tannin]

Why the change? Simply, 'cause my favourite wholesaler carries the Intel parts in stock and has to order the AMD in just for me. They are very organised and very quick so I still get fast delivery whichever one I ask for, but it's easier for them to sell the one they have in stock. They are fantastic about going the extra mile when I want something weird and difficult, so I try to make life easy for them by ordering crappy Intel parts from day to day 'cause if truth be told the AMD ones aren't any better anymore and no-one can tell the difference so why not?

My new Thinkpad, on the other hand, is an i7, for two reasons: (1) Photoshop is a horrible dog which needs all the help it can get, and (2) it won't get upgraded for a long time, so it's wise to buy bigger rather than smaller.

 

[Chewy509]

Having just read a lengthy review on HardOCP on Haswell, there doesn't seem a lot in Haswell for the desktop user who already has SB or IB. As Liam said, 5-10% at most... Is it worth it for the cost of a new motherboard as well? Reading Kyle's comments on [H], he doesn't seem overly impressed with Haswell as all, yes it's faster but not enough to migrate to it unless you're on an older system. For those on SB/IB save your money and get a new GPU or SSD.

Tannin, I've noticed a lot of retailers only stocking Intel stuff as well, or only keeping a minimum number of AMD parts in stock... I guess they are only stocking what people are buying...

 

[Mercutio]

We don't need faster desktops. That's the beginning and end of the story. Some few of us might benefit from having more cores (content creation) but anything that's north of 3GHz that's been paired with an SSD and 4GB+ RAM is probably fast enough for everything but edge cases. Intel at least has managed to create enough differentiated SKUs that people who want the fastest, most-cores and full feature sets are stuck buying Xeons anyway.

Graphics are no longer an issue except for scientific computing. They're so fast now that high end stuff has to be compared across three screens worth of pixels to differentiate a $500 product from a $1000 one. Instead all the work is (rightly) being done to bring parity to the APU. PC gaming graphics are a total non-issue since all progress is about to take a five year hiatus due to a new console generation.

So what does that leave for desktops? They're repairable and they're expandable and there's next to zero margin to be found in selling one. Intel is inexpensive enough and fast enough even for the low end product (Pentium Gwhatever), and it brings less heat and noise to the tablet where AMD just brings graphics to the four people who need that and more "real" cores to the four other people who want that but for some reason don't want to look at Intel. It's tough to make the argument for AMD given the parameters of reality as it stands.

 

[Chewy509]

I also think this should raise another question, are we seeing the end of performance improvements per core in desktop computing?

Intel is now using a 22nm process on the CPUs, with a 14nm on the roadmap... but at 14nm the distances in trace width and gap width is now measured in atoms? (30 silicon atoms = 14nm). So either we are going to see new materials or techniques to improve the reduction in process size and thus increase in performance. (For those that don't recognise why smaller processes are better: the smaller the process, the smaller the transistor, the more transistors can be packed into the same area, which mean less distance for electrons to flow between transistors, which means faster switching speeds which means faster CPUs).

While we can go wider (128bit ALUs in CPUs or more cores), the benefits are not as they once were...

 

[Adcadet]

For a while now I really liked TechReport.com. But same basic message as [H].

 

[jtr1962]

I also think this should raise another question, are we seeing the end of performance improvements per core in desktop computing?

I assume you mean improvements due to architecture changes? To me it seems that way. Haswell is only marginally faster than SB or IB for most things. You have AVX2 which doubles floating point performance but I'll guess nothing except benchmark software is taking advantage of that right now. Unless Intel has more architecture changes up its sleeve eventually AMD will probably catch up in performance per core, assuming it survives. After that, the only thing you can do is increase clock speed with smaller transistors or add cores. For what most people do with their machines I'm not seeing much advantage going over 4 cores. Eventually even problems which are highly parallel have to wait, and more cores doesn't help. What we have then is roadblocks for both paths to making CPUs faster. I'm not sure we can get much under 14 nm but I'd love to be proven wrong.

I think Merc is right. The only people who need faster desktops at this point are outliers. Frankly, my old Athlon XP 2500 was still fast enough for 95% of what I did. I actually needed more graphics capability than more CPU capability when I upgraded. I think the big thing in CPU development henceforth will indeed be to bring APU capability to the point where the only people who actually need separate graphics cards are outliers. Indeed, that's the only reason I went with AMD. Intel graphics at the time I upgraded just wasn't good enough. When looking at the total power budget of a separate graphics card and Intel CPU, versus an AMD APU, I came out ahead with AMD. In fact, idle power was a concern, and most graphics cards still draw a considerable amount of power even when you're doing nothing with your system. My system idles at under 25 watts from the wall without the hard drives. That's why I went with AMD. If I were to build a new system now, the choice would be harder but I might still go with AMD just based on cost. The Intel 4600HD graphics are more or less as good as those in the A10-5800K, but the i7-4770K costs considerably more, even if it makes up for much of the difference in better CPU performance. In any case, I think AMD still has a niche in the budget market but Intel is almost there as far as making the GPUs in their lowest cost APUs "good enough" for the vast majority.

I wonder if we'll eventually see an end to desktops as "good enough" CPU and GPU capability eventually makes its way into things like tablets? After all, with a few wireless connections for keyboards or mice, you could probably use a tablet just like you use a regular desktop. Stick the tablet on a stand, connect the mouse and keyboard, and you essentially have a desktop without the box. Maybe the next big market is tablets with larger, ultra-high resolution screens (i.e. 20" to 24" and 200+ dpi)?

 

[P5-133XL]

I had an argument with several others because I contended that a P4's + 2GB RAM + SSD (optional, but it does improve the user experience) & modern graphics card was fast enough that most people doing the web or office work would not be able to distinguish that machine from a high-end i7 for those activities. The public has been brainwashed to believe they need newer and faster but in actuality, they do not for the vast majority of the work they do. The web is slow even for a P4. All that is really needed it to be able to off-load the graphics to a good GPU. Office work is totally I/O bound and a faster CPU will never be noticed. Really the only noticeable limitation is the 2 GB because some people multi-task and need more ram to store all the active tasks.

The gain in process size should just go to integrated graphics, power usage and price (especially price). More CPU performance is totally irrelevant to the vast majority of uses. That is not to say that there isn't a small minority that need more CPU capability but I would contend that most of that market can be dealt with by multi-processor MB's or off loading to GPGPU's as opposed to faster CPU's.

 

[jtr1962]

I had an argument with several others because I contended that a P4's + 2GB RAM + SSD (optional, but it does improve the user experience) & modern graphics card was fast enough that most people doing the web or office work would not be able to distinguish that machine from a high-end i7 for those activities. The public has been brainwashed to believe they need newer and faster but in actuality, they do not for the vast majority of the work they do. The web is slow even for a P4. All that is really needed it to be able to off-load the graphics to a good GPU. Office work is totally I/O bound and a faster CPU will never be noticed. Really the only noticeable limitation is the 2 GB because some people multi-task and need more ram to store all the active tasks.

The gain in process size should just go to integrated graphics, power usage and price (especially price). More CPU performance is totally irrelevant to the vast majority of uses. That is not to say that there isn't a small minority that need more CPU capability but I would contend that most of that market can be dealt with by multi-processor MB's or off loading to GPGPU's as opposed to faster CPU's.

Totally agree. In fact, for most people who have a system which is less than about 7 or 8 years old, and still working well, I might recommend they buy an SSD before even thinking about upgrading. Often just doing that will give an old machine new life. If it doesn't, they can always use the SSD in their new machine.

I do think though that 2 GB of RAM can be somewhat limiting. Just doing heavy browsing with a dozen windows open can consume 2 GB. I used to have 3 GB in my XP 2500 machine. While it was adequate most of the time, a few times I started getting close to using all of it. I think 4 GB is enough for anyone who does nothing but web browsing and office work. Most systems made in the last 5 or 6 years can support at least 4 GB of RAM. That said, for anyone building a brand new system, I usually recommend they go with 16 GB. It future proofs the system, and it's not terribly expensive to go with 16 GB instead of 8 GB.

 

[Handruin]

I agree also for desktop users. I'm finding it difficult to justify any kind of upgrade from my Core i7 860 Lynnfield CPU to a Haswell-based i7. Sure, it's faster, more efficient, etc, but my machine is still perfectly good for everything I do. I read the rumors of the Haswell-E series with 6 and 8 cores and DDR4 that may come in 2014 and that seems like a fun upgrade. I doubt I really need that much processing but I do appreciate and enjoy the newer faster Core i7 systems over what mine is capable of but I could easily put a new stride in its step with an SSD upgrade and a little more RAM.

 

[Handruin]

Why the change? Simply, 'cause my favourite wholesaler carries the Intel parts in stock and has to order the AMD in just for me. They are very organised and very quick so I still get fast delivery whichever one I ask for, but it's easier for them to sell the one they have in stock. They are fantastic about going the extra mile when I want something weird and difficult, so I try to make life easy for them by ordering crappy Intel parts from day to day 'cause if truth be told the AMD ones aren't any better anymore and no-one can tell the difference so why not?

My new Thinkpad, on the other hand, is an i7, for two reasons: (1) Photoshop is a horrible dog which needs all the help it can get, and (2) it won't get upgraded for a long time, so it's wise to buy bigger rather than smaller.

What's crappy about the Intel parts? They've been making some of the best CPUs for many years now. AMD CPUs seem to be the one lost in the market with their inefficient design. I haven't even seen an AMD-based server in my work lab for many years now. No one even considers them for new purchases because they're too incapable for the workloads we use and our customers also don't use them so we don't qualify our software performance on them.

 

[Stereodude]

Having just read a lengthy review on HardOCP on Haswell, there doesn't seem a lot in Haswell for the desktop user who already has SB or IB. As Liam said, 5-10% at most... Is it worth it for the cost of a new motherboard as well? Reading Kyle's comments on [H], he doesn't seem overly impressed with Haswell as all, yes it's faster but not enough to migrate to it unless you're on an older system. For those on SB/IB save your money and get a new GPU or SSD.

The x264 developers say Haswell is ~28% faster clock per clock than SB due to various enhancements. That's not exactly chump change, but I recognize in most use cases the differences are small.

 

[mubs]

Handy, Tannin being so quality conscious, I doubt he'd be buying Intel if he really thought they were crappy. I put it down to rhetoric

 

[Tannin]

What's crappy about the Intel parts?

They have actually been quite good these last few years - which, as Mubs says, is why I don't mind selling them. Up until the Core 2 series, Intel's CPUs were way, way off the pace. Much more money for much less performance - all the way through from the Pentium II to the end of the Pentium IV, Intel was the performance loser. Big-time. And dear as poison. But since then, three things have changed: (1) Intel chips now perform well; (2) they are no longer absurdly expensive; and (3) no-one cares about performance now anyway 'cause anything you buy of either brand is probably fast enough.

But it wasn't the CPUs I had in mind when I used the word "crappy". I didn't give the word any particular thought but in the back of my mind I was remembering those dreadful Intel motherboard chipsets and fair-dinkum full-on crappy drivers I used to put up with so unhappily until ... oh ... probably about the same time the Core 2 came along. I forget exactly when we stopped groaning every time a machine with an Intel chipset came into the workshop, but it was probably about then. Is it fair to say "crappy Intel" now? Probably not. But I put up with around 15 years worth of crappy Intel chipsets, and they have only been as trouble-free and pleasant to use as the VIA and Nvidia products for .. oh ... the last five years or so maybe. Not very long anyway. When they have been good for as long as they were bad, I'll stop saying "crappy". Call me in 2023.

 

[Handruin]

They have actually been quite good these last few years - which, as Mubs says, is why I don't mind selling them. Up until the Core 2 series, Intel's CPUs were way, way off the pace. Much more money for much less performance - all the way through from the Pentium II to the end of the Pentium IV, Intel was the performance loser. Big-time. And dear as poison. But since then, three things have changed: (1) Intel chips now perform well; (2) they are no longer absurdly expensive; and (3) no-one cares about performance now anyway 'cause anything you buy of either brand is probably fast enough.

But it wasn't the CPUs I had in mind when I used the word "crappy". I didn't give the word any particular thought but in the back of my mind I was remembering those dreadful Intel motherboard chipsets and fair-dinkum full-on crappy drivers I used to put up with so unhappily until ... oh ... probably about the same time the Core 2 came along. I forget exactly when we stopped groaning every time a machine with an Intel chipset came into the workshop, but it was probably about then. Is it fair to say "crappy Intel" now? Probably not. But I put up with around 15 years worth of crappy Intel chipsets, and they have only been as trouble-free and pleasant to use as the VIA and Nvidia products for .. oh ... the last five years or so maybe. Not very long anyway. When they have been good for as long as they were bad, I'll stop saying "crappy". Call me in 2023.

That's certainly fair. The first Intel multi-core CPUs were a slapped-together joke IMHO and AMD had them by the nads. I wasn't implying all Intel parts were fantastic but more specifically in my mind I think Nehalem (November 2008) and beyond as a major milestone in quality and performance and it's been a constant climb and improvement since then.

In my limited exposure to VIA and Nvidia motherboard chipsets I always felt like they were a pain to work with from a drivers and quality perspective. I'm not saying Intel was any more of a pleasure, but those two other companies also had their issues. Your date of 2023 is spot-on with my feelings that 2008 was an Intel improvement turning point and 15 years past then puts us roughly around your timeline.

 

[Mercutio]

The magic of VIA for motherboards was actually the astonishing uniformity of configuration. Windows only ever needed one driver. Period. Install Hyperion.whatever and everything would work, even if you completely switched CPU architectures. That made maintaining install images or slipstreaming install discs a breeze. Even in modern Intel-land, installing the 6 or 7-series INF updates for one chipset will cause Windows to completely shit itself if it's ever booted on the wrong different platform and moreover I can even have issues because swapping a CPU can cause a cascade of hardware changes now due to GPU and Memory controller configuration.

 

[LiamC]

My HTPC which has done sterling business is an E8400 + GA-G33M-DS2R + Radeon 5670 was giving me grief so I started investigating options for replacing it. I wanted to use the 65W AMD APUs, like the A10 5700/6700 - except the 65W parts have never been available in Aus. If you don't sell 'em, how can I buy 'em?

So I did some investigating and realised that the stuttering HD playback was a memory issue. It's been running fine for nearly five years with 2GB of RAM. Dropped in another 2GB and all is well again. Saved myself some cash I guess. But why aren't the 65W parts available? Are we the red-headed step child of the world? Oh, wait.