AMD Vs Intel
-
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
Why does the much older, less core, less threads, i7 outperform that later and bigger better R7?
Where do you see that? I don't even see it being tested. It's a "quad core" test specifically designed to not show performance, but to make for a useless report. Check overall speed, not a false "if we cripple it and don't actually test it" speed.
So from that test, it sure looks like the AMD is blowing the Intel away. Not just from the numbers you showed (those numbers are produced from 33% of the Intel, but only 25% of the AMD), but also from the fact that people are making these kinds of test just to make false numbers to try to make the Intel look competitive!
That's how slow the Intel is, that this kind of test even exists.
-
After Ryzen, everything AMD released is good. and worth having.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AMD Vs Intel:
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
Why does the much older, less core, less threads, i7 outperform that later and bigger better R7?
Where do you see that? I don't even see it being tested. It's a "quad core" test specifically designed to not show performance, but to make for a useless report. Check overall speed, not a false "if we cripple it and don't actually test it" speed.
So from that test, it sure looks like the AMD is blowing the Intel away. Not just from the numbers you showed (those numbers are produced from 33% of the Intel, but only 25% of the AMD), but also from the fact that people are making these kinds of test just to make false numbers to try to make the Intel look competitive!
That's how slow the Intel is, that this kind of test even exists.
Oh so fake tests.
-
Testing single threaded or limited threaded performance of CPUs is useful only if we aren't talking about normal workloads and you know that your software can't use any modern CPU properly. In which case, none of these processors make the least sense, nor were they set up correctly even for the processors selected. The test is total BS.
If testing single or 6 or fewer thread limits, you turn off HT. They didn't, these are bogus even on just measuring an individual processor.
But the test is designed around 1990s video game workloads, not modern desktops. In the modern office, we expect people to run web browsers, office apps, and such. Even if they still run MineSweeper and some single threaded app, it's just one of many workloads. These tests are designed to ignore that.
The large number of AMD threads is because it is designed around real world workloads, not arbitrary tests. Sure, at some point, no one needs more threads, but for most of us, that's what we need the most. We have lots of open tabs, windows, and apps. Each one uses one or more threads, plus the OS would like a few of its own if they are available. I could use over 20 threads, right now, just for my browsers let alone anything else. A 32 thread processor would not be wasted for me or any of my staff, and we are light IT users.
If you have people running more intensive workloads, that need normally just increases. I'm not saying that procs need to go thread crazy, I'm just saying that testing them in a limited fashion reflects inversely on how they will perform in real desktop workloads.
-
This is a chart that shows CPU value, i.e. performance per $.
It includes CPUs that you can currently buy, so there are older models as well.It's Passmark's CPU benchmark which is just a bunch of different CPU operations like compression, encryption, sorting, floating point math, integer math etc.
It's pretty safe to say AMD is the best value in general.
-
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
@scottalanmiller said in AMD Vs Intel:
@Obsolesce said in AMD Vs Intel:
Why does the much older, less core, less threads, i7 outperform that later and bigger better R7?
Where do you see that? I don't even see it being tested. It's a "quad core" test specifically designed to not show performance, but to make for a useless report. Check overall speed, not a false "if we cripple it and don't actually test it" speed.
So from that test, it sure looks like the AMD is blowing the Intel away. Not just from the numbers you showed (those numbers are produced from 33% of the Intel, but only 25% of the AMD), but also from the fact that people are making these kinds of test just to make false numbers to try to make the Intel look competitive!
That's how slow the Intel is, that this kind of test even exists.
Oh so fake tests.
Yeah. It's a test engineered to promote one proc type over the other. Intel has long tuned their procs for legacy workloads because AMD is so far in front of them for general workloads. Intel has always been better at clock speeds and struggled with architecture, so they leverage that and it is sensible. Intel and AMD focus on different things.
Intel plays heavily towards video game and legacy "single or limited thread" workloads (video games rarely use more than a few, and you don't multi-task while gaming.) These are the big money spenders, anyway.. games and legacy users know that their computers are going to cost way more than normal because of their workloads.
AMD focuses on general case normal office use and normal server use and shines there. That's why in the Forbes test, the Intel was better for the video games (normally) and AMD for the business stuff. And that's still without balancing for actual use. Tests struggle to show multi-tasking performance even when done well. Once the cost was factored, though, AMD would have blown Intel away for every single test, not just the ones where it is tuned for it.
AMD is all about the office worker, the Linux server, and those kinds of things. Intel also went hard into collaboration with Microsoft to push Windows licensing to favour fewer, faster cores to more, slower cores. So while if you test server performance in pure hardware, AMD has long been the favourite. But if you factor in Windows licensing, Intel makes more sense. But if you move to Linux, you go back to AMD.
-
@Pete-S that's an interesting breakdown of how they price them and where the models compare over time.
-
Looking at the test you posted it says that in general benchmarks the Intel 8700K is 8% faster.
Lets just say that that is an indisputable fact without making any assumptions on what the tests actually test.Now it says that the AMD cpu is priced at kr 2594 and the Intel at kr 3311. That's means that the Intel is 28% more expensive.
So you pay 28% more for 8% higher performance - that means that the AMD 2700X is a better pick than the Core i7-8700K.
-
@Pete-S said in AMD Vs Intel:
Looking at the test you posted it says that in general benchmarks the Intel 8700K is 8% faster.
Lets just say that that is an indisputable fact without making any assumptions on what the tests actually test.Now is says that the AMD cpu is priced at kr 2594 and the Intel at kr 3311. That's means that the Intel is 28% more expensive.
So you pay 28% more for 8% higher performance - that means that the AMD 2700X is a better pick than the Core i7-8700K.
Looking at the prices today, it was a lot more than 28% more expensive. Closer to 40%.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AMD Vs Intel:
@Pete-S said in AMD Vs Intel:
Looking at the test you posted it says that in general benchmarks the Intel 8700K is 8% faster.
Lets just say that that is an indisputable fact without making any assumptions on what the tests actually test.Now is says that the AMD cpu is priced at kr 2594 and the Intel at kr 3311. That's means that the Intel is 28% more expensive.
So you pay 28% more for 8% higher performance - that means that the AMD 2700X is a better pick than the Core i7-8700K.
Looking at the prices today, it was a lot more than 28% more expensive. Closer to 40%.
I was going by the screenshot from the test.
Price might vary from day to day and market to market.
I remember a long time ago we bought a couple of HPE servers with E3 Xeons in them and they were so cheap that it was like you paid market price for the CPU and got the rest of the server for free. So if you buy machines (and not CPUs) you should compare the price of the machines against each other, and not the CPU per se. Sometimes you can get a good deal that will skew the results toward an Intel or AMD.
-
@Pete-S said in AMD Vs Intel:
@scottalanmiller said in AMD Vs Intel:
@Pete-S said in AMD Vs Intel:
Looking at the test you posted it says that in general benchmarks the Intel 8700K is 8% faster.
Lets just say that that is an indisputable fact without making any assumptions on what the tests actually test.Now is says that the AMD cpu is priced at kr 2594 and the Intel at kr 3311. That's means that the Intel is 28% more expensive.
So you pay 28% more for 8% higher performance - that means that the AMD 2700X is a better pick than the Core i7-8700K.
Looking at the prices today, it was a lot more than 28% more expensive. Closer to 40%.
I was going by the screenshot from the test.
Price might vary from day to day and market to market.
I remember a long time ago we bought a couple of HPE servers with E3 Xeons in them and they were so cheap that it was like you paid market price for the CPU and got the rest of the server for free. So if you buy machines (and not CPUs) you should compare the price of the machines against each other, and not the CPU per se. Sometimes you can get a good deal that will skew the results toward an Intel or AMD.
Very true. Prices are hidden all over the place.
-
This is another chart that shows CPU performance / $ from the site @Obsolesce used.
It also show that AMD in general gives you the most bang for the buck. -
Yeah these are going to be for office users. So Word Excel Outlook.
Been offered some HP 285 G3 - MICRO TOWER - 1 X RYZEN 3 PRO 2200G
The i5 8500 are £110 more.
-
@hobbit666 said in AMD Vs Intel:
Yeah these are going to be for office users. So Word Excel Outlook.
Been offered some HP 285 G3 - MICRO TOWER - 1 X RYZEN 3 PRO 2200G
The i5 8500 are £110 more.
Yeah, the real question to me would be... why did Intel ever get considered if AMD was available
Just get the AMDs and be happy with the upgrade and thankful that it costs less.
Again, the R3 is more of an i3 killer, but probably going to be really close to that i5, and maybe even better in an office environment.
-
We typically use the AMD A10 in the offices here. Internally and for clients. It's like a low end R3, but with a small build in GPU. Really good value.
-
@hobbit666 said in AMD Vs Intel:
Been offered some HP 285 G3 - MICRO TOWER - 1 X RYZEN 3 PRO 2200G
Why microtower computers? Do you need PCIe slots?
-
@Pete-S said in AMD Vs Intel:
@hobbit666 said in AMD Vs Intel:
Been offered some HP 285 G3 - MICRO TOWER - 1 X RYZEN 3 PRO 2200G
Why microtower computers? Do you need PCIe slots?
Now that we are able to get AMD A10s, we moved to itty bitty little HP EliteDesks. The pricing has been amazing.
-
@Pete-S said in AMD Vs Intel:
@hobbit666 said in AMD Vs Intel:
Been offered some HP 285 G3 - MICRO TOWER - 1 X RYZEN 3 PRO 2200G
Why microtower computers? Do you need PCIe slots?
No reason that's just what was given as a samole. We have been opting for the Dell Micros recently, so will be looking at that in a AMD version HP or Dell
-
@hobbit666 said in AMD Vs Intel:
@Pete-S said in AMD Vs Intel:
@hobbit666 said in AMD Vs Intel:
Been offered some HP 285 G3 - MICRO TOWER - 1 X RYZEN 3 PRO 2200G
Why microtower computers? Do you need PCIe slots?
No reason that's just what was given as a samole. We have been opting for the Dell Micros recently, so will be looking at that in a AMD version HP or Dell
@ysapir gets me amazing deals on the HP AMD units.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AMD Vs Intel:
Yeah, the real question to me would be... why did Intel ever get considered if AMD was available
Just get the AMDs and be happy with the upgrade and thankful that it costs less.
Because that's what the others in the dept "prefer" lol
But yeah going to look AMD for the next order.
Just checking what people's thoughts were on Ryzen compared to i5
.
