Jump to content


AMD versus Intel versus Multi Core versus The Land of Milk & Honey

AMD Intel CPU Multi Core

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6 replies to this topic

Vuurdraak_ #1 Posted 31 March 2014 - 04:10 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20588 battles
  • 380
  • [BNEF2] BNEF2
  • Member since:
    12-14-2012

The ultimate CPU battle guide.

 

I can already tell you that Milk & Honey will win :)

 

 

- There is never a generic answer to what is the best CPU to buy.

 

- If you want to play 3D games on your machine, it's best to spend 30~40% of your cash on your graphics-card and the rest on all the other stuff. As for games the GPU counts the most. As a general rule of thumb a 2x slower CPU will cost you roughly 10% of frame rate on the same graphics card.

 

- If you plan to play games on Linux with Wine-CSMT then you want a CPU with 3 or more cores, preferably 4+. In World of Tanks (30~72 FPS @ max settings) my 4 core CPU is used for 300% (2 cores at 100% and 2 at 50% load). Slowly more and more games are using more CPU cores, getting a 4+ core CPU is slowly getting worth it.

 

- Intel CPU's tend to run with less Watt used then an equivalent AMD CPU with the same calculating powah, AMD CPU's tend to be more cheap to purchase and the motherboards for AMD CPU's are generally (50 Euro) cheaper. That said there are so many CPU models going around, that you should always try to compare multiple CPU's within the price/performance range your looking for. So a CPU+Motherboard that costs 100 Euro less but uses 20 Watts more might balance out after 1 year of 24/7 usage, or maybe more realistic 5 to 10 years of normal PC use. So 20 to 40 watt extra use of power against 100 Euro more cheaper, seems a fair trade off in either way.

 

- Think really hard about what your doing with your PC and how often you use a particular task, most people reading this forum will spend most of their time playing WoT and not rendering video's. If the answer is mostly paying WoT, then go try to compare the CPU's you have selected for a possible purchase with CPU benchmarks performed with WoT.

If you can not find anything like that, try to compare it to other game benchmarks of other games and see how well the picked CPU's perform.

 

- In general CPU's are priced compared to their general performance, with newer CPU's generally being slightly more expensive then an older part. The older part might miss a newer instruction set like SSE4 but that doesn't necessarily mean it will do worse in the application you want to run the most, as this extension is maybe not used at all in your program. Normally for a gaming rig, and if you do not want to spend tons of cash a 80~100 Euro CPU will do the job just fine. Above 150 Euro the CPU's tend to exponentially & dramatically scale performance versus price, at the top the most expensive CPU might give you 5% extra oemph for 200% of the price of another CPU.

 

So is AMD better then Intel or visa versa ?

 

The answer is that both are big businesses that try to get your money, in your local shop or at your friendly web store one day an AMD part might be a better deal for what your looking for and the next day it's an Intel part. Both AMD & Intel try to obfuscate the market by trowing out meaningless performance numbers and weird namings of their CPU's. Sometimes two CPU's that are differently named might actually be almost similar (Like some new Pentiums are basically core i3's), but more often CPU's are given the same name that are internally totally different beasts (Same name different code names CPU's), so never use a CPU that has an almost identical name as the CPU you want to buy to compare benchmarks with, as it might be a totally different CPU.



Yag0 #2 Posted 31 March 2014 - 04:22 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 3168 battles
  • 3,420
  • Member since:
    04-24-2012

Quote

So a CPU+Motherboard that costs 100 Euro less but uses 20 Watts more might balance out after 1 year of 24/7 usage, or maybe more realistic 5 to 10 years of normal PC use. So 20 to 40 watt extra use of power against 100 Euro more cheaper, seems a fair trade off in either way.

 

I thought the increase in power would be one of thermal-management concern rather than fuel usage.



Vuurdraak_ #3 Posted 31 March 2014 - 04:30 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20588 battles
  • 380
  • [BNEF2] BNEF2
  • Member since:
    12-14-2012

It's both, the heat that your CPU expels needs to come from some where (It's mostly the leakage of current that is always used even if the CPU is not calculating anything, that's why CPU frequency is going down close to zero when the CPU is idling regardless if you have power management functions enabled like AMDs cool& quiet), more thermal heat is equivalent to more power usage.

Normally though the difference between AMD & Intel power usage is in peak power, at idle or low usage most CPU's will be just as efficient as their counter part.

 

Current CPU's can not run at a lower voltage then 0.75 volts roughly due to quantum mechanical effects. And as power is always used regardless if there are calculations, power saving functions focus on lowering CPU speed as well as voltage as well as on trying to disable whole parts of the CPU that are not used.

 

My 20~40 watt against 100 euro is just a rough estimate, it differs anyway for every person as power prices might be different etc.


Edited by Aeziz, 31 March 2014 - 04:33 PM.


Yag0 #4 Posted 31 March 2014 - 04:35 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 3168 battles
  • 3,420
  • Member since:
    04-24-2012

Again I thought slightly different.

I see it as power dissipated across the junction capacitance, this is why it occurs during switch and obviously is dramatically reduced with 0 switching.

 



Vuurdraak_ #5 Posted 31 March 2014 - 04:39 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20588 battles
  • 380
  • [BNEF2] BNEF2
  • Member since:
    12-14-2012
Thermal output & real Watt usage might not be completely equal, as you say it depends also on resistance etc. but in general a CPU with higher thermal power dissipation will also use more watt, and they are roughly in step with each other as far as I'm aware.

Yag0 #6 Posted 31 March 2014 - 05:40 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 3168 battles
  • 3,420
  • Member since:
    04-24-2012
They are generally proportional to each other indeed.

Lord_Dominator #7 Posted 09 April 2014 - 04:56 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9986 battles
  • 435
  • Member since:
    10-18-2010

I guess Intel is better for WoT because of the (generally) better single core performance (WoT still doesn't have multi core support).

 

That being said I have an AMD FX-8350 @ 4 Ghz with 8 Gb of DDR3 RAM @ 1866 Mhz and an ASUS Radeon R9 280X DirectCU II Top and I have absolutely no problem running WoT on max settings at 1080p resolution, so I'm happy with my AMD build here :great:






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users