[Cialug] Slightly OT, .. AMD vs. Intel

[Prescott Kulow]

AMD has kind of gotten behind from a CPU performance standpoint.  Their 
on-die CPU graphics is much better than Intel's, but when it comes to 
CPU performance, it generally isn't as fast.  From the benchmarks I've 
seen, the dual-core i3 can be faster than the quad-core AMD chips on 
single-threaded apps.  This changes of course if you are running an 
application that can actually take advantage of more than two cores.

Basically, it breaks down like this.
AMD = Less expensive.  Decent multi-threaded performance.  Worse single 
threaded performance.  Good on-die graphics if you want to go that route.
Core i3 = Good single threaded performance.
Core i5/i7 = Good for both single threaded performance and 
multi-threaded performance.  Poorer on-die graphics, but still 
functional if you don't want to play a lot of games.

Of course, it kind of depends on what you do.  Any CPU manufactured in 
the past few years is probably fast enough for my purposes, and I would 
suspect that would be true for a lot of other people as well.  So it 
probably isn't even worth it to worry about it.  If you like AMD, buy AMD.





On 1/18/2012 9:31 AM, L. V. Lammert wrote:
> We have long favored the underdog AMD, .. but they seem to have fewer 
> and fewer offerings in built systems. Seems like for the price of a 
> quad0-core AMD you get a dual-core i3.
>
> Does anyone have any experience with real performance differences? Is 
> the Intel premium that high (i.e. dual core vs. quad core), or is 
> Intel that much more powerful?
>
>     Lee
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug