Noob Question about AMD vs Intel

Okay, so totally noob question, as im not really into the hardware scene that much so i apologize for that, and i'll try to make this as educated and normal to understand as possible.

Intel has the i3, i5, i7 , Now i understand their are different variants of them, like the sandybridge, ect. And AMD on the other hand has the whole vision series, the A series, with the a4 , a6, a8 ?!?!. My question is more or less somewhat like cars.

A toyota corolla would be compared to a ford focus, a chevy camaro would be compared to a pontiac Firebird.. So, could someone either point me to a list of how these different variations of CPU's stack up to one another. AS an example ( just to be more to the point ) ,

Hope that makes sense, Thanks in advance guys.

 

Intel is superior to AMD in every regard, unless you want something really low-powered, and/or don't want a graphics card separate.

 

Pretty much what Tyranids said. Intel destroys AMD in terms of raw CPU performance. The core i has been around for 3 generations. From lower end to higher end i3 , i5, i7. i3s and i5s are dual core and i7s are quad core (minus a few models, you'll know they aren't since they don't end with qm)

First generation was called Arrandale/Clarksfiels and the model numbers go like this core i#-###m or qm. Sandy Bridge is the second generation and models are core i#-2###m or qm, finally Ivy Bridge is the latest and models go along the lines of core i#-3###m or qm. m indicates a dual core and qm indicates a quad core, m for mobile, q for quad.

Most of these CPUs have an integrated graphics processor
Sandy Bridge: HD3000
Ivy Bridge: HD4000

All of which aren't that great for gaming.

AMD CPUs starting with A offer less performance on the CPU side of things, but their integrated graphics processor is better and suitable for moderate gaming.

 

And here's another thing:

From preliminary testing, it appears that AMD's strongest APU (A10-4600m) is about the level of a Sandy Bridge i3. Seeing as how i3s are nominally the weakest of the Intel CPUs, you can do the math.

 

Here's my take on this subject:


AMD's mobile APUs currently offers better integrated graphics performance usually at a lower cost compare to Intel's mobile chips. Even though the CPU side is indeed weaker than many of Intel's CPU, it is by no means useless or inadequate for a lot of people. Most of the times, Intel's CPUs are simply overkill for the tasks many of us do on a daily basis. Some just won't admit it and some just like having the extra power on tap in case they ever need it in the future. Everyday tasks can easily be taken care of by both companies' products. Generally, AMD usually costs less, Intel usually costs more. But, if you are looking for raw performance and benchmark queens than Intel has superior CPUs for many reasons. But remember, speed costs money, money that not everyone can afford to spend or wants to spend. The best thing to do is to assess your situation and determine what it is you want to spend and what your demands and expectations are of the available hardware. We all have different wants and needs not to mention different budgets.


I'll use your car analogy but I'll put my own twist on it. For many people, it boils down to money and egos. Many people want and buy cars like Corvettes or Porsches when all their doing is driving to work or going to the supermarket when a Ford Focus or Toyota Corolla would've done the job just as well albeit costing a lot less. Some people simply have the money to burn and want to be cool in that shiny new and powerful machine so that everyone can see them and how "cool" they are. Sure the higher performance machines can get there faster but considering many things like speed limits and laws you won't be able to use that machine to the fullest as it was designed to. Total overkill in that sense.

Many do not drag race or take their cars to race tracks to really extract every bit of cornering, accelerating, or braking performance they can from those types of high performance machines. I say that many of us do not need a Corvette or a 911 but that we simply want them because maybe we can afford them. Some do and that's great because they could afford to buy them and maybe that's exactly what they wanted/expected out of their machines. Same applies to computers. If you or the task you're doing demands a lot out of your machine and can afford it, then by all means buy the highest performing machine you can possibly buy. Otherwise, you might find that a Toyota Corolla was all you needed to do the things YOU needed and wanted to do!

Comparing an AMD A8 to an Intel i3 (which is an "entry-level" CPU) could be seen as being compared to say an entry level Porsche Boxster. Yea its not the fastest one like a 911 or whatever its called, but it'll still performs quite good. It'll still beat the Celerons and Pentiums so it's not the worst performer of the bunch. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time if you know what I mean.

Also, technology (like cars) is always advancing. What is new and fast today, will be old and slow tomorrow.

Sorry for my long explanation but i hope it gives you a different perspective.

 

It is just like gasoline vs turbo-diesel cars. While Intel offer lots of Horsepower on CPU side, same time has week torque in GPU side. AMD somewhat weeker for Horsepower ( probably cannot notice in general use), but torque is significantly higher than the competition. If you are European probably I do not need to explain how important is high torque when you want pass cars. Same when you want play with games or run something OpenCL program, you need decent class GPU (torque) power.
The funny thing power consumption Intel vs AMD also comparable with fuel milage of Gasoline vs Turbo-diesel. Close to 50% better .

 

AMD realized about 4-5 years ago that it was not able to compete with Intel in the high end market. So they decided to stick with trying to capture the low end market and try to better the Atom, which, I believe, they have succeeded in doing. So if you are looking to purchase an ultrabook, or something in the 13" region, there might be AMD CPUs that would be better unless the manufacturer offers the i5. On the other hand, nothing in the 14" and above region even remotely compares to the Intel chips. Now America isn't really big in the small cars market but in Asia, there are several small cars and the Mercedes A class as well. But no one purchases the A class because the others make better small cars. On the other hand, Mercedes makes better sedans so no one who has over 80 grand will purchase a car made by Ford.

 

That is not quite correct because Brazos already superior of Atom, While Llano and Trinity are going against Core I series.
Also, who else makes better small cars than Mercedes? Because quite even with VW Golf or Audi A3, maybe the new BMW 1 series...

 

AMD has decided to concentrate on a well balanced CPU + GPU in a single package which is a smart move actually. Probably over 90% of users just want to web surf and play "casual" games which requires some 3D horsepower, an area where Intel is lacking and has been lacking in the past. Of course HD 4000 is an improvement, but it still isn't even on par with AMD's previous generation Llano IGP.

Bottom line, if you want an affordable and cool running laptop that is good with pretty much all basic computing tasks, go with AMD. If you need top performance at a much higher price point, then get Intel.

I have been overly impressed with my Llano HP DV6z. But the Trinity has underwhelmed me, at least on paper. Although I'd love to get my hands on a 35W Trinity 13" laptop.

 

I'm not that much better than you, so I won't go into details of the AMD system and make myself look like a jackass, but I just wanted to point out some differences for Intel's i3, i5, and i7. As a previous poster mentioned, there's the i#-#### then either M or QM to signify the difference between mobile, dual-core CPUs from the quad-core CPUs. I would like to add that there's also the U, such as i5-3317U, which signify mobile, Ultra-low voltage, which basically means it's made for ultrabooks and devices that require very low power usage.

From my experience, the i3's are "entry" level and usually don't have any form of turbo-boost functionality where they turn off one of the cores in order to boost the performance of the remaining core if you're not doing any kind of multitasking.

The i5's and i7's get a little convoluted because there is the i5-750 that's a quad-core, although a majority of the i5's are dual-core, and there are i7's that are dual-core, although a majority of them are quad-core. In general, I would say that i7's are generally more power hungry, and in return, a bit more powerful. This is an answer I'm copying from another forum:

i7 9xx & 8xx are quad cores with hyper threading (with turbo)
i5 7xx are quad cores without hyper threading (with turbo)
i5 6xx are dual core with hyper threading (with Turbo)
i3 5xx are dual cores with hyper threading (without Turbo)

I hope I helped a little

 

Including price?

In any event, I think by now there has been enough comparisons so that we all know thats not true. Sometimes its point Intel. Sometimes its point, AMD.

 

Be careful here, you are also mentioning desktop CPUs which complicates matters. For laptops, all core i5 are dual cores. Desktop core i5 are actually quad core without hyperthreading. Intel CPUs not ending with m, qm or U are desktop parts and should be treated independently of laptop parts. The same basic rules still apply in regards to generation and tier of CPUs, but the difference between i5 and i7 are les pronounced in the desktop world.

Laptop:
i3 -> Dual core with hyperthreading, no turbo
i5-> Dual core with hyperthreading and turbo
i7 ending with m (the weird kid on the block)-> Dual core with hyperthreading and turbo
i7 ending in qm and xm-> Quad core with hyperthreading and turbo, xm CPUs also have unlocked multipliers for overclocking.

To add tot he overall mess Intel also has the lower end pentium line which are basically core i3s without hyperthreading.

 

And don't they still have Celeron below even Pentium? They are Pentiums with even more features disabled.

 

Intel has a better CPU. AMD has a better GPU. If you're getting a notebook with discrete graphics, go for Intel. If you're getting a notebook without discrete graphics, go for AMD.

If you don't care about gaming, just go for the cheapest.

 

Incorrectly stated. Rather, they both have advantages and disadvantages depending on application and use.

 

Incorrectly? I think R3d was right on the money with that

Intel is best with CPU performance
AMD is best with IGP performance

 

I'm in agreement with R3d, and I especially agree with davidricardo86's comment on the first page.

Since david's comment pretty much lists everything useful I can think of with comparing AMD v Intel, I will just restate that AMD is the way to go if there's a limited budget and/or no dGPU involved, and Intel if the budget is higher and you actually need all the computing power.

For basic usage, **any** modern CPU will work wonders. Even current-gen Celerons/Pentiums and AMD E-series works well for that.

 

Even a core 2 duo like the P8600 does wonders for internet and MS office.

 

When it comes to laptops, performance isn't AMD's biggest problem - the performance difference between Core i3/i5/i7 and Fusion is hardly even noticeable for casual day to day use.

The difference in battery life, on the other hand, is easily noticeable, not to mention far more important for casual users who don't need super fast laptops, but do need to get through one more meeting.