I have been looking for a new CPU for some time now, and at first i was looking at the Intel Core i7 3820, which is a quad core CPU. But then the Tek Syndicate video comparing it to the AMD FX-8350, which is an octa/8 core CPU, and ever since i have been wondering how it's possible that the i7 3820 can compare to the FX-8350? I know the i7 has 8 threads, but it isn't a true 8 core CPU, like the FX-3850. The FX-3850 also has a higher clock frequency too. So can anyone explain this to me? :)
I chose to post on Tek Syndicate because it's a great community, and i was hoping that the nice people here would give me a serious answer, and not this. I guess i was wrong..
I know this may be a dumb question, but i don't know much about the core technical stuff in a computer. I know what each part is used for and how they are connected, but i don't know how exactly each and every part work. So i'll ask again: Can anyone please explain to me why an Intel quad-core CPU is faster than an AMD 8-core CPU?
Sir/ma'am, it was simply a joke and was not intended to cause offense.
I'm really off on my game today. My apologies. Honestly, I thought this was a thread that was attempting to start up another debate war, as many others have done what you've done here in attempt to do so.
Intel usually has better single core performance and multiple threads on a single core. And it's all about the real-world application of the CPU, not just "is this one faster or better". For a price/performance ratio, especially in video editing builds and 3d modeling PCs, AMD has more cores and higher stock frequencies for a MUCH more respectable price point.
I see. So they aren't using the same technologies for their cores? As i use my computer for gaming, and video editing, and i'm on a quite tight budget, i'll probably be going for the AMD FX-8350 :) Thank you all! I am still waiting for the productivity benchmarks from razethew0rld, where they hopefully test Premiere Pro and After Effects ;)
Intel always sabotage AMD... Cinebench was involved, and I have a felling that they are keep doing it... Could we make a thread about everything that Intel did to sabotage AMD, everything wrong and after that we could try to find what AMD did wrong. If it ever did.
AMD did do some things wrong against cyrix, in the 90s when intel and amd basically worked together along with motherboard manufacturers which lead to most motherboards often not providing enough voltage to cyrix cpus and its clones (IBM) or underclocking them
but other than that AMD hasnt done much bad at all
ATI and Nvidia are both dirty as fuck though with corporate schemes to fix prices
Intel is dirty as fuck... AMD is an angel compared to Intel... Holy shit... Too bad Cyrix died so the 3DFX but hey 3DFX had its own problems inside. Nvidia and ATI were just a nail in the coffin... Anyone remember legendary S3 Graphics... They made that standard with Texture that is basicaly used even today or in modified form.??
Hello everyone I have a question. I am not at all a software guy but I am a tech head when it comes to hardware. What is a "compiler"? What does it actually do? How does it effect a CPU if it is somehow crippled?
Actually S3 is not in Via anymore... Its bought buy HTC I think, that mobile smartphone company, produces smarthphones duh hahaha They do now mobile GP's... Igps what ever for smartphones made by HTC. Or something.
There are so many variables that affect CPU performance that it would make your head explode. But nowadays it primarily comes down to architecture efficiency. There are other things like if the software is optimized for one architecture or another, what clock speeds, RAM speeds, what motherboard you use, single-core vs multi-core performance, instructions per clock cycle, instruction sets and extensions such as MMX, 3DNow!, AMD-V, VT-x, etc.
But yeah, most the design of the architecture. You can verify this by taking a Pentium 4 at 3.0 GHz and comparing its single-core performance against the single-core performance of a Core i7 3970X at 3.0 GHz.