AMD 10 VS Intel Core i7 [Poll]

[michaelsteele3]

So, I hear there are debates between AMD and Intel Core. I keep hearing about core being head by a few years or so, but I'm not sure. So, I decided to start a poll and see what the community thinks which is the stronger processor. And, which one works better with KSP?

[hotmailcompany52]

The Intel Core i7 will work better because it has more core per core power than the AMD 10 and since KSP is a game that mainly uses one core the Intel i7 would be the best choice.

[michaelsteele3]

The Intel Core i7 will work better because it has more core per core power than the AMD 10 and since KSP is a game that mainly uses one core the Intel i7 would be the best choice.

I already got the computer with i7, no going back

But thanks for replying

[briansun1]

Neither I'd get a the top unlocked i5.

[r4pt0r]

My i7 3770 has been great for all my gaming needs.

[Firov]

I really, really like AMD, and would love for them to succeed in the CPU product space again as they did during the wonderful Athlon 64 era... but, the unfortunate fact is, right now their processors just aren't a match for Intel at the top end, or even the mid-range now that Intel is providing at least equivalent performance per dollar with their newer I5's. Really, AMD is only competitive in the budget/low-end range, and that's mostly due to the their APUs which provide decent graphics performance for an integrated solution.

Core for core, hertz for hertz, Intel processors are simply faster than AMD's best, and usually by a fair margin. Worse still, Intel's processors are vastly more power efficient too, due to Intel's serious advantage in chip fabrication technology. I'd guess that Intel is a minimum of 2.5 to 3 years ahead of AMD at this point, which is bad for everyone but Intel.

At least AMD is still reasonably competitive in the GPU sector, I guess...

Edited February 7, 2015 by Firov

[Elthy]

This question is useless:

Which processors are we talking about? Desktop, mobile, generation etc? i7 and a10 are so extreme unspecific you cant expect a usefull answer...

[Nuke]

eventually we just wont be able to go to a lower process, and the battle will revolve around architecture. id be curious what amd could do at the 22nm process point (or the newer 14nm process).

[Camacha]

Neither I'd get a the top unlocked i5.

This. The i5 is going to give you a lot of bang for your buck. The i7 is typically not faster (or a few percent in the best cases), but costs a lot more. If you do not know why you would need hyper-threading, it is safe to assume you do not need it at all. Only buy an i7 if you know why you would spend the money on it.

Though for KSP you can (at the moment) go for any processor with a good single threaded speed, so most Intel chips. Extra cores will get you very little at the moment. In other games the extra cores tend to be very useful though.

eventually we just wont be able to go to a lower process, and the battle will revolve around architecture. id be curious what amd could do at the 22nm process point (or the newer 14nm process).

That eventually is so broad it says little. When the current traditional processes have been exhausted we might get light or graphene chips. Artificial diamond is an option too. After that quantum computers might start getting useful and who knows what lies beyond that.

So for the foreseeable future and well beyond we will have plenty of processes to sink our teeth in. In the end the universe as we know it will die one way or another, so I guess you are technically correct

Edited February 7, 2015 by Camacha

[LordFerret]

Gave up on Intel ages ago... prefer AMD. FX series & Linux.

[Camacha]

Gave up on Intel ages ago... prefer AMD. FX series & Linux.

I would be good if you could explain why

[Nuke]

That eventually is so broad it says nothing really anything. When the current traditional processes have been exhausted we might get light or graphene chips. Artificial diamond is an option too. After that quantum computers might start getting useful and who knows what lies beyond that.

So for the foreseeable future and well beyond we will have plenty of processes to sink our teeth in. In the end the universe as we know it will die one way or another, so I guess you are technically correct

i mean only to speculate on the differences in architecture performance would be if the two companies were on equal footing in terms of process size. amd has on more than one occasion outperformed intel chips despite intel having the process advantage.

yes there are things you can do with the process other than make it smaller to get better performance. new materials, or perhaps 3d chip design (last i checked intel is already doing 3d transistors, and stacked packages are common in system on chip devices). one of the reasons computers have progressed so well is the scalability of semiconductor fabrication. i have a feeling quantum computing wont follow as progressive a curve as moors law has allowed. there is always going to be a faster computer.

[Camacha]

i have a feeling quantum computing wont follow as progressive a curve as moors law has allowed. there is always going to be a faster computer.

Moore's law is merely an emergent phenomena when you put a couple of factors together. Unless there is some currently unknown intrinsic limitation in physics that slows or halts progress, we will always see a similar progression. The actual current technology is only a minor part of the deal

[cantab]

I've long liked AMD's processors for offering great value, and of course they really got the 64-bit ball rolling thanks to making a backwards-compatible instruction set. I have a Phenom II X3 710 at the moment. But I'm sorry, but right now AMD can't compete with Intel, and I feel the way the current AMD architecture shares floating point units between pairs of cores is bad for gaming, and misleading marketing that doesn't actually help AMD. If they ditch that idea and actually make a core a proper core on their future CPUs I think they'll have something more fit to compare against Intel.

[segaprophet]

I have a 2.8GHz Core i7 2600S Sandy Bridge in my Mac and a 3.4GHz Core i5 3570K Ivy Bridge in my PC and they're both brilliant performers.

I don't have firsthand experience with recent AMD cpus but every AMD-Intel performance comparison I've looked at ends up making AMD look really bad.

[Elthy]

The CPU Part of an i7 is allmost allways faster, maybe except for a i7-Y vs. an Desktop A10. The interessting thing is the integrated GPU, which varries greatly on both sides with different models...

[Iskierka]

These days, Intel is the superior option, but one major point is that at this point, it really doesn't matter. No regular user will do anything to tax more than an entry level i3, or the very lowest end mobile i5. My desktop is still running the very cheapest first generation i7, and that crunches through anything I need it to - the extra power these days is irrelevant. Now that both mainstream consoles have more than 3 cores, we might see improved multicore support in gaming and advantages coming with that, but it's still very unlikely that even a slightly well-made game will tax the CPU at all. The only research you really need to do for selecting a CPU is compatibility and whether you're looking at a funky one that does have significant problems - your decision should likely be more influenced these days by whether the motherboard you'll match with it supports the features you want. Sufficient RAM, number, type and speed of available ports, SATA connections, PCI slots, wireless support, etc.

Intel > AMD, but even AMD >> necessary performance.

[cantab]

I don't think I can agree with that. I don't believe the typical buyer of a desktop computer for the home is a "regular user". Many are gamers, and while a well-made game shouldn't tax the CPU plenty of excellent games aren't well-made, KSP being a shining example. Some will be doing stuff like video editing; they might buy a Mac rather than a PC but either way they want a good chip inside it. Many are just going to be PC enthusiasts who want a system they can fix and upgrade not a sealed device, but they too are not unlikely to do things in software that tax the CPU. Whatever the reason, the typical buyer of a desktop wants performance.

Meanwhile the "regular user" isn't buying a boring, boxy, bulky desktop computer. They're buying a laptop, or a tablet, or a hybrid, or maybe a dead cool looking all-in-one. For their needs sure, an i3 would be excellent, but a great many laptops and tablets have processors much worse than an i3. Intel Atoms are common, underpowered ARM chips on cheap no-name Android tablets are common, and the like. The needs may be less, but it's still no guarantee that everything will meet them.

[Elthy]

KSP is one of the examples why maximum CPU (singlecore) performance is important, i run a i5 3570k @ 4.2 Ghz and i still manage to get 10FPS in KSP with mods...

[LordFerret]

I would be good if you could explain why

I have a personal beef with Intel that goes way back, so I'm biased in that respect. I've found better performance with AMD in some of the applications and projects/tasks I work with; Has nothing to do with playing games, and everything to do with the way data and security are handled. I do not like Windows, I only use it because of business reasons, the people I provide services to use it... although I've been working hard to get them to see the light and move over to Mac at least (which is Linux/Unix-like when it gets down to it). Overall, I think it's just personal choice, both perform well (from what I read), and the performance differences between the two are negligible and not really discernible to the average 'Joe'... IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

I should note that I do have one Windows machine... this laptop (Win8.1), which pretty much was picked up just for KSP.