The amount of cores and speed of the processor isn't useful for comparing power at all.
For example, the i7 is able to accomplish much, much more per cycle than the 8350. This means that you'll get more performance, even though there are less cores and less cycles per second. The only way to truly compare processors is to look at benchmarks that have been done.
The amount of cores and speed of the processor isn't useful for comparing power at all.
For example, the i7 is able to accomplish much, much more per cycle than the 8350. This means that you'll get more performance, even though there are less cores and less cycles per second. The only way to truly compare processors is to look at benchmarks that have been done.
Even then there may be things that either are better for, despite overall better performance, like IIRC the FX is far better for programs that are optimized for multiple threads which is wonderful for certain types of workstations.
Even then there may be things that either are better for, despite overall better performance, like IIRC the FX is far better for programs that are optimized for multiple threads which is wonderful for certain types of workstations.
Benchmarks are the only true judge.
For singlethreaded:
Pretty much always the Intel.
For multithreaded:
They're better than i5s. They are about equivalent to the standard i7s. They're blown away by the Sandy-E/Ivy-E i7s.
Not to mention they're power hogs. Benchmark wise, an 8 core AMD will get beaten by a newer quad intel most of the time, except for heavily threaded applications. Any Intel above that will destroy the amd's best any day of the week. AMD fell out of the flagship race years ago but they make do nowadays by providing good values in the lower end.
Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme
3.3GHz
6 cores
$849.99
BUT
AMD FX-8350
4.0GHz
8 cores
$189.99
Why are AMD CPU's EXTREMELY less expensive for more power? Why would I pay almost 1k when I could pay 200$? Is it because Intel is the apple of CPU's?
For example, the i7 is able to accomplish much, much more per cycle than the 8350. This means that you'll get more performance, even though there are less cores and less cycles per second. The only way to truly compare processors is to look at benchmarks that have been done.
"Programmers never repeat themselves. They loop."
Even then there may be things that either are better for, despite overall better performance, like IIRC the FX is far better for programs that are optimized for multiple threads which is wonderful for certain types of workstations.
Benchmarks are the only true judge.
For singlethreaded:
Pretty much always the Intel.
For multithreaded:
They're better than i5s. They are about equivalent to the standard i7s. They're blown away by the Sandy-E/Ivy-E i7s.
"Programmers never repeat themselves. They loop."