Magic Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Why an Intel i5 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116506) is more expensive then a FX-6100 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103962) when the FX has more cores and more Ghz (Aside from the i5's turbo boost). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youthedog Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Intel is 22nm and has built in graphics. AMD is 32nm and doesn't. Basically Intel is newer technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Posted August 24, 2012 Author Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) Intel is 22nm and has built in graphics. AMD is 32nm and doesn't. Basically Intel is newer technology. Ah ok, thanks. I was just look at parts and didn't know why. *EDIT*- What is nm btw? Is lower nm better? Edited August 24, 2012 by Magic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youthedog Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Nm = nanometer, honestly I don't know how it affects it but all I know is that it's newer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Posted August 24, 2012 Author Share Posted August 24, 2012 Nm = nanometer, honestly I don't know how it affects it but all I know is that it's newer. Oh. Well thanks anyway for answering my question! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^TheRumor^ Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Nm depicts die size of a CPU. A smaller die size (Nm) entails lower operating wattage and heat output. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigma# Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Why an Intel i5 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116506) is more expensive then a FX-6100 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103962) when the FX has more cores and more Ghz (Aside from the i5's turbo boost). i5 vs FX-6100 Different micro architectures each have their own way with dealing information that passes through the processor. FX-6100: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitecture%29 i5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_%28microarchitecture%29 In regards to your cost question, there are a few reasons. 1. Intel, for the most part, are significantly more powerful in the computing market. AMD has an upper hand in the "APU" market because of acquisition of ATI. Smart idea on AMD's part, that being said Haswell will have something to say about the APU market. Back to the main point, Intel can charge more simply because they know that people will spend more for better performance 2. Intel's massive R&D spending: depending on the sources, Intel spends up to 7 billion dollars for just R&D. AMD spends probably more than 2 billion dollars. This makes a huge difference in MSRP when factoring material costs, profit margins, and other associated costs with building a processor. (http://www.ciozone.com/index.php/Editorial-Research/Top-50-Technology-R&D-Spenders/50-Biggest-R.html, this is a citation from 2007 so I don't know how much the landscape has changed since then). As a rule of thumb, Intel's CPUs can generally process more instructions per cycle than any AMD processor. The question remains whether you need all this performance. (well maybe not every, people and their crazy LN2 overclocking feats xD) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Posted August 24, 2012 Author Share Posted August 24, 2012 i5 vs FX-6100Different micro architectures each have their own way with dealing information that passes through the processor. FX-6100: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitecture%29 i5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_%28microarchitecture%29 In regards to your cost question, there are a few reasons. 1. Intel, for the most part, are significantly more powerful in the computing market. AMD has an upper hand in the "APU" market because of acquisition of ATI. Smart idea on AMD's part, that being said Haswell will have something to say about the APU market. Back to the main point, Intel can charge more simply because they know that people will spend more for better performance 2. Intel's massive R&D spending: depending on the sources, Intel spends up to 7 billion dollars for just R&D. AMD spends probably more than 2 billion dollars. This makes a huge difference in MSRP when factoring material costs, profit margins, and other associated costs with building a processor. (http://www.ciozone.com/index.php/Editorial-Research/Top-50-Technology-R&D-Spenders/50-Biggest-R.html, this is a citation from 2007 so I don't know how much the landscape has changed since then). As a rule of thumb, Intel's CPUs can generally process more instructions per cycle than any AMD processor. The question remains whether you need all this performance. (well maybe not every, people and their crazy LN2 overclocking feats xD) Good read. I don't really need all that performance because I don't have the greatest budget and I believe the AMD FX-6100 was a good choice for my build. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tengauge12 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Higher GHz is worse than lower GHz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^TheRumor^ Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Higher GHz is worse than lower GHz. Elaborate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Council Kigen Posted August 25, 2012 Executive Council Share Posted August 25, 2012 Intel > AMD I had my far share of experiences with Intel and AMD processors. Everytime Intel out-performed an AMD processor. Just find an Intel processor in your price range and it'll do very good. p.s., AMD GHz are just bloated. I built a Desktop AMD Athlon 2 X64 Quad-Core 2.6Ghz system that should have out performed an few years old Toshiba laptop with an Intel Core 2 Duo Duel-Core 1.8Ghz. The AMD was very very slow. It takes 10+ seconds just to launch simple programs. Like I said, buy Intel. You'll get the most bang for your buck there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tengauge12 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Elaborate.. umm.. When a processor runs at say 3.0 GHz compared to 2.0 GHz CPU speed is measure in megahertz. A 1MHz CPU can accomplish one million CPU cycles in one second. Does this mean that a 2MHz CPU is twice as fast as a 1Mhz CPU? Not necessarily. This depends on how much work each CPU accomplishes in each clock cycle. The 1MHz CPU might very well be faster, in practice, than the 2Mhz CPU - if it is more efficient or can process more tasks in each CPU cycle 3.0 GHz is able to perform up to 3 billion operations per second. 2.0 GHz is able to perform up to 2 billion operations per second. 3 is 1.5 times 2. A 3 GHz processor is quite fast, a 2 GHz processor is more middle of the road (in about 2 years, it will be bottom end). There's no way to tell the quality of the processor just based on its speed, you need the make and model; then you should google it for reviews, that will give you an idea of the quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^TheRumor^ Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Elaborate.. umm.. When a processor runs at say 3.0 GHz compared to 2.0 GHz CPU speed is measure in megahertz. A 1MHz CPU can accomplish one million CPU cycles in one second. Does this mean that a 2MHz CPU is twice as fast as a 1Mhz CPU? Not necessarily. This depends on how much work each CPU accomplishes in each clock cycle. The 1MHz CPU might very well be faster, in practice, than the 2Mhz CPU - if it is more efficient or can process more tasks in each CPU cycle 3.0 GHz is able to perform up to 3 billion operations per second. 2.0 GHz is able to perform up to 2 billion operations per second. 3 is 1.5 times 2. A 3 GHz processor is quite fast, a 2 GHz processor is more middle of the road (in about 2 years, it will be bottom end). There's no way to tell the quality of the processor just based on its speed, you need the make and model; then you should google it for reviews, that will give you an idea of the quality. Many factors influence computing power of a processor, not just frequency. Your previous post was quite vague, which is mainly why i asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tengauge12 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Of course.. Especially a Power Supply =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.