Intel VS AMD, who wins in history?

For a long time, the fight between cheaper or faster, or more reliable processors has always been on the agenda between AMD and Intel. Today, however, Intel has managed, through current processors, to advance and much in terms of processing and electrical consumption, and, so to speak, heat emission.

A Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad processor, for example, even if it has its top-of-the-line models that go beyond new i3 and i5 processors and even some i7, even 3rd generation, consume much more energy than the new ones platforms.

Even if there is a motherboard with 2 Core 2 Quad Extreme for example, it could even reach the processing power of a third or fourth generation Core i7 smoothly, but the electrical consumption would be higher.

How can an old processor be as fast as the current ones?

Simple, Intel no longer discloses the number of transistors inside each processor from the "i" line, so as not to reveal the real processing power, but some models of the old platform are as fast as, and, as some know, there is no bus bottleneck on the motherboard, as all memory controllers, DMA, and other features are present on the motherboard's chipset, not on the processor, so a GTX on a computer with an "old-fashioned processor" can still run good games.

Let's go to the details, you want to build a machine, but you want to save a lot of money, but is it to play? And many people say that AMD is better, right? On the one hand, yes, mainly because AMD also depends on the motherboard to run resources, and it also doesn't have this bus problem.

What affects most games, for sure, is its RAM memory (DDR3, dual-channel) and the version of the PCIe bus that your motherboard supports, on platforms that do not have a controller integrated into the processor (all, except all of the line "i").

It does not make sense to have a GPU needing some data and instructions from the CPU just for programming issues not optimized by the programmers, needing a direct interruption to the RAM memory, and this also passing through the CPU.

All software executable on a machine, needs a space in traditional RAM to be executed, the area where the execution binary code is, needs to be resident in this memory, it is not in the RAM memory of the video card. This contains video information, not programming, unless of course, processing information based on OpenCL or Cuda; but the program itself, the "exe", needs RAM memory, and if there is DMA (Direct Memory Access), the delivery of data to the video card, without going through the CPU avoids bottlenecks, and increases the FPS (frames per second).

We know that from the moment Intel integrated more features (previously present on the north bridge of the motherboard chipset) into its own processor, it guaranteed that motherboard manufacturers would make motherboards at a lower cost, and be able to make motherboards as well. smaller motherboards, for small embedded projects, still having a good hardware configuration in general, on reliable hardware.

Intel has always been known as a company that reliably produces its processors, it is difficult to see a processor from this company "burned", this is really very difficult, as there are many internal components that prevent this from happening.

Once, there was a data center that operated with half of Intel processors, and the other half with AMD processors. This data center caught fire, and most Intel processors, when tested after the fire, as much as the server was completely twisted, many of them were working. As for AMD, this was not the case, the first to burn, was the processor.

This told me it was a bankrupt businessman who ended up building a computer course company, which also ceased to exist in mid-2014.

But anyway, back to the future, we know that AMD stayed behind Intel for years, but now it has been appearing again on the market, since the new sixth generation Intel processors are so expensive (I can't imagine the prices of new 7th generation Kaby Lake announced), that everyone asks, "Is this really worth it?"

As a reference, I always use the website http://cpubenchmark.net/, it is possible to compare the processing power of numerous tests that are performed by a software called PassMark, which is commonly used to test hardware, and it discloses features of the computer to the online site, for global measurement of a shared ranking of processors.

We see a very important detail here, AMD with its new processor, started to be shown together with Xeon processors, Intel's top of the line recently in this list.

See:

Realize that the cost of the processor for its processing power is 10% of the price of a similar superior from Intel, that is, AMD is working hard, but is really doing a good job to win the market, and now, with full force .

See that it already appears in front of even tests of the new i7-7820HQ, the seventh generation of processors from Intel.

Compare prices with a processor for "server" and a processor for "desktop" line, of course it is not to be pleased, but in this same list, but well below, we have another processor for reference, sixth generation: Intel Core i7- 6700 @ 3.40GHz, with a score of 10029, with a value of US $ 304.99. That is, a slightly weaker processor and almost 2x more expensive than the FX-9590 Eight Core.

Although all AMD processors have been considered weaker in processing power for years, there is nothing to say about its APU, which brings a good graphics card integrated with the CPU capable of running games that even the latest Intel processor cannot do with your integrated video card.

To play any game with an Intel processor, in addition to spending more on the motherboard (since the socket always changes with each version, if you want to change your processor), paying a high price for the CPU, you will also need a video card.

On the other hand, AMD processors will always be recognized as "hot", and always consume a lot of energy. This website does not show the electrical performance of the equipment, only the processing power of the CPUs, but on the manufacturer's website, the technical specification is quite fat: 219 W of power to power the CPU.

In Brazil, this same CPU (FX-9590) has very high prices, at Kabum, today, 02/18/2017, the cost is R $ 1,073.41 in the payment only with discounted ticket, if not R $ 1,262, 83.

The Intel Core i7-6700 CPU, rated at 10029 points (against 10280 from AMD), aimed at the desktop market, is costing R $ 1399.90 with a discount and R $ 1646.94 without a discount.

Let's simulate a computer assembled with both platforms:

Platform Comparison
Processador	AMD FX 9590	Intel Core i7-6700
	Octa Core
	Black Edition	6ª Geração
	16MB Cache	8MB cache
	4.7 GHz	3.40Ghz
	AM3+	LGA1151
	219W	65W
	FD9590FHHKWOF	---
	R$1.073,00	R$1.399,90
Motherboard	ASRock	GIGABYTE
	ATX 970A-G/3.1	mATX GA-H170M-D3H
	AMD AM3+	Intel LGA 1151
	DDR3	DDR3
	Realtek ALC1150	Realtek ALC1150
	RAID, 0, 1, 5 e 10.	RAID, 0, 1, 5 e 10.
	R$359,90	R$359,90
Memory	Kingston HyperX Savage	Kingston
	16GB (2x8GB)	2x 8GB
	2400Mhz	1600Mhz
	DDR3 CL11	DDR3L CL11
	HX324C11SRK2/16	KCP3L16ND8/8
	Red
	R$879,90	R$699,80
Total:	R$2.312,80	R$2.459,60

As we can see, the difference is only R $ 146.80 saved using the AMD platform, considering that the type of memory of the maximum speed of the motherboard found, against the memory (only model available for DDR3L) for Intel to be almost half speed.

With R $ 146.80 saved, you will have more processing power, but you will also spend 4x more electricity for the platform.

There are also other AMD processors that consume 95W, stay tuned as there are many motherboards that offer socket AM3 + but do not deliver enough 220W to power the CPU.

It is also worth mentioning that the amount saved can be nil compared to a better quality cooler to cool AMD's CPU.

Prices were based on the Kabum website, 02/18/2017.