Resolved Intel CPU: Intel vs. AMD - power (& cooling) comparison?

Greetings, all...

...I've heard that for the same amount of overall "clout ", AMD processors take less power (and thus less cooling) than their Intel counterparts.

Is this actually true? Or is the comparison unfair / too much of a generalisation?

I'd be most interested in hearing people's views / experiences.

I realise full well that todays powerful graphics subsystems consume many watts, but that's not really what I'm getting at here: I'm not interested in gaming, or putting together a racehorse. Reliability and stability would be much more important factors than fast graphics.

Context: this would all be much more to do with making a sensible informed choice between prospective 2nd user systems, than buying or building up a new system.

TIA and best wishes, HJ.

 

I dunno...

...having looked around some more (including finding this thread) I'm beginning to think that it's actually the other way round (Intel using less watts than AMD), with AMD only having an advantage when the thing's running flat out ...oh well.

best, HJ.

 

It's been the other way around for a few years now - ever since Intel released the Core 2 Duo CPU and finally, after nearly 10 years of being behind, leap frogged past AMD, vowing to never be embarrassed like that again. Note that the company AMD was created at the insistence of IBM to make Intel CPUs! This was so IBM could have a second source of processors. Then AMD started producing their own line of CPUs that were not only cheaper, but often outperformed the offerings from Intel - who had been sitting on their laurels. Not wanting to be spanked like that again, since the release of the Core 2 Duos, Intel has continued to forge ahead, expanding their lead.

That's the $million question. It is an unfair comparison because it is a generalization. That is, if you consider the whole line of Intel CPUs compared to the whole line of AMD CPUs, the Intels do offer better performance, consume less power, and generate less heat. But when you build or buy a computer, you don't buy the whole line of processors, you buy a specific model. And there are some AMD CPUs excel in those areas. And there's still the matter of cost.

AMD still offers excellent CPUs, and typically does so at a price point that is lower than Intel's. That is, usually, you get more bang for your money with AMD. But that too is a generalization and perhaps not fair because Intel continually lowers its prices to entice otherwise AMD buyers.

This is all good for consumers. AMD keeps nipping at the heals of Intel. Intel keeps looking over its shoulder to make sure AMD is not gaining again and consumers get more, better, and cheaper CPUs to choose from.

The graphics solution should have nothing to do with the choice of CPU platform. And I say platform because to run an Intel CPU, you need an Intel based motherboard. And likewise, to run an AMD CPU, you need an AMD based motherboard. And neither is more "reliable" than the other. Once you get past the chipset, USB, SATA, RAM, PCIe, sound, graphics, networking, keyboard/mouse, operating system and other software, etc. are all the same.

So, choosing between AMD and Intel is not a decision of which is better. It is more a decision of personal choice - like choosing a red car or a blue car. You just need to define your needs, set a budget, then find the computer that meets both.

 

Hi, and thanks for the replies!

Bill - your point about the Core 2 Duo is well taken, and I think it explains a lot of why I was going round in circles. I'd found some bargraphs which were meant to compare Intel vs. AMD in terms of "grunt per watt" (pls. pardon the technical term) - some of the Intels were shown worse than AMD, there again others looked quite a bit better. This was puzzling me. So checking back based upon what you had said, that was indeed the answer i.e. what made for the difference between these two groups. That's the biggest point, isn't it? - that if Intel, then Core 2 is really quite advantageous.

I think that my original impression (AMD better for "greenness ") was biassed because I'd been looking at results from "benchmarking" the respective motherboards, trying to run them flat out to see what they could deliver. And, if I have it correctly, under "flat out" conditions the Intel advantage over AMD appears to be much less, or even AMD a bit better? But "flat out" isn't at all representative - for me - of what the machine's likely to be doing most of the time.

Hi Christer ...very well said, I think you've just put your finger on a much more important consideration there! Actually, what's probably going to happen is that any choice I get will probably depend mostly upon what's available + cost of course... But it doesn't hurt to try to get a better idea of what's going on. I have very little experience of newer kit (but a houseful of older ones )

best wishes, HJ.

 

It is important to note that the efficiency of a computer is much more than the efficiency of just the CPU. The CPU in two different motherboards can result in different efficiencies of the computers. Not to mention difference in RAM, graphics, PSUs and then there is how the user uses it.

 

Hi HJ, hope you've been going well!

Just some of my thoughts.

When choosing a CPU, I check what the system requirements are of the programs I think I might need to run in the future and maybe even then extrapolate if I think I might get an updated version of the program. Some programs, like audio or video editing require more processing power than normal programs.

I might get an "adequate" model to begin with, but check the motherboard's CPU compatibility listing to be able to upgrade to a more powerful model later on (but after about 3 years the compatible CPUs will start getting superseded).

Not sure what you mean, will the system be pre-built? As mentioned, the CPU/motherboard combination will be a factor. Back to the cars analogy, don't get a compact car and expect to run a V8 engine in it. The system should be "balanced ".

AMD vs Intel, it also like similar model cars. Although there are only two major players in the CPU market, you will see good versions of both. I like AMD and they have served me very well, but now Intel have woken up and the speed seekers have changed colours faster than their underwear .

How important is the difference in speed? (When you might never use the CPU at 100%). The number of cores can be a factor, what do you want the CPU to do? Do you want to run one large program or many small ones? Some (CPU intensive) programs can take advantage of multiple cores, unless things have changed recently, most programs run on one core.

Temperature...check the temperature when the system is first started up. If it is "good ", it should remain that way depending on how the system is stressed. Dust build-up in the fins of CPU heatsink will be a factor over time. General air flow through the case will also be a factor. If the heatsink is not fitted correctly over the CPU, the temperatures may never be accurate anyway.

Wattage...as you have found, CPU's don't run "flat out" all the time. Wattage will be based on "flat out ". A lower Wattage should equate to lower power usage, but I wonder about multiple cores running if they are not needed.

Just my spin.

My question...what do you want the CPU to do?

Matt

 

Also Intel changes the CPU socket with every iteration of its CPU. Even the same family of CPU could have different socket requirements.

AMD tends to stick with a single socket for a long time [in computer time terms] & if you want to upgrade your system, you could normally just slip in a new CPU & update your BIOS.

And for the record, I have been an AMD fanboy for last 10 years.

 

Well, it is not that bad, but they do change more than AMD. But I am not sure that is a bad thing. It would be different if there were not other advances, but there are constantly new technologies coming to motherboards. SATA-6, USB3.0, DDR3 for example. And while the AMD socket may support many AMDs, that does not automatically ensure the chipset will.

I am not brand loyal. I've used both over the years and have not been disappointed either way. If "reliability" were an issue, I would feel otherwise, but both are reliable brands.

 

Hi Matt rsinfo, Bill,

well thanks Matt, but awfully busy and away from home a lot, caring for a relative and also often away working on site in the interest of earning some groats; our nice little house seems to have somehow acquired the habit of eating money wondering if I should get a plate saying "Audrey2" and put it on the front door...

effectively yes; there's a friendly local computer shop, they do reconditioned 2nd user machines. Generally a batch at a time. The choice I'll have is buy or avoid, based upon what happens to be there. So I'm trying to learn a bit more about newer kit (not completely new! but newer than I'm used to. Guessing it'll be ~2 years ago's good ones)

I want to find something better than my current XP box, basically its purpose will be my internet facing machine for until XP ends. The XP "thing" which I'm using at the moment has a host of problems, crashing on graphics is the most annoying (yeah, I've changed the PSU, twice, memtested the RAM, changed the graphics card, CPU nowhere near overheating, all the normal checks done. It just doesn't like graphics. Everything's been changed except for the motherboard. But I'm not trying to fix this one - the "killer problem" is that the original PSU is naff, the computer is OEM and it has a slightly smaller than usual PSU. A standard PSU will not fit. I'm currently running with a good, standard PSU sellotaped on top...

...so at the very least I would have to get a new PSU and a new case and I'm still stuck with a crashing computer even after doing all that. If I'm going to fork out for a new case and PSU anyway, then I reckon it makes more sense simply to try to get a freshly reconditioned 2nd user machine. I don't want to spend a lot of money - the house takes priority - or get anything "fast" or "powerful" because all it really needs to do is email, browsing, Foxit PDF, Filezilla type stuff. It would be nice to be able to run a YouTube clip occasionally, or pan Google maps sideways without crashing, but that's about the limit of it.

(and yet I can do non-graphics stuff like digitising a 90 minute tape which has the processor getting good and hot, fan up to maximum, case getting hot, everything getting hot - no crash. Odd. Tiny bit of graphics kills it. Tried 2 different alternative graphics cards, exactly the same. So it is a puzzle, but an unimportant one because of the overriding issue with the PSU)

==

Why I started the thread:

A couple of months back, I was off on site where they had two machines; one was an Intel Conroe, the other was AMD (unsure of exact type of CPU) GA-MA78GM-S2H. I had to use both while I was there. Hardly loading the machines at all, just looking at PDF datasheets to check a load of pin numbers, and scrolling occasionally. Out of the two, the Intel was a "normal" pretty powerful machine with a good bit of airflow and a bit of fan noise, nothing too obnoxious; but the AMD was extremely quiet, & even though it had much less airflow it wasn't getting hot or anything. I got to liking the AMD as it was so much less "boisterous" then the other. So I got to wondering whether that was a family characteristic of AMD.

Unfair comparison, as the Intel had more HDDs and stuff. The other big difference was that the AMD had a tunnel above the processor. Do those help with cooling much? It didn't seem to be making a lot of difference, but then the thing was hardly getting warm anyway. It just didn't seem to need to shift a lot of air.

Thanks all for your input. I'm off travelling again for a while starting tomorrow, will surely catch up when I get back.

best wishes, HJ

 

Actually, that seems more like a comparison of the two cases, and not the CPUs. So, yeah, I think it is an unfair comparison.

As for the side panel fan/tunnel, I have seen where they helped, and also where they hindered cooling. It is the CPU's heatsink fan that has the responsibility to remove heat from the CPU. It is the case's responsibility to remove the heat from the case. You generally want good front to back air flow through the case. I have seen higher temps when using a side fan, my guess is because the front to back "flow" is disrupted using a side fan, causing heat to build up inside. So my advice is to try it both ways while monitoring the CPU, system and graphics temps then go with the configuration that works best.

 

...marking this as "resolved ", with thanks for all your helpful contributions

best wishes, HJ.

 

Thanks for thinking to mark it Resolved, it wasn't a thread that necessarily needed it, we stated our best information from our own point of view. It is up to you to digest it and use your own judgement. We were not trying to see if there could be an outcome.

When researching hardware, I websearch for reviews of particular models, sometimes you find there are head-to-head comparisons of competing hardware you are interested in.

Good luck with your choices

Matt