AMD FX-8150 vs Intel i7-3820: Which can run more VM Bots/ Non-VM bots?

[mephuser1000]

AMD FX-8150 vs Intel i7-3820: 8 cores vs 4 cores with HT

i) Which can run more VMs bots?
ii) Which can run more Non-VM bots?

 

[Dem]

For things like Vmware id stick with intel. At least my experience is that intel is better for that.

 

[Gentoo]

This thread wont end well.

 

[Ratrox]

This thread wont end well.

This

 

[shaliuno]

(removed)

 

[Zeewolf]

For things like Vmware id stick with intel. At least my experience is that intel is better for that.

??? Intel are bettar! is kind of flawed logic here.. your not comparing like for like
If your going to dole out advice on something, at least take half a second to consider the facts given

Intel, 4cores @ 3.8ghz = 15.2ghz processing power
AMD, 8cores @ 3.2ghz = 24.8ghz processing power

What you are wanting to do is have many threads running so more actual cores is going to be better
If you had fewer threads but a more intensive workload per thread then more powerful cores might be better in some scenarios, like if your apps dont use multiple processors and theres only enough apps to sit on 4 actual cores leaving 4 cores unused.

While in a like for like comparison one vendor or the other might come out on top, theres NO WAY a slightly more optimal chip design from intel is going to beat having 60% more actual processing power in the given AMD option

 

[markn12]

Its a toss up i go AMD because easier to overclock for the avg user. You can get the AMD one to 5ghz with H100. Also the intel one is 4 cores with HT but the AMD one is 8 cores but its misleading. All in all intel is for Hardcore gaming the AMD one will run more VMs in my opinion though.


More bots without VM in my opinion the AMD one will do it just as good for a cheaper price and in the past AMD MBs are more compatible with future AMD CPUs.

 

[axazol]

HolyWar point: Intel bettar! Why? Becoz!!
In other way: AMD better for host gaming, Intel for virtual (VM) gaming. Prove => Google

And in both cases VM cant handle more than 4 bots at same time without problems. Why? Becoz!! =)

 

[Hammer]

How about for non-VM bots? Would AMD FX-8150 be better?

 

[iargue]

??? Intel are bettar! is kind of flawed logic here.. your not comparing like for like
If your going to dole out advice on something, at least take half a second to consider the facts given

Intel, 4cores @ 3.8ghz = 15.2ghz processing power
AMD, 8cores @ 3.2ghz = 24.8ghz processing power

What you are wanting to do is have many threads running so more actual cores is going to be better
If you had fewer threads but a more intensive workload per thread then more powerful cores might be better in some scenarios, like if your apps dont use multiple processors and theres only enough apps to sit on 4 actual cores leaving 4 cores unused.

While in a like for like comparison one vendor or the other might come out on top, theres NO WAY a slightly more optimal chip design from intel is going to beat having 60% more actual processing power in the given AMD option

Holy fucking shit. This thread is full of misinformation.

To set the record straight. The i7 has 8 cores just the same as the amd processor does. They designed it to have 4 physical cores,a nd 8 logical cores. Having a logical core did not change the performance at all.

The i7 is significantly better then anything that AMD produces. Here are some benchmarks to solidify the fact that the I7 is the better choice. It performs faster and better then AMD does. Amd is just cheaper.

Intel Core i7-3930K vs Core i7-3820 vs FX-8150 vs 990X vs 2700K Review - CPU Performance

 

[iargue]

How about for non-VM bots? Would AMD FX-8150 be better?

The i7 is better in all aspects over the AMD processor. Both for virtual VM and for non Virtual VM's. Intel is know for the VM technologies though, and VMware programs recommend Intel of AMD. (They want you to have Intel virtualization technology)

I've already linked a benchmark that pits the i7 vs the amd processor and shows that it wins in every category. Anyone that tells you that AMD is better either does not know computers at all, or is a blindly following amd fan boy.

Amd easily wins in pricing, but does not win in performance. If you want to max your performance, go with the i7. If you want to save some money, go with AMD.

 

[fifidong]

Errrr. I'll elaborate on these topics, as someone who works in one of those two company as a verification engineer.

As CPU goes, here's some background.

Until 2000s, Pentium-D and Core-series, it was about frequency and pipelines. (Single thread performance)
CPU functioned as pipelined modules, each performing different tasks.
* Someone who reviews instructions
* Someone who understands the instructions
* Someone who calculates based on these instructions (multiple of these)
* Someone who relays these results.

Since AMD/Intel used similar architecture, frequency determined the relative performance.
You'll see lot of old people arguing performance based on the "Frequency" due to this reason.
Because Higher Frequency = More 1s and 0s switching per second, it got way too hot.

So Israel team, decided to modify Pentium 3 Architecture and use multiples of them to boost performance.
Hence, the Core-series.

Of course by this time, programming has changed.
Era of single thread programming was changed to parallel programming (Threads, openMP, etc)
But due to the difficulty in programming in parallel (due to resource sharing, deadlocks, coherency) people kept using single threads or coarse-grain locking (unoptimized parallelism)

So people kept using Frequency as Metric.
But if something can run multiple threads, more works can be done.

There are many other things to consider. Those information can be found here:
Intel's Sandy Bridge Microarchitecture
AMD's Bulldozer Microarchitecture

Anyways...
So the current state of AMD Bulldozer:
The current philosophy is to take a step-back trying to compete with Intel, because it was not working.
In addition, manufacturing process of GlobalFoundries(AMD) is currently 12-18 months behind Intel foundry. (this is huge)
It focuses on Server-centric approach and have chosen some trade-offs in that context, and gain higher performance per mm^2.
During this process, AMD took a huge step in designing CPUs. M-space, SoC methodology for modular CPU design, so innovations have been made, but not enough to compete.

The current AMD processors are faster in clock, but not in single thread performance nor in multi-threaded performance given similar # of cores (this is hard to measure now because AMD architecture uses shared resources between 2 functional units, which are termed as single and/or dual core per block).

tldr: Pentium 4 with 5GHz clocks are not faster than Core2 2.5GHz. and Intel is currently better for now.


Good resource for looking at some general performance.
AnandTech - Bench - CPU

 

[markn12]

Anyone who uses just benchmarks and doesn't have an understanding of what each does is an idiot AMD will perform just as good for the task you want to do, but the intel fan boys swear by intel and think you should overspend to do the same thing because they're ignorant that you're only trying to bot Diablo not score high on some biased benchmark.

That said if you can afford it go intel as the ceiling is higher for performance and the CPU will almost never be what is stopping you from doing it. Keep in mind intel is notorious for changing sockets on new generation chips and AMD has a track record of newer chips being supported on older MBs. You intel fans argue all you want but before the 2nd and 3rd generation I7s Intel almost always changed sockets just look at the 775, I3/I5, I7 1st generation chips all had different sockets and they will do it again its just a matter of time.

 

[smurg]

I was LOL'ing at the people comparing frequencies.

What are we, 12 years old again? Haha, we are a bit beyond simple frequency comparisons these days.

Keep in mind intel is notorious for changing sockets on new generation chips and AMD has a track record of newer chips being supported on older MBs.

Because we're going to be swapping out tons of hardware on botting rigs right?

It's a lot more effective to build a new PC than replace parts. It keeps the bots running on old machines and we don't have to be swapping out hardware all the time.

 

[markn12]

I was LOL'ing at the people comparing frequencies.

What are we, 12 years old again? Haha, we are a bit beyond simple frequency comparisons these days.



Because we're going to be swapping out tons of hardware on botting rigs right?

It's a lot more effective to build a new PC than replace parts. It keeps the bots running on old machines and we don't have to be swapping out hardware all the time.

6months to a year from now when D3 is dead and you wanna bot a newer game swapping an AMD CPU instead of buying a new MB and intel CPU will be a lot cheaper and faster. How is it more effective to keep rebuilding PCs because intel keeps changing sockets ? Its more expensive and more annoying. You want intel for your main PC thats awesome its what I use but intel for a bot PC is absurd you wanna build as cheap as you can yet still get the job done to maximize profits.

 

[zackn06]

I've been an AMD Fan for years now. The bulldozer really is lackluster; sporting awesome specs and clocks yet i havent seen any head to head benchmarks that show anywhere close to what damn near any i-7 can pull.
I've never said this before but go with the I7.

 

[smurg]

6months to a year from now when D3 is dead and you wanna bot a newer game swapping an AMD CPU instead of buying a new MB and intel CPU will be a lot cheaper and faster. How is it more effective to keep rebuilding PCs because intel keeps changing sockets ? Its more expensive and more annoying. You want intel for your main PC thats awesome its what I use but intel for a bot PC is absurd you wanna build as cheap as you can yet still get the job done to maximize profits.

Well considering I could see a i5-2500k OC'ed run a number of instances of any upcoming game for a few years, I wouldn't see the need to consistently swap out any hardware.

Plus, you normally tailor your mobo to the rest of your hardware, so what happens when you pop in a new chip into the budget mobo? The mobo will bottleneck everything else. On my typical builds, the CPU is at least 25% of the price of the system, so just expanding to more computers, then selling off the older systems would be more viable.

 

[jinny1]

??? Intel are bettar! is kind of flawed logic here.. your not comparing like for like
If your going to dole out advice on something, at least take half a second to consider the facts given

Intel, 4cores @ 3.8ghz = 15.2ghz processing power
AMD, 8cores @ 3.2ghz = 24.8ghz processing power

What you are wanting to do is have many threads running so more actual cores is going to be better
If you had fewer threads but a more intensive workload per thread then more powerful cores might be better in some scenarios, like if your apps dont use multiple processors and theres only enough apps to sit on 4 actual cores leaving 4 cores unused.

While in a like for like comparison one vendor or the other might come out on top, theres NO WAY a slightly more optimal chip design from intel is going to beat having 60% more actual processing power in the given AMD option

Hahahahjahah I LOLED SO BAD!

Have you heard of IPC?

Intel has 8 logical cores. BD is like a quad core that counts each module as 2 cores with shared memory and pipeline

 

[jinny1]

markn12 just stop posting you are embarassing yourself really badly and showing just how much AMD fanbois are in denial of how inferior Faildozer is compared to IB/SB.

You have no idea what you are talking about that is for sure

 

[PapaBash]

be realistic, if you purchase an ivy bridge now even in a year there won't be a giant leap forward at a reasonable price so even if intel switches socket it doesnt matter for a long time.