AMD Smoother than Intel?

[Tom80112]

Intel beats AMD on benchmarks. No dispute from me. But 2 years ago when I switched from an AMD X4 950 to an i7 2600k, I noticed the system wasn't as smooth or fluid feeling. Has anyone else suspected that while Intel is faster, the AMD seems to run more fluidly and smoother? I am thinking about switching to an FX-6350 or FX-8350.

Closed until we can find the time to read 200 posts
-ViRGE

 

[Yuriman]

I had the opposite experience, but I'd chalk it up to software differences. I don't have the same software running in the background.

The 2600K should complete any and every task faster than an 8350.

 

[tracerbullet]

What else changed at the same time?

I'm skeptical you can tell a difference in "smoothness" of the chips as an inherent quality of the chips. If you're noticing anything, IMO it's likely you have a problem of some sort that can be fixed.

I would say this regardless of what brand you thought was more or less smooth than the other.

 

[Homeles]

Intel beats AMD on benchmarks. No dispute from me. But 2 years ago when I switched from an AMD X4 950 to an i7 2600k, I noticed the system wasn't as smooth or fluid feeling. Has anyone else suspected that while Intel is faster, the AMD seems to run more fluidly and smoother? I am thinking about switching to an FX-6350 or FX-8350.

What application(s) are you experiencing this with?

The 2600K should complete any and every task faster than an 8350.

That's a bit of an exaggeration.

What else changed at the same time?

I'm skeptical you can tell a difference in "smoothness" of the chips as an inherent quality of the chips. If you're noticing anything, IMO it's likely you have a problem of some sort that can be fixed.

That's what I'm thinking.

 

[CHADBOGA]

When AMD actually had faster processors than Intel, we saw people who were previously Intel owners, switch over to AMD in record numbers, yet no one ever mentioned "smoothness". :hmm:

Now when AMD is significantly behind Intel in performance, and has a massively dwindling user base, up pops the "smoothness". :sneaky:

Even with AMD's less than stellar implementation of CMT, where the transition to the second core in a module causes performance degradation, still we get to luxuriate in talk of "smoothness".

 

[Maximilian]

I doubt it. AMD/Intel, AMD/Nvidia, Windows/Linux etc all these things where people come out with ambiguous immeasurable terms like "it feels smoother", "so much snappier", "runs better!" is placebo BS IMO. Or their old OS install was bloated spyware ridden trash and the clean install isnt. Give it time though

Only legit "smoother" is when someone replaces a hard drive with an SSD :thumbsup:

 

[Homeles]

When AMD actually had faster processors than Intel, we saw people who were previously Intel owners, switch over to AMD in record numbers, yet no one ever mentioned "smoothness". :hmm:

Now when AMD is significantly behind Intel in performance, and has a massively dwindling user base, up pops the "smoothness". :sneaky:

Even with AMD's less than stellar implementation of CMT, where the transition to the second core in a module causes performance degradation, still we get to luxuriate in talk of "smoothness".

"Smoothness" has only recently become a bit of a buzzword. Before then, it was microstutter, but that was (believed to be) multi-GPU specific. The tech journalism industry didn't really have the tools to measure it until 2012, and it didn't pick up until later in the year. For clarification, I'm talking about frame latency.

Anyway... subjective impressions are absolutely useless for evaluating computer performance.

 

[tortillasoup]

Intel beats AMD on benchmarks. No dispute from me. But 2 years ago when I switched from an AMD X4 950 to an i7 2600k, I noticed the system wasn't as smooth or fluid feeling. Has anyone else suspected that while Intel is faster, the AMD seems to run more fluidly and smoother? I am thinking about switching to an FX-6350 or FX-8350.

You can have driver or motherboard issues, HDD issues, drive controller issues (mobo), maybe even an error prone CPU/Memory controller... I remember when I bought a Radeon 9800 pro back in 2003 and the first thing I noticed was that I was experiencing microstuttering. Now keep in mind in 2003 nobody had a term for that yet and I knew I shouldn't be experiencing that issue so I returned the video card and got a replacement. I didn't even change the drivers or anything, just plugged and played and the microstuttering was gone.

This isn't an issue of AMD vs. Intel, this is an issue of something not behaving properly. Where that issue lies could be anything.

 

[PhIlLy ChEeSe]

I am thinking about switching to an FX-6350 or FX-8350.

lolz!
Enjoy!!!

 

[Tom80112]

I would describe it like this:

A muscle car goes 0-60 in 4 seconds but its a choppy raw acceleration while still fast.
A luxury sports car may do 0-60 in the same 4 seconds with a smoother acceleration.

Speed can be quick and still have "microstutter" as you refer to it. Microstutter seems
like a good term for what I am thinking.

 

[escrow4]

Software. I have a 4770 in this box with a 1TB EVO SSD and a fresh install of 8.1 with less than a dozen programs installed. 16GB 1600MHz DDR3. Chrome still stutters rarely entering URL's/text. Multiple tabs open (20+) some with pdf's open also causes slowdown. In this case its software that isn't coded for properly - does Chrome even take advantage of a modern quad? Does it understand HD 4600? Is it 64-bit aware? Or is still designed for dual cores from 2005?

 

[tortillasoup]

I would describe it like this:

A muscle car goes 0-60 in 4 seconds but its a choppy raw acceleration while still fast.
A luxury sports car may do 0-60 in the same 4 seconds with a smoother acceleration.

Speed can be quick and still have "microstutter" as you refer to it. Microstutter seems
like a good term for what I am thinking.

You've got a problem, go fix it. It should not behave the way you're describing.

 

[Arkaign]

Yep, something broken. Sometimes you get performance that just doesn't reflect the hardware you are using for a myriad of possible reasons. Objectively, the i7 SB is almost universally superior, and the greater IPC usually means an increase in responsiveness in applications if anything.

Update bios and reset to defaults, double check ram speed, cpu volts/temps/cooling, make sure AHCI is enabled, make sure latest Intel chipset drivers and GPU drivers installed, go to MSconfig and disable unwanted garbage, if HDD, download defraggler and defrag it, run Rkill to scan for nasties, install adblock in firefox and chrome (always good to have multiple browsers at the ready), etc.

 

[piesquared]

Intel beats AMD on benchmarks. No dispute from me. But 2 years ago when I switched from an AMD X4 950 to an i7 2600k, I noticed the system wasn't as smooth or fluid feeling. Has anyone else suspected that while Intel is faster, the AMD seems to run more fluidly and smoother? I am thinking about switching to an FX-6350 or FX-8350.

It's possible. I seem to remember a few websites, possibly even this one, refering to AMD CPU's being 'smoother' in gaming. IIRC, they narrowed it down to hyperthreading or something. There were a number of blind tests conducted also where the user chose the AMD system for the best game play experience. One doesn't need a number to tell them if something stutters, that's just a way of quantifying the data. Anyway, you definitley aren't the first to notice it. Personally, i've never owned an intel system (other than a Tualatin way back) so i've always had smooth sailing.

 

[Arkaign]

No, substantively, AMD is not even smoother in gaming :

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...mate-gaming-showdown-5ghz-fx-9590-vs-i7-4960x

Frame latency is lower on systems with higher IPC, it's just the way it is.

Note that even though that is the case, that the gap isn't enough to make the AMD FX not 'feel' smooth though.

Take it for what it really is :

(A)- Psychological projection.

or

(B)- Something's broken.

 

[piesquared]

(C)- The numbers don't tell the whole story.

I've never 'felt' 'frame latency' in all of the configurations i've used, yet according to reviewers numbers i'm supposed to. Blind tests with people using the hardware are about as accurate as you can get and those testers reported a better experience on AMD's hardware. A psycological projection would be something like:

John Doe: I don't feel any stuttering what are you talking about??

Jane Doe: Well look at these numbers they say you should.

John Doe: OK, well I guess I do then!

 

[Arkaign]

Huh? What blind tests? You can point to rigged tests for each vendor, but I can tell you it's just BS. I've built thousands upon thousands upon thousands of systems, with AMD, Intel, Cyrix, ATI, Nvidia, 3dfx, Rendition, S3, yadda yadda you name it.

Claims of 'smoother' are just evidence of bias or something broken when it comes to CPUs. Noticeable frame latency really only points to something being way out of spec (ie; trying to run BF4 on a Core-based Celeron or something idiotic like that), or something is plain broken.

One of the things I like to do, given that I usually have a half dozen systems up and running at any time burning in, etc, is have people try to guess what hardware is in the box. It might be a 4770K + R280X, it might be an FX6350 + 660ti, what have you. I've never had someone guess right on the money, and most people are way off.

If you pay attention here (or click on my name and look at posts, even though the last week). I recommend all the companies fairly equally depending on situation, I get crap from Intel fanboys when I recommend AMD, and vice versa. I have a zero tolerance for BS though, the facts are the facts and there's nothing you or I can do about it.

Fact : a properly working i7 2600k is in NO way less responsive or less smooth than a Phenom II, or any other AMD processor. And I would argue the reverse to be functionally true as well. If someone said 'This FX 8350 is not as 'smooth' as this i7 in Windows & Gaming', I would say : what settings, what GPU, you might not have as high a max FPS, but you certainly shouldn't have a lack of responsiveness by comparison, all other things being equal (ssd vs ssd, 8gb vs 8gb, Win7x64 fresh install v Win7x64 fresh install, same AV/background software, same GPU).

The fact is, claims of 'smoothness' are functionally bullcrap unless objectively provable. To put any subjectiveness on the topic at all invites the scores of fanboys and dishonest people to lie about it or rig tests. Hell, I can make a 4960x feel sluggish just by adjusting a few settings in bios if I feel like making an Athlon 3200+ feel 'smoother'.

 

[Arkaign]

Obvious exception being : multi-GPU setups, which are an order of magnitude more complex in terms of keeping frame latency fluid.

 

[cubby1223]

I generally found smoothness to be more dependent on the hard drive speed.

Just a couple days ago I was working with a system with a quad core phenom paired with a hard drive cranking away all the time, system was the laggiest I'd worked with in quite a while, took forever to load into Windows.

Putting together a Core 2 Duo system for someone recently, came with a 750gb hard drive, system lagged and stuttered a lot. Replaced the 7 year old drive with a brand new drive and the C2D system was running much smoother and could actually multitask without stalling.

 

[AnandThenMan]

It is perhaps heresy to some, but I've always observed the same thing. I like my 8-core AMD rig better for daily use it just seems to churn through the tasks I throw at it better than my Ivy Bridge.

 

[tortillasoup]

The only other POSSIBLE reason why the Intel rigs seem to "lag" is that they're in super low power mode whereby they're downclocking and when you put a heavy load on them, they're up clocking to their full speed and what you're experiencing is the lag between idle MHZ and full load MHZ upclocking.

Use CPUZ and try to observe the CPU's clocking characteristics, this may be what is bothering you guys. AMD's are a bit more eager to upclock in "performance mode" than Intels I believe.

 

[davie jambo]

It is perhaps heresy to some, but I've always observed the same thing. I like my 8-core AMD rig better for daily use it just seems to churn through the tasks I throw at it better than my Ivy Bridge.

I am exactly the same as you , got both prefer the AMD for general computer use. It just feels more responsive than the intel

 

[BSim500]

Intel's are generally far more smooth in many games. The key issue is not average fps, but higher *minimum* fps as a result of lesser-well threaded games (or even lesser-well threaded areas / maps that are within a generally heavily threaded game) that soak up IPC & MHz and end up sporadically bottlenecking on even 5GHz OC'd AMD's. Eg:-

Skyrim:-
i5-3570K @ 3.4GHz = 88 min / 145 avg
FX-8350 @ 4.0GHz = 39 min / 90 avg
FX-8350 @ 4.8GHz = 45 min / 107 avg
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/5
http://media.bestofmicro.com/7/G/315196/original/CPU-Core.png

The issue is not "average fps are all above 60fps so it's OK", it's 39fps vs 88fps min fps that makes the i5 feel & play much more smoothly especially in "busy" city areas. With VSync enabled on a 60Hz monitor, i5 & FX-8350 will both show "60fps average" in most areas. But min fps will still be 60 i5 vs 39 FX-8350, which is very noticeable when gaming in terms of "smoothness".

Likewise in BF4, an FX-8320 is 49min and an i5-4570 60min. Both cost the same $160 at Microcenter. OC the former to 5Ghz to match, and you've now got almost 200w higher power consumption adding roughly $10-20 annual running costs (plus water cooling costs) at which point same fair TCO over 2-3 years is now more like FX-8320 @ 5GHz vs i5-4670K @ 4.5GHz, and the gap promptly widens again - and that's in a game that should theoretically be "smoother" for AMD's with +4 threads in use...

AMD's aren't totally horrible chips, but an i5 over an FX-8320 is very definitely worth it for up to 125% higher min fps and generally smoother gameplay in 99.9% of the 50,000 or so PC games written over the past 30 years. Few games load 4-8 cores equally (it's often a load of 70-95% / 60-90% / 20-50% / 15-45%, etc), and even those that can split the load across 8 cores are often not consistently well threaded even from one map to another within the same game. When one "main" FX core goes past 100% load with code that's not easily threadable, your min fps will dip whether you have 7 or 700 spare cores. Of course, the same is true for Intel when an i5 core goes past 100%, but having 60-65% faster IPC cores per clock, it happens far less often.

As much as some AMD people may not like to admit it, single-threaded benchmarks can actually give a very valid reflection of higher min fps in many games (and how smooth the game is when "spiking"), regardless of what the avg fps may be. And IPC is still king even on "next gen" games. With poorly threaded games, min fps are up to 50%, 60%, even 70% higher on stronger Intel cores even with similar avg fps. Conversely even with heavily threaded games, with 4 strong cores, even massive under-clocking can have little negative effect on performance.

Just as my old AMD X2 felt more smoother than Intel's P4, today Intel's core architecture just feels much more smoother than even OC'd AMD's, and when you ignore avg fps and look objectively at the min fps "spikes" in many games it's obvious why.

 

[davie jambo]

Nobody is talking about games , we are talking about general computer use

 

[bgt]

Intel beats AMD on benchmarks. No dispute from me. But 2 years ago when I switched from an AMD X4 950 to an i7 2600k, I noticed the system wasn't as smooth or fluid feeling. Has anyone else suspected that while Intel is faster, the AMD seems to run more fluidly and smoother? I am thinking about switching to an FX-6350 or FX-8350.

The FX8350 is a good choice. It's a very "smooth":biggrin:CPU. My 4770K also() Intel made the Haswell run much better than the old lot. My i5-2500K is only "smooth" with fresh installs. It absolutely fails when loaded(compaired to the FX8350). The FX8350 is a classic now. Benches mean nothing for user experiences. You can only judge when you own the different CPU's.