This:thumbsup:I guess for me this works because I have the luxury of buying products based on what I need, while not being limited to the slowest products on the market due to a limited budget.
You keep on talking about these premiums Intel charges but NEVER in this thread did you then pick out specific chips and hash out the price and performance data. There is no mystery in finding the data. Benchmark suites are out there and price is easy to find. So, is there an invisible Intel chip somewhere with this giant price premium hidden from the public?Market prices are dictated by supply and demand. So if Intel can create the perception that their chips are superior to the competition they can inflate their prices based upon that factor alone regardless of the price/performance ratio that a CPU delivers. And honestly, I think that's what they have done. Furthermore, it seems last generation CPUs hold their market value as long as current generation CPUs in spite of the fact that the price/performance ratio has dropped considerably when comparing what you can buy today for the same price. Old CPUs don't seem to scale down in price when new ones are introduced. At least not at the rate they should, if ever.
So suggesting that I can close my eyes and pick any CPU available today and feel good about it? I just don't think so.
That's because betterness wasn't the point. It was a matter of pointing hardware suitability for a select subset of buyers: those who play Blu Rays and notice even the slightest imperfection due to the so-called 24 fps bug.
IMO, in general, for an HTPC per se, and not a console substitute, I cannot see how one really could go wrong with either Intel or AMD unless a specific quirk like the 24fps bug or the need to game off the IGP breaks the tie. The question is not which chip performs better, but if there is a noticeable attribute or not. Once the question of "does it have a lead" is answered, the next question is "does it matter to the end user"? There are no absolute suggestions in HTPC building because there is too much variation in the user needs. It is a case-by-case matter of being optimal suitability; even a measly Raspberry Pi could be a perfect HTPC for some people.
Upon reviewing the contents of the conclusions of the articles, I seem to see no real mention of whether the chips failed to perform HTPC tasks properly(i.e Intel failing to play 4K video adequately), but plenty of graphics and gaming performance comparisions. Or in other words, the standard performance review that really doesn't answer the question of whether the chips have certain tiebreakers in actual HTPC tasks over the other. Maybe Richland is a superior transcoding chip vs the i3. Can't be sure about that based on the reviews alone.
See the idea here is wholly subjective, however when we look at the nitty gritty here IN ONLY regards to a true HTPC defined by the following parameters:
Smallest Size of the entire machine
Lowest Thermal Outputs
Lowest Power Input requirement
Least # of Components
Least Total Price of Components at current market rates
Then by far the best device would be an ARM device. Nothing can match their ability to excel in the definition metric I provided above.
From there the next higher up would have to be an APU from AMD. Their ability excel in the metric provided I provided above is only bested by any ARM device.
Finally the next one up is obviously going to be any offering from Intel. And yes their performance they can offer in compute tasks will be greater BUT this is a secondary category in a system that requires a good GPU.
Now if were to head over to say building a gaming rig that would be defined as the following:
Power Efficiency
High Performance in Single threaded Tasks
Ability to have alot of innovative features on the socket platform
Then The first up would be an intel 2nd, 3rd, or 4th gen K or no K 1155 or 50 platform. Since its excels in every metric I provided.
Then it would be then any X79 series.
Then it would be any FX series (since they don`t do well in single threaded tasks and require High OCs to do well in them).
See its all subjective when giving the title best value proposition for CPU. But there are facts on which CPU is better for a given subjective comparison.
As others have said, "Best chip" = whichever priorities you have in whichever order : budget, performance, performance-per-$, performance-per-watt, unique features (Quicksync, etc), what applications & games you run, etc. There's more than just one single metric (performance-per-cost) every time."I think this is true but at what cost premium? Who cares if it takes double the cores to perform the same task that an Intel can perform in the same time span. If the AMD quad-core chip is cheaper than the equivalent performing Intel dual-core CPU?"
"Market prices are dictated by supply and demand. So if Intel can create the perception that their chips are superior to the competition they can inflate their prices based upon that factor alone regardless of the price/performance ratio that a CPU delivers. And honestly, I think that's what they have done."
"But are they the best bang for the buck. Or is Intel riding a wave of popularity because people are so blind and want bragging rights about having the superior technology versus getting the most for their money?"
Unfortunately, these days if you are upgrading a cpu, especially an Intel cpu, you also have to "upgrade" your motherboard. So not only do you have to factor in the cost of the cpu itself but the cost of the associated m/b.
I know I can purchase a AMD Athlon II 760K Quad and a mid/high end AMD A88X FM2/FM2+ motherboard for around $175-225 depending upon the brand name and features included. For a budget minded DIY pc builder, that can be nice a little system especially since you can overclock this system to get more performance if needed. When Kaveri comes out you already have a m/b that supports that cpu so no replacing the m/b.
Pretty close in x264 (which is as far as I went for verifying said statement). I thought 2 modules>2 cores but I guess we can call that the core myth.better MT performance on what? the 4130 seems to beat 4c Vishera at 3.8-4.2GHz for most MT stuff here, also the ST difference is significant, a small OC is not enough...
Upgrade on the same socket is mainly a novelty factor. Most people want, hardly anyone uses it. And the excuse is always: "What if?".
Most people upgrade the motherboard even tho they could upgrade in the same socket anyway. Simply due to better support, better components, features etc. Most AM3+ users already replaced their mobo 2-3 times in their upgrade chain, even tho its been the same platform for ages.
To be fair, it hasn't always been that way with sockets/motherboards, look at socket 775. I wonder if it's not possible now because so much is integrated into the cpu.
As for higher end "bang per buck", on Newegg, the difference between an FX-8350 ($199) and i5-3570K ($224) is $25 or i5-4670K ($239) is $40. Thing is, you can also still buy an i5-3470 for $189 ($10 cheaper than the FX-8350) and OC it to 4.0Ghz (max Turbo on a Z77 motherboard) and end up with far higher all round performance across a spread of 100 games or so, for less cost.
I bought my i5-3570 (non-K) for exactly the same $199 as FX-8350 was listed, and OC'd it to 4.2GHz, and it's running just fine on a 400w PSU with a 7870 GFX card. There simply was no "Intel premium" as they were both exactly the same price. In some games like BF4 they're fairly close, but in many others I play, the difference is often 20-40% higher fps. And it draws about 100w less power.
I'm not a fanboy and I did look at AMD's offerings, but to me, what I did pretty much was the "highest bang-per-buck"...
everything is possible, but there are a few compromises to be made, just look at AM3+, it's a direct evolution from 754, but it have disadvantages like being limited to using Hyper Transport, external chip for PCIE and so on...
but to be honest I think Intel could and should (from a consumer perspective) have kept 1156 compatible for far longer (asrock even released a p67 1156 board, the interface from the CPU to the PCH is basically PCI Express which is pretty good at keeping compatibility)... but definitely it would have some disadvantages compared to what they have now, if Haswell was designed to fit the older platforms...
going back to AMD, Fm1 was pretty bad, and FM2 MBs are also very limited in terms of upgrades, AM3+ seems to have finally reached the end, Fm2+ starts well with trinity and kaveri, and there's a new socket for Jaguar based stuff coming soon...
The point is not the chipset. But the electrical design penalties you have to compromise on keeping the same socket.
Also just for fun, LGA1156 vs LGA1155:
http://www.abload.de/img/pins_clark4mfk.png
http://www.abload.de/img/pins_sandyamb4.pn
AMD3+ to FM2+ is like comparing 1150 to 2011.
more like 1156 vs 1366...
2011 is closer to 115x than that.
Yes, a CPU can better in a certain attribute, such as power consumption, gpu performance. The matter whether utility differs if there is a discrepancy between performance in a particular attribute.
Your list fails to include what the true HTPC is capable of doing. If there is Plex encoding involved, or a large number of media stored, the ARM system might not fit the bill. 1080p playback also be questionable depending on exactly what chip is used.
My list does not fail it actually objectifies a particular case requirement for the whole machine. If your gonna add Plex encoding or throwing large media in it, your modifying The hypothetical list in my post. And that's the issue here, is that your failing to recognize what I have been saying throughout all my posts, there is no single 1 CPU that will fit the bill, its more of breaking down what you intend to do with your specific machine, and then determine what CPU would work. Changing the list requirements and then stating a performance advantage or disadvantage seems like either you recognize that your argument is invalid with the current conditions presented before you and hence must change them to prove your claim, but you still fail to respond with the requirements presented above or your personal system preferences and biases are clouding your judgement.
In addition, if we're just limiting the definition of the HTPC to merely your list of attributes, Intel and AMD would be tied, because they both have ITX motherboards, both have excellent idle power consumption, only require an IGP to playback 1080p video.
Ill give you the benefit of the doubt here, so would you mind posting sample prices of these complete systems that would hypothetically put AMD and Intel at a "tie"
Maybe I should get a Titan instead, since it is so much more measurably powerful that it must be better at playing 1080p than the lowly graphics that come on an IGP. After all, it isn't about utility now, but rather just the observed performance gap.
Maybe you should, if it fits your requirements. If you believe that the Titan excels much further than a IGP for your requirments, then there should be no reason why not.