Take these two processors. They are roughly the same price (AMD one just slightly cheaper, if you factor in the motherboard as well).
I'm trying to decide between these two and the reason why I'm having trouble is the "Intel is more powerful" rule of thumb. Because from a completely objective point of view, the AMD chip kicks Intel's microbutt:
- More L1 cache (4x64kb vs. 4x32kb)
- More L2 cache (4x512kb vs. 4x256kb)
- Faster clock (3.6Ghz vs. 3.1Ghz)
- Unlocked (overclocking friendly) vs. locked
The only places where AMD loses are:
- 45nm vs. 32nm. manufacturing process
- 125W vs. 95W TDP
- No GPU integrated -- which I don't need anyway
My questions are:
- Are there any hard specs that I overlooked that would make the i5 better? If yes, what are those?
- If the answer to 1. is "no", then what makes the i5 better in real-world use? Is it the 32nm architecture? Is it the TDP (less power wasted on heat = more power used for computing)?
Here they compare the X4 975 with the i5-2500k, which is slightly more expensive than the 2400 (which, in turn, is slightly more expensive than the X4 975). However, solely specs-wise, the 2500k still seems worse than the 975 (it only knocks off number 4. in the first list). They say that the i5 "simply crushes" the X4. What makes it do that?