Intel Haswell vs AMD Richland head-to-head

Reviews 10 Jun, 2013

Benchmarks: Haswell v Richland

Intel has led the way in processing for the last few years, so it’s no surprise to find Haswell in front in our application benchmarks.

The high-powered Core i7-4770K scored 1.16 in our application benchmarks. That’s quicker than the 1.06 scored by previous generation Core i7-3770K, and it’s further ahead of the FX-3850 – AMD’s most powerful processor scored 0.95 in the same tests.

Graphics performance has taken a more dramatic leap forward. The i7-4770K’s HD Graphics 4600 chipset rattled through our 1,600 x 900 Medium-quality Crysis benchmark at 38fps. That’s easily playable, and an improvement on the 24fps scored by the Core i7-3770K – but not quite able to match the 43fps of A10-6800K.

The A10-6800K scored 0.81 in our tests – an improvement on the 0.76 scored by the A10-5800K. The A10-6700 wasn’t far behind, scoring 0.79 in the same tests. It’s progress, but it’s not enough to match Intel’s Haswell-based Core i5s – in terms of pure application performance, these top-end APUs match Ivy Bridge-based Core i3 chips.

It’s in gaming where Richland APUs make up ground. The A10-6800K’s Radeon HD 8670d graphics core scored 90fps in our 1,366 x 768 Low-quality Crysis test, and 43fps when we upped the resolution to 1,600 x 900 and quality settings to Medium. In both tests that’s five frames faster than Haswell’s HD Graphics 4600 could manage, and even further ahead of Ivy Bridge.

The gap was even more pronounced in Just Cause 2: the A10-6800K averaged 64fps in the game’s low-quality benchmark, but the Core i7-4770K scored just 44fps.

AMD’s latest chips perform well without consuming much power. Our test rig, comprising 8GB of RAM and an SSD alongside the A10-6800K, consumed a miniscule 37W when idle and 108W when stress-tested. Our high-end Haswell machine required just 38W when idling – but this figure rocketed to 185W at peak load.

Disqus - noscript

The advantage of Intel over AMD in terms of processing power only looks good in benchmark figures but is hardly noticeable in real world application. AMD's strength in graphics will be experienced by users that when they switch to Intel they'll shake their heads in dismay..

in power consumption: AMD eats 37w at IDLE, but intel eatd 38W at IDLE.
under full stress AMD eatd 108W, but INTEL eats 180W.

CPU bench marks: AMD ahead of corei3, little lagging with corei5,

GPU bench marks: AMD is at its best even compare to highly priced INTEL corei7.

Price: AMD pricing is closer corei3.

I feel more than 90% of consumers will be satisfied with CPU power given by AMD.

Also 90% of INTEL CPU users satisfies with AMD graphics power.

Price do matter, specially when you going to build your desktop i would go to AMD not only they are cheaper but they have better by performance they are using Radeon Cores with their balanced Cpu so the APU s do perform almost all task more faster than intel and APUs iGPU is superior than intel Iris Pro 5200 offering with expensive Core i7 4950HQ,

AMD upcoming Kaveri chips featuring HSA, HUMA and GDDR5 Architecture ...

-I wonder which Intel CPU uses 180W under load?

-So, you are saying AMD's best CPU at $200 is better than an i3 at $100 but lags behind the Core i5? You must be a freaking genius.

-You get what you pay. The FX-8350 with has around the same performance as the i5 3570K is around $200, not closer the the i3.

-Look around tech forums. People who upgraded to Intel from AMD are having a better experience.

"You get what you pay [for]"

Dumb platitude, very rarely correct. Here's a better one:

"Price is what you pay, value is what you get".

All these benchmark figures mean nothing in the real world.Put two of these machines side by side and do the same things on will hardly spot the difference...even if you do,is it worth the extra bucks?Think again.

I agree I have been using an A10 trinity based laptop for the past 10 months, before that I had a i7 based laptop and believe me for regular day to day usage I do not see any difference. The Intel based DELL laptop cost me Rs. 1.20 Lakhs (USD 2000) and the current HP A10-trinity cost me Rs. 40K (USD 666.7). So looking from a price perspective, it does not make any sense to pay 3 times so that I can unzip my really big file few seconds earlier on the i7.


Software based problem isn't only belong to AMD, apple and intel also have the same issues, even nVidia too ... both of them try to give best software for their innovative hardware.. ..

In regular task 1/2 second delay DOESN'T worth even 10 bucks in my point of view.

I agree. I changed my laptop at the beginning of this year, i had a Samsung with an A6-3430MX quad-core, now i own a Dell with a Ci5-3210M dual-core with Hyper-threading. In performance i don't see any difference and the only "heavy" software i use is AutoCAD, also without changes. In gaming the Ci5 is inferior of course, i installed 2x4GB 1866MHz HyperX PnP so the HD4000 could make it. With the Radeon HD6520G a had 2x2GB 1600MHz AMD Memory to increase performance. The only real difference is the CPU temperatures, Ivy-bridge runs much more cooler than Llano, it rarely turns on the fan.
Damn! I wasted my money, actually i bought my Dell as an emergency, i wanted a Trinity laptop.