Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel core I7-920 2.66 GHZ or amd phenom II X4 955 3.2GHZ

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 22, 2009 11:00:08 AM

I am planning on buying a pc, howevere i can't figure out wether an intel i7 core 920 2.66 GHZ pc will actualy give me more than an amd phenom II X4 955 3.2 GHZ. Please help me out
a b à CPUs
June 22, 2009 12:06:37 PM

If you can, go i7, you will definitely see a difference in multithreaded apps and it scales much better with multi-gpu setups. But for gaming, the X4 955 performs basically the same, maybe slightly better. If you overclock the i7 it would definitely pull ahead much more.
June 22, 2009 12:56:10 PM

to be specific i will be using this pc for progamming applications, for gamming (occasionaly) and in the near future for grafic applications.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
June 22, 2009 4:34:49 PM

I'd lean towards the i7 then.
June 22, 2009 4:50:57 PM

I'm asking myself the exact same question for the exact same reasons. From youtube through google to here I'd say [maybe] amd.
Mostly because it is cheaper. If you go for i7 you'll have to overclock to get over 3ghz; and thus reasonable for standard apps. @ work we use intel quadcores @ 2.4 and loading projects in VisualSt takes ages! Amd is already over 3Ghz and costs 50-100 $ less. Not to mention your MBoard will cost 50-200$ less as well (me thinks Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P vs any intel 1366). For working CPU speed is king go for whatever gives higher Ghz. Saying multithread is important is still bullsh!t.(Sorry guys) (::o verall coding speaking)

The downsides are overclocking is much easier & stable with intel than AMD (from what I've seen so far I may be wrong by now) and that AMD seems to lock you with crossfire... no SLI. but you can still get 1 powerful geforce to compensate. I'm saying Geforce because regardless of how well ATI does cheap good cards, most gamemakers get in bed with NVIDIA.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-radeon,...

Like for last Remnant, some games just hate ATI guts. I like ATI so I fell sorry for them, but it's the hard truth.
a b à CPUs
June 22, 2009 5:41:15 PM

crazy: actually, Intel's does more work per clock cycle, so despite the lower clock speed, the two are roughly equivalent in single threaded tasks. The i7 is a better choice, even if you don't overclock. If GHz was all that mattered, the Pentium 4, with stock clock speeds as high as 3.8GHz, would still be king for single threaded, but an E8400 will utterly flatten it in every way because of the more efficient architecture.

(Oh, and you can think of the i7 920 as a 2.8GHz CPU, since that's the speed it'll run most of the time anyway with turbo mode).
June 23, 2009 10:30:40 AM

Ok ok... (Hell I'm no rocket scientist)

And so if we inject overclocking in the equation is that still true? What are the hopes of getting those clock speeds up even a little? Does the i7 still rock more?
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2009 11:55:25 AM

bige420 said:
If you can, go i7, you will definitely see a difference in multithreaded apps and it scales much better with multi-gpu setups. But for gaming, the X4 955 performs basically the same, maybe slightly better. If you overclock the i7 it would definitely pull ahead much more.



All the benchmarks we see these days lie - what gamer *ONLY* has the game installed? NO ONE

Everyones system has A/V, firewall, chat apps, torrents, skype etc running - i7 owns in the real world - only the people who have worked with i7's and use them will know what its all about.

Oh and BTW Psycho - the dual socket nehalem xeon rigs own quad socket AMD parts on the server front - 16 threads total (8 cores + 8 threads) on the Intel will beat 16 real AMD cores easy - check the benches out on Anandtech.
!