Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core i7 vs Phenom II

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 131 à CPUs
November 15, 2009 5:33:44 PM

I am curious as to why many of these benchmarks seem to prefer the Phenom II, if the core i7 is the better performer?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=99&p2=102

More about : core phenom

a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 5:42:47 PM

The i7 wins every one of those, most by a sizable margin. Make sure you look at each benchmark - in some of them, lower is better.
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
November 15, 2009 5:51:06 PM

Oh duh. My bad.
m
0
l
Related resources
November 15, 2009 6:03:00 PM

Well you have to remember that is the extreme edition.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 6:15:44 PM

Sure it beats it. It is a cocktail of Intel's (slightly) superior architecture, bribe, optimization and marketing. And it has a $1000 price tag... Nice comparison. PII is only $800 less...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 6:37:10 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
Sure it beats it. It is a cocktail of Intel's (slightly) superior architecture, bribe, optimization and marketing. And it has a $1000 price tag... Nice comparison. PII is only $800 less...

The superior architecture part of this comment is correct. I fail to see how bribery has anything to do with a testably faster CPU though. If it were slower, and people bought it anyways, then bribery and marketing would be much more prominent (such as in the later P4 days), but currently, Intel has the faster processor, and it has nothing to do with marketing or bribery. As for optimization, that would be more believable if it didn't win every single benchmark across a broad range of tasks.

Sorry, but you'll just have to accept that Intel has the faster CPUs right now (even the lower end i7s, such as the 920). It's true (and visible in that set of benchmarks) that in gaming, the gap is significantly smaller, and it isn't worth the extra money for gaming alone, but for any real work, the i7 pulls ahead by a significant margin.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 6:50:57 PM

and it has nothing to do with marketing or bribery.

It does, else Intel wouldn't be paying 2.6 billion. End of story.

PS: In gaming, yeah, the gap is small in the favor of PII.
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
November 15, 2009 7:43:21 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
and it has nothing to do with marketing or bribery.

It does, else Intel wouldn't be paying 2.6 billion. End of story.

PS: In gaming, yeah, the gap is small in the favor of PII.


The $1.25B Intel is paying is for pre Core 2 era not current. Marketing has nothing to do with benchmarks.

But I can see the bribery. Anything that shows Intel ahead is bribery.

And the games there show Intel ahead by about 10% in all games but Fallout 3 which uses the same horribly optimized engine that Oblivion used. Oblivion ruled but was bad for hardware.

I guess that also means Intel bribed MS when it worked with them to optimize Windows 7 for multicore CPUs.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 7:53:23 PM

Of course. What, is it maybe because Intel is more professional? No, it is because Intel has more money and is larger.
m
0
l
November 15, 2009 7:55:03 PM

As most people know, the i7 is undisputed as the current top of the heap of processors. It even has great value, as the 920 can be overclocked to well over 4.0ghz. AMD PII can compete on the budget end of things with the x2 and x3 chips near $100, assuming you can unlock the other cores. Other than that, intel is pretty much dominate as the price and performance leader since its chips overclock better and have superior architecture in most price ranges. I am not a fanboy by any means, I only care who makes the best product for the money. That is why ATI is way ahead in the graphics card race right now. Too many people in this forum are biased and refuse to admit facts that every unbiased benchmark shows. Price/Performance has nothing to do with Intel's shady business practices (that they are now paying for). Nobody disagrees intel got busted and got what they had coming, but that does not change performance data. If you want to boycott them, you have every right to, but don't come on the forum and mislead uninformed people that AMD PII outperforms i7, i5, or even C2Q because that is clearly not the case.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 7:56:36 PM

PS: You may have heard Intel recently payed 1.28 billion to AMD, thus ending their war. Heh, AMD was stupid to take it, they could have earned a lot more money in court by stating objective facts and calling companies harmed by Intel (IBM, HP). And Intel payed a similar amount to EU because of the same thing. Dirty tactics and abuse are not welcome in the world, and I am glad some people still believe in that rule.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 8:00:38 PM

but don't come on the forum and mislead uninformed people that AMD PII outperforms i7, i5, or even C2Q because that is clearly not the case.



And you are the trusted source worthy of stating that, right? This is a FORUM. On a forum, people post opinions, this is not strictly pro-Intel environment. And by the way, your statement that PII can't beat C2Q is a total BS, even die hard Intel fanboys confirm C2Q is outdated and weak compared to PII. I5 is Intel's marketing try to fool people they have regained price/performance crown. I7 is a nice, very architecturally superior chip that is great for many advanced uses, but for normal and everyday use including gaming, it is pointless.
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
November 15, 2009 8:02:07 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
PS: You may have heard Intel recently payed 1.28 billion to AMD, thus ending their war. Heh, AMD was stupid to take it, they could have earned a lot more money in court by stating objective facts and calling companies harmed by Intel (IBM, HP). And Intel payed a similar amount to EU because of the same thing. Dirty tactics and abuse are not welcome in the world, and I am glad some people still believe in that rule.


You obviously have no idea how it would work. Even if AMD would get a judgement right away, Intel would appeal it causing AMD to get nothing for another 10 years which would cost them probably most of what they would get in legal fees.

Instead they get the full $1.25B NOW and burry the hatchet, That allows both Intel and AMD to move forward and continue to innovate.

But I forget, you would rather watch AMD and Intel fight it out forever, causing us to lose out on new better performance CPUs right?
m
0
l
November 15, 2009 8:06:19 PM

Core 2 quad is definitely outdated, but it is by no means weak. Of course anyone buying a system between C2Q and AM3 would choose the AM3 based system. It's more recent. But that's not to say that C2Q wouldn't put up a good fight.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 8:18:27 PM

Cryslayer80 said:


PS: In gaming, yeah, the gap is small in the favor of PII.

Nice try.

In gaming, the gap is small in favor of the i7.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 8:28:51 PM

cjl said:
Nice try.

In gaming, the gap is small in favor of the i7.



Nice try.

In gaming, the gap is small in favor of the PII


PS: We can continue all day...
m
0
l
November 15, 2009 8:35:56 PM

Don't let facts get in your way, but look
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=363...
clearly shows, clock for clock, Phenom II is behind i7, i5, AND C2Q...Opinions are fine...an opinion is "intel is evil, so I will never buy their products" or even "AMD offers better value in some budget ranges for gaming builds" but a misleading statement can be refuted by facts that are generally agreed upon. (also known as a truism) . So, when you say PII outperforms i7 you are misleading people, and that should be pointed out in case someone was to believe the misleading comment.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 8:49:46 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
Nice try.

In gaming, the gap is small in favor of the PII


PS: We can continue all day...

We could. The difference is that the facts support my position.
m
0
l
November 15, 2009 8:57:51 PM

How about, they're close enough to say that no one would choose i7 over pII for gaming alone.
m
0
l
November 15, 2009 9:08:01 PM

^this might be true for some people, but as I always say, if you are concerned with gaming alone, and are happy with "good enough" you should buy a console for $300.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 9:08:57 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
Sure it beats it. It is a cocktail of Intel's (slightly) superior architecture, bribe, optimization and marketing. And it has a $1000 price tag... Nice comparison. PII is only $800 less...

The i7 920 is not $800 more, but is still faster (marginally so, in many cases, except highly threaded ones). The same goes for the i7 860, which is faster than the 920 thanks to Cheater's Boost. However, since this thread is not about gaming alone, you have to look at other tasks. If you do rendering, there is no way you'd go for a "slow" Phenom II over an i7. If you do encoding and you're not rich, the Phenom would probably be fine, although if it was your business then you'd go with an i7. If you are just gaming, there's zero reason to buy an i7.

Cryslayer80 said:
and it has nothing to do with marketing or bribery.

It does, else Intel wouldn't be paying 2.6 billion. End of story.

Intel was fined for bribing its customers, not reviewers. I'm tired of that old spin. Nobody bribes any reviewers, the manufacturers simply don't have the weight to do it. What they do certainly try is using their PR to twist things. But PR are paid to be full of crap, so that's expected. It is true of AMD PR as well.

Cryslayer80 said:
PS: We can continue all day...

Please don't...

cjl said:
We could. The difference is that the facts support my position.


No they don't. They are not facts because AMD is not winning. :sol: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 9:12:04 PM

dna708 said:
How about, they're close enough to say that no one would choose i7 over pII for gaming alone.



Noody *smart* would. Big difference. :D 
m
0
l
November 15, 2009 9:13:01 PM

sorry pepperman, I was responding to dna. Platform cost for PII and C2Q are almost identical, and the C2Qs tend to overclock much better and higher...so I see them as almost equal in price/performance with a slight edge going to C2Q for the OCers and tweakers. I would never recommend that for a new build, and I am always recommending the PII x2 and x3 for budget builds. My argument was purely an academic one that despite what Cryslayer was claiming, the PII does not win any clock for clock comparisons against intel.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 9:14:59 PM

belial2k said:
sorry pepperman, I was responding to dna. Platform cost for PII and C2Q are almost identical, and the C2Qs tend to overclock much better and higher...so I see them as almost equal in price/performance with a slight edge going to C2Q for the OCers and tweakers. I would never recommend that for a new build, and I am always recommending the PII x2 and x3 for budget builds. My argument was purely an academic one that despite what Cryslayer was claiming, the PII does not win any clock for clock comparisons against intel.


C2Q's do not oc better than Phenom II's, that's nonsense.
m
0
l
November 15, 2009 9:24:51 PM

I don't think they overclock higher. They might scale slightly better though with higher clocks. Still, i'd recommend the pII over the C2Q simply because it's cheaper and about the same.
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
November 15, 2009 9:28:55 PM

jennyh said:
Noody *smart* would. Big difference. :D 


Sombody smart going for multiple GPUs would.

Then again your deffinition of "smart" is anyone who buys AMD only......

jennyh said:
C2Q's do not oc better than Phenom II's, that's nonsense.


C2Qs OC better than a Phenom II on stock voltages and air. Phenom II only OCs better on LN2 cooling that no one here uses.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 9:31:04 PM

jennyh said:
C2Q's do not oc better than Phenom II's, that's nonsense.


Except that they do. They max out at about the same top clock, but the C2Q starts lower. Therefore, it OCs higher.
m
0
l
November 15, 2009 9:31:34 PM

excluding the pathetic 8xxx series, almost the intels I've worked with can do about a 50% OC on good air. This means the Q9xxx series can do about 4.0 or greater. AMD starts with a higher clock, but has poor headroom. Most of their chips struggle to reach 4.0 on good air. This is not only me, just look at all the review sites who have the same results trying to OC AMD. Of course, there are some good and bad examples of each. But just look at the last system builder Marathon using all AMD...none of the chips reached 4.0. And since clock for clock intel outperforms AMD, it makes it very hard to recommend quad core PIIs.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 11:15:10 PM

Id prefer the i7 9xx simply because i can back a whole extra channel of memory into the rig (50% more), and i love hyperthreading - good luck hungry apps trying to max out the cpu, i also play GTA and the i7's own there.
m
0
l
November 15, 2009 11:21:09 PM

belial2k said:
excluding the pathetic 8xxx series, almost the intels I've worked with can do about a 50% OC on good air. This means the Q9xxx series can do about 4.0 or greater. AMD starts with a higher clock, but has poor headroom. Most of their chips struggle to reach 4.0 on good air. This is not only me, just look at all the review sites who have the same results trying to OC AMD. Of course, there are some good and bad examples of each. But just look at the last system builder Marathon using all AMD...none of the chips reached 4.0. And since clock for clock intel outperforms AMD, it makes it very hard to recommend quad core PIIs.

I wouldn't say it's "very hard" to recommend quad Phenom IIs, it's certainly performs in just about equal terms with the Core2Quad CPUs, but for less than $100 the price of an Core2Quad. The Phenom II 965 sells for $195, while the Core2Quad Q9650 still sells for $329, both being the best of their sockets.

As for OCing, AMD CPUs do tend to hit a wall before it reaches 4.0ghz, but many PII 955/965 users (including myself) have reached 4.0 and beyond on air alone. For the Q9xxx series, they are similar to the Phenom II line, hitting walls around 4.0, so they are equal in OCing more or less.

However, I can argue the best AM3 motherboards are cheaper (not all cases) and more future-proof than the best socket 775 motherboards (due to 775 being a dead socket) and I would recommend Phenom IIs just because of this. It's always better to have a strong overall system than having a good CPU and crapping out on the rest of the parts (oh budget i7 builders :sarcastic:  ).

So at least in terms of price and future-proofness, I would find it very hard to recommend Core2Quads.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 11:23:31 PM

apache_lives said:
and i love hyperthreading - good luck hungry apps trying to max out the cpu

I max out mine very easily. Run a bit of mental ray and you'll see just how "slow" an i7 is.

I want a 2P workstation with Gulftown. 24 threads :o 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 11:39:30 PM

randomizer said:
I max out mine very easily. Run a bit of mental ray and you'll see just how "slow" an i7 is.

I want a 2P workstation with Gulftown. 24 threads :o 

Agreed. Any decent finite element analysis in solidworks is similar - I can flatload all 8 threads for over an hour without much trouble, and I can chew through >10GB of RAM pretty easily too.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2009 12:00:44 AM

I must admit I haven't run over 2GB of RAM, but my scenes aren't very complex.
m
0
l
November 16, 2009 12:51:06 AM

kokin said:
I wouldn't say it's "very hard" to recommend quad Phenom IIs, it's certainly performs in just about equal terms with the Core2Quad CPUs, but for less than $100 the price of an Core2Quad. The Phenom II 965 sells for $195, while the Core2Quad Q9650 still sells for $329, both being the best of their sockets.

As for OCing, AMD CPUs do tend to hit a wall before it reaches 4.0ghz, but many PII 955/965 users (including myself) have reached 4.0 and beyond on air alone. For the Q9xxx series, they are similar to the Phenom II line, hitting walls around 4.0, so they are equal in OCing more or less.

However, I can argue the best AM3 motherboards are cheaper (not all cases) and more future-proof than the best socket 775 motherboards (due to 775 being a dead socket) and I would recommend Phenom IIs just because of this. It's always better to have a strong overall system than having a good CPU and crapping out on the rest of the parts (oh budget i7 builders :sarcastic:  ).

So at least in terms of price and future-proofness, I would find it very hard to recommend Core2Quads.


The C2Q recently saw a spike in prices because it is legacy at this point, and supply is very low. But just a couple of months ago the 9550 was selling below $200, and the PII 965 was almost $300. There is still some old supply floating around in non retail channels such as ebay for lower prices. But as I pointed out, I would not recommend C2Q for a new build for the reasons you stated. My argument was not to purchase 775 over AM3. My point was to show that clock for clock, PII loses the performance battle to intel across all sockets, even their oldest quad core platform. That is why I would never recommend a PII quad core for a new build either. Right now intel has better quad core options in every price range. This changes if you can get a x2 or x3 PII and unlock the cores. The value then shifts slightly on those builds to AMD, since in essence you are saving $100 off the top. But for most people contemplating a quad core build, I would suggest i5 or i7, depending on budget and usage. And for the really low budget build, I would say get a 550BE X2 and try to unlock the unused cores. It works most of the time, but even if it doesn't, you still have a solid dual core processor.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2009 1:29:42 PM

My point was to show that clock for clock, PII loses the performance battle to intel across all sockets, even their oldest quad core platform.




Give me some of that grass you're on, okay? Life is much simpler if you are dumb, I want to try being that for once...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2009 1:58:11 PM

Every post you makes proves you dont have to try.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2009 2:01:04 PM

BadTrip, you should take the intelligence test. It sometimes shows a man how smart he would have been not to have taken it.
m
0
l
November 16, 2009 3:29:33 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
My point was to show that clock for clock, PII loses the performance battle to intel across all sockets, even their oldest quad core platform.




Give me some of that grass you're on, okay? Life is much simpler if you are dumb, I want to try being that for once...



the grass I'm on is called "data" and facts. Every reputable hardware review site shows the same conclusion.....so unless you can point me to someplace that can prove me wrong, I'll keep saying you don't know what you are talking about and are misleading people. I've already posted data backing what I say, and I can keep doing it all day. You have nothing but your hatred of intel to back your position.
m
0
l
November 16, 2009 4:47:40 PM

this topic again for the nth time? sheesh.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2009 4:52:02 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
Quote:
My point was to show that clock for clock, PII loses the performance battle to intel across all sockets, even their oldest quad core platform.





Give me some of that grass you're on, okay? Life is much simpler if you are dumb, I want to try being that for once...

The problem is that Intel is actually faster clock for clock. The Q9550 at 2.83GHz keeps up quite nicely with a 3.2GHz PhII 955. It's probably a worse choice right now due to future socket compatibility, but for performance, it is still competitive.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2009 5:09:40 PM

Do you think a Q9550 is so awesome that it will actually... BLEND?


m
0
l
November 16, 2009 9:09:09 PM

Again like i posted in another thread... did no one read the financial day slideshow from AMD!?!? If you did you would know that AMD is coming out with some pretty powerful stuff next year... fusion in H1, thuban in H1, new transistor shrink in h1 for laptops, and Bulldozer in q4 (they said they were ahead of schedule). Now with Intel having to stop controlling what dell and some other computer makers buy (we all know this happened... read the details of the Cuomo suit).

I think AMD will be doing alot better financially since they have a larger market now, and not to mention some money from intel.

I honestly like this. (i got AMD stocks at $4 a few weeks ago and now there at $6.50 :D  )
m
0
l
November 16, 2009 9:51:13 PM

But isn't that more of an Intel vs. AMD thing. We're just mainly talking about the current CPU offerings of both companies.
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
November 16, 2009 11:21:17 PM

yannifb said:
Again like i posted in another thread... did no one read the financial day slideshow from AMD!?!? If you did you would know that AMD is coming out with some pretty powerful stuff next year... fusion in H1, thuban in H1, new transistor shrink in h1 for laptops, and Bulldozer in q4 (they said they were ahead of schedule). Now with Intel having to stop controlling what dell and some other computer makers buy (we all know this happened... read the details of the Cuomo suit).

I think AMD will be doing alot better financially since they have a larger market now, and not to mention some money from intel.

I honestly like this. (i got AMD stocks at $4 a few weeks ago and now there at $6.50 :D  )


Yea we all know. And Intel will have its 32nm by end of this year, Core i9 (Thubans competition), in Q1 of 2010 Intel has Beckton for its servers (8 core, 16 thread), and Moorestown to hit in Q1 2010 which will have a 45nm GPU on die.

So its not like AMD has something to one up Intel. Intel will be right there with AMD pushing back. I say it will be very interesting.

BTW Thuban is not going to be a IPC improvement but more of a core improvement. It has 50% more than Phenom II X4 so in highly threaded apps it should perform better. Core i9 is set for 32nm I believe and might have IPC improvements. Keyword, might.
m
0
l
November 17, 2009 12:28:52 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Yea we all know. And Intel will have its 32nm by end of this year, Core i9 (Thubans competition), in Q1 of 2010 Intel has Beckton for its servers (8 core, 16 thread), and Moorestown to hit in Q1 2010 which will have a 45nm GPU on die.

So its not like AMD has something to one up Intel. Intel will be right there with AMD pushing back. I say it will be very interesting.

BTW Thuban is not going to be a IPC improvement but more of a core improvement. It has 50% more than Phenom II X4 so in highly threaded apps it should perform better. Core i9 is set for 32nm I believe and might have IPC improvements. Keyword, might.


I highly doubt the i9 will be out by the end of the year. And by the tech papers it looks like bulldozer will beat the i-3,5,7,9 architecture. Its SMT also looks better.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 17, 2009 12:41:06 AM

Cryslayer80 said:
Sure it beats it. It is a cocktail of Intel's (slightly) superior architecture, bribe, optimization and marketing. And it has a $1000 price tag... Nice comparison. PII is only $800 less...

"slightly" ??

Is that a joke?

The Nehalem architecture is far more then just "slightly" superior to the K10 architecture. You're looking at a theoretical IPC (best case scenario) comparison of 5 to 3. Of course this is a best case scenario.. in actuality it looks more like this: http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT1028... (Read the whole thing). Add QPi and an integrated tri-channel DDR-3 memory controller and you've got something pretty special on your hands.

Bribe? I think what you're alluding too is the practices Intel are alleged to have employed during the Netburst (Pentium4/D) days and have got nothing to do with Nehalem.

Optimization? Do you mean the fact that Intel releases specific SSE(2/3/4) Optimizations within their processors and their compilers? I see nothing wrong with that so long as the end result is the same (ex: 1+1=2 still). When you have an architecture which can do Micro-Ops Fusion and Macro-Ops Fusion, optimizations are important (fusing several operations into a single operation thus saving processing cycles is quite an achievement).

The marketing has nothing to do with the performance figures we're seeing. LOL. Not sure why you mention marketing that's like me mentioning Fishing... totally irrelevant.

As for having a $1000 price tag.. that is irrelevant. A Core i7 920 can easily be clocked at those speeds for a fraction of the cost. There are no other architectural limitations in a Core i7 920 which prevent it from reaching those numbers (same cache, same QPi Link speed as it is unlocked, same everything save for clock speed and a locked multiplier).

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 17, 2009 12:46:33 AM

cjl said:
The problem is that Intel is actually faster clock for clock. The Q9550 at 2.83GHz keeps up quite nicely with a 3.2GHz PhII 955. It's probably a worse choice right now due to future socket compatibility, but for performance, it is still competitive.

I remember people (myself included) using the clock for clock argument during the Pentium IV vs. AMD Athlon XP days. It was a favorite among the rabid AMD Fanbois.. funny that it is now an irrelevant talking point (in the eyes of the rabid fanbois that is).

For fanbois, like political partisan hacks, they feed off of marketing talking points (spin) and repeat it like it's gospel.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 17, 2009 12:57:55 AM

yannifb said:
I highly doubt the i9 will be out by the end of the year. And by the tech papers it looks like bulldozer will beat the i-3,5,7,9 architecture. Its SMT also looks better.



you do realize that bulldozer is 2011 at the earliest, so it will be competing with Sandy Bridge.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 17, 2009 1:06:27 AM

BadTrip said:
you do realize that bulldozer is 2011 at the earliest, so it will be competing with Sandy Bridge.

Yes but the Gods favor AMD.

On the night of Bulldozer's release, the stars will align, the waters will part and locusts will rain down onto the earth... so it is written in the AMD Testament.

AMD4Life!

:p :p :p 
m
0
l
!