Would you buy a Phenom or an i7 ?

[dickcruz]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...for_Six_Core_AMD_Phenom_II_X6_Processors.html
AMD Reschedules Launch Schedule for Six-Core AMD Phenom II X6 Processors.
AMD’s Turbo Core Technology Explained: Up to 500MHz Boost When Half of Cores Active
[03/24/2010 01:16 PM]
by Anton Shilov
Advanced Micro Devices, the world’s second largest maker of central processing units (CPUs), has decided to reschedule the launch of its six-core microprocessors by speeding up the release of the highest-performance Phenom II X6 chip and delaying the availability of a less speedier part, according to sources familiar with the company’s plans. In addition, more details about AMD’s Turbo Core technology have transpired.

Apparently, AMD decided to bring forward the launch of AMD Phenom II X6 1090T chip (3.20GHz) to the second quarter of 2010 and pull back the release of the model 1075T (3.0GHz) to the third quarter. The move will help AMD to get more positive press review for its new code-named Thuban processors since the parts with higher clock-speeds naturally offer higher performance, something that will be appreciated by potential buyers of the new CPUs.

More details have also emerged about AMD’s Turbo Core technology. Depending on the actual model and its specifications, AMD Phenom II X6 1000T-series chips will be able to boost their clock-speeds by 400MHz or 500MHz when only half of available cores are active, e.g., microprocessors work in triple-core mode. That said, the model Phenom II X6 1090T at 3.60GHz will most likely outperform the currently available Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition in typical cases.

Pricing of the chips is still not known precisely, but sources close to AMD said that the high-end AMD Phenom II X6 1090T will cost approximately $300, whereas the model 1055T will be priced at around $250. At present AMD’s most expensive desktop processor costs $185, therefore, the introduction of the Thuban chips will allow AMD to rather substantially boost pricing and, possibly, profit margin of its desktop offerings.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

The two use totally different architecture, so a direct comparison will be difficult.

An i7 920 @ 2.66GHz is faster (up to 30%+ in certain applications) than a PII x4 965 @ 3.4GHzz.

Thus, a 3.33GHz i7 6 core would be significantly faster than a 3.2GHz PII 6 core if it is still using the PII architecture.

The i7 x6 will most likely outperform the PII x6, but it doesn't matter since the two weren't made to compete against each other and will be targeting completely different price ranges.


I'd say the PIIx6 will perform similar to an i7 920 or i7 860, and slightly better in multi-threaded apps that use 6 cores.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

I'm not going to buy an i7 980 because it costs 1k, and I'm not going to buy a PIIx6 because I already have an i7 and don't need an AMD based system.

If I had to start from scratch - if I was on a budget, the AMD PII x6 for sure. If I had $$$, I'd go for the i7 980.

 

[mindless728]

i am actually thinking of buying the PII x6 1090T when released

since i do some heavy multi threaded applications (programmer)

 

[dickcruz]

i agree that the i7 x6s are way more efficient due to the hyper-threading but think about serverboards that can take 2 CPUs or more made for the PIIX6's that'd be way smoother than 6 virtual cores and it'd probably not even cost as much as the i7X6's

 

[saaiello]

See the difference between the two is the AMD x6 is basically a Phenom II x4 with 2 more cores added in they didn't change the architecture or anything really so for gaming it will not perform any better then the Phenom II x4s. Now you look at the I7 980x they added new sets of instructions its 32 nm and its architecture is light years ahead of AMD.

i agree that the i7 x6s are way more efficient due to the hyper-threading but think about serverboards that can take 2 CPUs or more made for the PIIX6's that'd be way smoother than 6 virtual cores and it'd probably not even cost as much as the i7X6's

The I7 980x will still smash dual AMD x6s

 

[loneninja]

I've never spent a full $1000 on an entire build before, no way would I spend it on a single processor.

 

[saaiello]

I've never spent a full $1000 on an entire build before, no way would I spend it on a single processor.

Not many people will but this CPU is not built for the average user and to be honest the average user and even an extreme gamer has no need for it. This CPU is built for the professionals doing 3d rendering and CGI type of work.

 

[LePhuronn]

Bought a Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition for a dedicated WoW box.
Bought an Athlon II X 245 for a dead basic file and web server.
Buying a Core i7 980X for my primary design system (or i7 970 when it's out later this year if it overclocks nicely).

Computers, like everything else, are tools for a purpose and I always buy the tools that best fit their intended use. Sometimes it's AMD, sometimes it's Intel.

 

[RetiredChief]

Could not Vote. need a choice of Neither.

Hex core procs only need by a VERY small percentage.

For performance, I'd go with a I7 Quad. Both for CPU performance and for The chipset governing HDD preformance. As I see no improvement going with a Hex core based on application usage. As to Graphics, well that is pretty much determined by GPU - My preference is AMD/ATI

Hard drives (HHD/SSDs) are currently the biggist drag on performance - Lowest common denominator. See
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3778&p=6

 

[Scotteq]

Bought a Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition for a dedicated WoW box.
Bought an Athlon II X 245 for a dead basic file and web server.
Buying a Core i7 980X for my primary design system (or i7 970 when it's out later this year if it overclocks nicely).

Computers, like everything else, are tools for a purpose and I always buy the tools that best fit their intended use. Sometimes it's AMD, sometimes it's Intel.

Could not Vote. need a choice of Neither.

Hex core procs only need by a VERY small percentage.

For performance, I'd go with a I7 Quad. Both for CPU performance and for The chipset governing HDD preformance. As I see no improvement going with a Hex core based on application usage. As to Graphics, well that is pretty much determined by GPU - My preference is AMD/ATI

Hard drives (HHD/SSDs) are currently the biggist drag on performance - Lowest common denominator. See
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3778&p=6

Quoted and Quoted for Truth.



Always, Always evaluate your usage and buy accordingly. Unless, of course, you're a nutball (like some of us), and forge ahead anyhow. In which case, you should still evaluate your usage. If only to fully understand just how Over The Top your rig is!

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Could not Vote. need a choice of Neither.

Hex core procs only need by a VERY small percentage.

For performance, I'd go with a I7 Quad. Both for CPU performance and for The chipset governing HDD preformance. As I see no improvement going with a Hex core based on application usage. As to Graphics, well that is pretty much determined by GPU - My preference is AMD/ATI

Hard drives (HHD/SSDs) are currently the biggist drag on performance - Lowest common denominator. See
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3778&p=6

Same. Although what I did was just click the "see the results" button which nullified my vote.

 

[Raidur]

If the main use of my PC could utilize 6 cores then i'd go Phenom II x6.

If I did CPU intensive tasks as part of my profession i'd probably get the i7 980. (If I could afford it lol)

Were talkin a CPU the price of an entire system here.

 

[SHANEMARINES]

I have a soft spot for AMD. *Cough* *Cough* Maybe the price is what I like.

Amd's like ATI in a way you just can get more bang for your buck.

Diclaimer: This is my opinion and you should never take what I say to heart.

 

[Scotteq]

Diclaimer: This is my opinion and you should never take what I say to heart.

....says the guy with a Tank... :lol:

 

[jsc]

You need a third option - "None of the above".

 

[SHANEMARINES]

....says the guy with a Tank... :lol:

Thats only on base.

 

[Scotteq]

Thats only on base.

<wink> SSSSSSssssshhhh... You're supposed to say nothing, and smile wickedly! <wink>

 

[Chad Boga]

There are going to be a lot of threaded applications where an i7-860 still beats Thuban.

 

[OvrClkr]

Im waiting on the 1055T as well. 1K for a CPU is ridiculous no matter how fast it is. We have something called overclocking for a reason. IMO the i7 hexa will be down the same road as the 975. Targeted to users that have cash to burn or just for the average e-peen user. There will be very few people that will be willing to shell out 1k just to shave off a few seconds from whatever task they are handling.

Last time I passed by MC they had the 975 at 650.00$ and still not able to get a buyer.. Intel needs to do some serious thinking and start selling thier Tier 1 CPU's at a price that the public can afford. Unless they can care less and just hope to screw someone over for the heck of it.

If we were comparing a 250.00$ CPU to a 500.00$ CPU then that would be a different story..

 

[fazers_on_stun]

IIRC the i7-970 will be out anywhere from 1 - 3 months (next quarter). Rumored pricing starts at $500. I'd consider buying that and doing a mild overclock if I needed all that horsepower..

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Last time I passed by MC they had the 975 at 650.00$ and still not able to get a buyer.. Intel needs to do some serious thinking and start selling thier Tier 1 CPU's at a price that the public can afford. Unless they can care less and just hope to screw someone over for the heck of it.

If we were comparing a 250.00$ CPU to a 500.00$ CPU then that would be a different story..

Really? I wonder why MC's website doesn't show the 975? There's an MC about 10 miles from my work so it'd be a quick lunchtime trip. I do see that they have the i7-860 at $200, down from the $330 stock price...

 

[OvrClkr]

Last time I went to MC they had 2 975's available, not sure if it was on the website or not but I asked the dude that helped me out if they had sold any 975's recently and he told me that normally they special order them for customers that wan't to save some cash. Well the funny thing was the fact that the last 2 customers that had placed the order never came in to pick up the CPU. Normally this tells you that they might have found out that they could achieve more or less the same performance going with a 920, my guess but who knows...

650.00 for a 975 is not bad at all considering the retail pricetag, but how is MC making a profit off of such a CPU at that price? Makes you think someone is getting screwed over. Ohh and forgot to add that the boxes had a bit of dust on them, who knows how long they have been sitting on the shelves..

 

[OvrClkr]

Ebay also has a few "New" 975's at 725.00$, this also makes you think how the seller is making any money off of them. Bottom Line the 975 does not cost 1k, Intel just like's to slap EE logos on their "boxes" to lure in the idiots that have large bank accounts. If the performance of the i7 EE CPU's was earth-shattering vs. a regular i7 then the price would be justifiable.

Funny thing is that you see most reviewers stating that they have their EE CPU's at 4.2/4.3Ghz on AIR (main reason why they bought the EE), well many other CPU's can do the same for much less...

 

[fazers_on_stun]

^ Yeah I think most enthusiasts here would rather pick up a cheap CPU and oc it, than pay for an unlocked mulitiplier. But you still see Alienware selling $5K boxes (there's an Area 51 box with an i7-980, two 5970's in Xfire, but only 6 GB of 1333 DDR3, no SSDs, etc, for about $4K). There's always gonna be the uber-Apple-epeen clique with the cash to burn.