Is there something I am missing like power numbers, sli or cf performance, OC? As far as I see, the 1090T is almost neck and neck with the i7. Cheaper mobo should put the 1090T in the favor. But, the higher end builds I see around are still preferring i7? Just because the 1366 might have a longer life? Please enlighten me on this subject. I dont plan to make a machine with said budget, but with all the stats and benchmarks I cannot figure out exactly what goes in i7 favor. A big reason for my curosity is that in one of the thread where a person asked about AMD vs Intel, one guy said that AMD is only fighting at under 200$ and Intel is happy with larger margins at the 250+ market. I think the 200 mark should probably now goto upto 300? Thereby eliminating any segment where Intel are clear winners, atleast for normal builds? Please, I am no fanboy of either(ok, i favor AMD a bit, but i build myself an intel build twice in the past 4years). I just want to know, why one company succeeds with customers despite the other being equally competitive? (If we consider price segments). Thank you for your time and efforts.
It comes down to instructions per clock. Intels have higher IPC so lower speeds are needed to match AMD. In multithreaded applications the phenom IIx6 can pretty much match the i7 but in single threaded apps the i7 has the advantage especially with their turbo boost (LGA1136 wasn't as effective as LGA1156 version). Coupled with the fact that intels overclock far better than AMD's thats why the i7 is "better". For gaming there are "a few how many cores do you need articles" published recently and tri cores seem to be the sweet spot. A phenom II is enough for gaming that the extra cores aren't that useful, and the fact that intel quads @stock are enough. there are a few exceptions where intels pull away like multi card set ups but thats getting into GPU vs CPU bottlenecks. (Legionhardware don't a superb article on the matter)
generally AMD hex cores are great if your encoding or doing heavy threaded applications but intels are better if your overclocking and have a slight advantage over the hex at stock in some areas. If your into folding@home you need an i7 for the bigadv project I think. would need to check if hex's can carry it out but don't think they can.
Really, the i7 is just faster in any application which uses four cores or less, and definitely in any program which can use Hyper-Threading, and there are more applications which use four or less cores than those which use five or more which means the i7 is faster. Technically speaking, AM3 will last longer than LGA 1366.
I just want to know, why one company succeeds with customers despite the other being equally competitive? (If we consider price segments). Thank you for your time and efforts.
equally competitive? If they were equally competitive, CPU prices would be a lot lower. AMD's CPUs are well prices for performance, as is intel. But the i7 has no real competition. The debate ends past the i7 920, for the most part. And so you see extreme prices at $1000 for high end intel. And believe me, people actually do spend that much money on a CPU alone. Price vs production costs for that, lead to a lot of profit. AMD did this back when the FX- series was the fastest CPU in the world. $999 for their best.
Let me ask you a question, have you ever seen a commercial on television for AMD or an AMD-based laptop? The answer is no. Intel is the only one marketing their CPUs to the general public. Many people who are not into computers, are not even aware that AMD exists. Part of intel's success comes down to marketing.
AMD came up a bit in and around 2005 when they had the top CPU and good price/performance for their lower end CPUs. Yet their market share never hit 50%. And this was AMD's peak.
As far as I see, the 1090T is almost neck and neck with the i7
Which i7? And yes it is and better, but only in programs that can use 6 cores. Even the phenom IIx4 3.4GHz doesn't beat the i7 920 2.66GHz in performance. It's like the old P4 vs Athlon XP/64.
But, the higher end builds I see around are still preferring i7
Because it has the performance lead against the 1090t in everything that is not heavily multi-threaded. Which is the majority of things people use.
one guy said that AMD is only fighting at under 200$ and Intel is happy with larger margins at the 250+ market
I agree with this. You can get the 1055t for $200. With that in perspective, the 1090t sucks price/performance. But the 1090t is good for overclockers isn't it!? From everything I have seen, the 1055t can overclock to the same frequency as the 1090t can overclock to, generally.
Thereby eliminating any segment where Intel are clear winners, atleast for normal builds?
Generally, under $200 you are looking at an AMD build. Although, if the i3 and i5 prices decrease, this will change. There's also cases where an i3 will be better for a person.
Zipzoomflyhigh: than 4 cores will the 1090T outperform the 1090T.
I completely understand that the i7 940 does outdo the 1090T in almost all the tests. But, and my apologies if this isnt too correct as I am basing this comparison on the benchmark suite from anands, the diference is not earth shattering. I cannot see more than 5% lead in any real world use benchmarks(syntheic benchmarks are to be taken seriously?). If its the multi gpu case, i think it would be really helpful if you could give me a link to such benchmarks. OC, ok thats one area where i7 indeed triumphs.But I still have some questions. My apologies if these appear to undermine your replies as that is not my intention. OC implies that the cutomer would need better board, better cooler. If we consider a high end gaming system, can this money not be put into a better GPU or other components. Ofcourse, I know if want, we can extend this logic and just build a machine with a tri core rana. But, I think rana fails at multi gpu, fails miserably at applications when compared to i7s. The 1090T does stand on its own. Or the i7 still blows the 1090T out of the water? I dont think so. And thats what is erking me inside.
Another thing is Phenom II X6 is struggling to match a I7 when it has a clock speed advantage, overclock both to 4.0Ghz and the I7 will beat Phenom II X6 even in a majority of tasks that push the 6 cores. Phenom II is just weak compared to the ICore series from Intel, they have great price/performance but by no means can they match the upper performance levels.