Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Amd vs Intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2010 6:55:35 AM

Hello,
can u pelease tell me is AMD Sempron better than Intel Dual core

More about : amd intel

a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 19, 2010 8:05:49 AM

It depends on which Intel Dual Core. I'm assuming it's the Pentium, in which case the Pentium should be faster than the Sempron.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2010 8:39:46 AM

Sempron is superior in terms of cheaper price and lower power consumption... Any Intel Dual Core is definitely a better performer than the AMD's low level CPU. Not because it's Intel's, but because it has 2 cores. This is real life application of the old saying; 2 heads are better than 1.

Personally, I prefer AMD's CPUs over Intel's. But that's just me :p 
Score
0
Related resources
August 19, 2010 8:42:47 AM

damasvara said:
Sempron is superior in terms of cheaper price and lower power consumption... Any Intel Dual Core is definitely a better performer than the AMD's low level CPU. Not because it's Intel's, but because it has 2 cores. This is real life application of the old saying; 2 heads are better than 1.

Personally, I prefer AMD's CPUs over Intel's. But that's just me :p 


But 20 heads is not better then >4 heads for gaming.

*I have yet to see a game that has used more then 4 heck 90% only use 2 cores*
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 19, 2010 9:22:32 AM

^ FSX can definitely use more than four cores. ;) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2010 9:54:10 AM

Lmeow said:
^ FSX can definitely use more than four cores. ;) 

It doesn't really matter, because Phenom II X6 is slower than Core i5 (at the same clock) and i7-970/980X is way too expensive. In addition, most games are bottlenecked by gfx instead of cpu. Anything better than i5 750/760 is sufficient.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 19, 2010 10:15:49 AM

^ The Phenom II X6 is slower in anything which can't more than four cores, but otherwise I'm pretty sure it's faster.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2010 12:14:15 PM

Lmeow said:
^ The Phenom II X6 is slower in anything which can't more than four cores, but otherwise I'm pretty sure it's faster.

Not true. Check 7-zip Real World(instead of benchmark) at Anandtech!

1055T@2.8GHz vs. 750@2.66GHz (LOWER IS BETTER in some cases)

As you see, X6 1055T only beats i5 750 in synthetic benchmarks which is meaningless. In addition, 750 wins in 50%+ cases even at lower clock.

Is 7-zip a multithreading app? Judge it yourself with the following chart.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2010 6:22:24 PM

Randomacts said:
But 20 heads is not better then >4 heads for gaming.

*I have yet to see a game that has used more then 4 heck 90% only use 2 cores*

Dude, that's a whole different analogy. The old adage; "the more the merrier" doesn't actually suit the CPU processing concept.

Besides, don't you think that you're out of topic here? It's Sempron vs Dual Core :heink: 

And what's with the 20 heads thing anyway? :pfff: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2010 6:28:41 AM

Quote:
In the end, we're here talking about sempron and a pentium dual core, if you compare them together, ur comparing a bicycle with a scooter, at the performance and their not even in the same price range nor are they suppose to be on par in performance.

and about comparing a core i5 with a phenom 6 core check this
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-10...

That's X6@3.2GHz v.s. 750@2.66GHz, bro.

You know how to OC, do you? 750 has much more room for OCing and can easily reach 3.6GHz at stock voltage.

By OCing 750, you will get better performance than 1090T for much less $.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2010 8:48:43 AM

Yes, you can of course OC the X6 as well. However, 750 beats X6 in most 4- and 4+ threads REAL WORLD apps while their frequencies are similar (i.e. 750@2.66GHz v.s. 1050T@2.8GHz) and 750 can also reach higher frequency with lower power consumption.

In addition, higher default clock means nothing to peoples who are willing to spend a little time reading OCing guides. Isn't getting the most out of the buck the point of DIY system?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2010 10:58:49 AM

iqvl said:
However, 750 beats X6 in most 4- and 4+ threads REAL WORLD apps while their frequencies are similar (i.e. 750@2.66GHz v.s. 1050T@2.8GHz)


true. but today, you will not be able to feel that "real life performance". Sure, a 3GB compression will take 13minutes on i5 and 15minutes on X6. but srsly, if i can wait 13 minutes, i can also wait another two minutes :p 

because its a matter of how far in the future can u see. it is true that few program uses 4 thread, let along 6core, but tomorrow, you may have try to load 6 heavy single threaded application. or maybe 3 application that can use upto two cores each.... do you reckon i5 can keep up? i know i5 and i7 is still the performance king , but do we really need that kind of performance or are we better off trading that with 2 extra cores and ensure that the system lasts longer?

thats when you will know that maybe, just maybe, you din think things through. and a smarter choice is always to think ahead of your time. :) 

you can always get one of intel's six cores, but u probably have to sell you kidneys first :p 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 21, 2010 3:09:57 AM

sarwar_r87 said:
true. but today, you will not be able to feel that "real life performance". Sure, a 3GB compression will take 13minutes on i5 and 15minutes on X6. but srsly, if i can wait 13 minutes, i can also wait another two minutes :p 

because its a matter of how far in the future can u see. it is true that few program uses 4 thread, let along 6core, but tomorrow, you may have try to load 6 heavy single threaded application. or maybe 3 application that can use upto two cores each.... do you reckon i5 can keep up? i know i5 and i7 is still the performance king , but do we really need that kind of performance or are we better off trading that with 2 extra cores and ensure that the system lasts longer?

thats when you will know that maybe, just maybe, you din think things through. and a smarter choice is always to think ahead of your time. :) 

you can always get one of intel's six cores, but u probably have to sell you kidneys first :p 

You don't get it. Multithreading apps can utilize the FULL potential of ALL cores.

X6 loses to i5/i7 in multithreading(such as 7-zip which utilizes ALL six cores) apps today and so it still WILL in the FUTURE.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 21, 2010 3:12:12 AM

Quote:
Here I might have to agree with you, Intel has more of an performance lead but I'm on AMD's site, yet liking the phenom II x4 955BE more than the Phenom II x6, where I live, buying an AMD over a Intel would save you around 150-400 on the whole platform without GPUs.

150-400? In what currency?

A P55 platform with 750/760 only costs a few US$ more than AM3+1055T.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 21, 2010 5:03:16 AM

^ With AMD, you can get an AM3 x8/x8 CrossFireX motherboard with full SATA III & USB 3.0 (i.e., using two graphics cards won't disable SATA III/USB 3.0 and vice versa) for a great deal less than what a P55 board with similar features would cost. I know P55 has SLI, but that's just one extra that P55 offers. The two processors cost roughly the same, and otherwise they can use the same components with the exception of the motherboard. Also, you can even use AM2+ boards which go for even less than AM3 boards.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 21, 2010 6:46:21 AM

Lmeow said:
^ With AMD, you can get an AM3 x8/x8 CrossFireX motherboard with full SATA III & USB 3.0 (i.e., using two graphics cards won't disable SATA III/USB 3.0 and vice versa) for a great deal less than what a P55 board with similar features would cost. I know P55 has SLI, but that's just one extra that P55 offers. The two processors cost roughly the same, and otherwise they can use the same components with the exception of the motherboard. Also, you can even use AM2+ boards which go for even less than AM3 boards.


Do you know that
1. AMD MB doesn't support TRIM and makes your expensive SSD die out much quickly.
2. Cheap AM3 doesn't have two x16 PCIE and so USB3/sata3 will also be disabled when 2 gfx inserted.
3. AM3 MB that support two x16 PCIE (i.e. FX series) costs about the same as high-end P55 MB. (e.g. GA-890FXA-UD5 vs. GA-P55A-UD5)
4. FX series only support CF which is terrible in scaling.
5. FX series doesn't support 2x nVidia in SLI.
6. AM2+ uses DDR2 which is extremely overpriced now and so it will costs about the same as newer platform even with older technology.
7. Have you heard of "PLX"? USB3.0 and SATA3.0 won't be disabled with PLX implemented and it is available on all ASUS P55 MB including the cheap ones.

AMD doesn't offer you cheaper price for no reason. It is not better in cost-performance ratio and is only cheaper AT THE MOMENT simply because it's worse than Intel now.
Score
0
August 21, 2010 7:58:52 AM

... "; DELETE * FROM CPUTHREAD where TITLE LIKE "AMD VS INTEL"

Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 21, 2010 8:35:07 AM

wh3resmycar said:
... "; DELETE * FROM CPUTHREAD where TITLE LIKE "AMD VS INTEL"

Error: database is locked.
Score
0
!