Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD VS Intel

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Chipsets
  • AMD
  • Intel
  • Phenom
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 21, 2010 5:49:46 PM

Is a AMD Phenom II x6 faster then all CPU's in its price range?
I would like to know also what chipset you are using, for example Intel P55 or AMD 890fx.

More about : amd intel

November 21, 2010 5:53:00 PM

And i am guessing that would be with the Intel P55 chipset, right?
m
0
l
November 21, 2010 6:31:46 PM

Oh dear... i see a flame war coming lol
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2010 6:36:59 PM

i5 is not even cheap..Let alone the upgrade options with 1156 isnt even enough to justify the price of that cpu/
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2010 6:51:39 PM

Well when the i5-760 cost less and performs better than the AMD Phenom II x6, you cannot deny that its at least cheaper. As for upgrades it will be several years befor you will ever need to consider a replacement and by that time it will be ok to do a complete overhaul anyhow.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2010 6:53:52 PM

thechief73 said:
Well when the i5-760 cost less and performs better than the AMD Phenom II x6, you cannot deny that its at least cheaper. As for upgrades it will be several years befor you will ever need to consider a replacement and by that time it will be ok to do a complete overhaul anyhow.

Technology moves too fast to even know if this is a good buy or not..
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2010 7:36:21 PM

ghnader hsmithot said:
Technology moves too fast to even know if this is a good buy or not..


Software moves to slow to keep up with the latest hardware :sarcastic: 

Heck even a phenom II x4 could last years before it's really classified as out of date hardware for someones and by the time that happens, there will be no support for AM3 cpu's. We'll most likely be in the AM4 or AM4+ range by then.

Having "Upgrade options" is really a non factor for most people as most people want to spend on a computer once and have it last as long as possible before it fails. The only reason why there is such a thing is for people who want to keep up with the latest hardware without spending on a set of new hardware.

For example, if your someone like I or my family friend. Who keeps there hardware for a very long time, That upgrade factor is unimportain. My family had a pentium 4 desktop that about 5 years old that just died a month and 1/2 ago, while my family friend has an 8 year old Althon XP desktop that was built by my dad and it still running strong.

Plus anyways, If your getting a Phenom II cpu (AM3), wouldn't you want it to run at full on an AM3 motherboard, ect?




Now anyways, which performs better? Core i5 760 or a Phenom II x6?

Well depends on what you're doing with it.

If it's games that were talking about, the Core i5 IPC will win over as most games dont run on 6 cores yet.

If it's some like CAD, F@H, Video rendering, ect, Last i checked the Phenom II x6 will win.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2010 7:44:23 PM

warmon6 said:
Software moves to slow to keep up with the latest hardware :sarcastic: 

Heck even a phenom II x4 could last years before it's really classified as out of date hardware for someones and by the time that happens, there will be no support for AM3 cpu's. We'll most likely be in the AM4 or AM4+ range by then.

Having "Upgrade options" is really a non factor for most people as most people want to spend on a computer once and have it last as long as possible before it fails. The only reason why there is such a thing is for people who want to keep up with the latest hardware without spending on a set of new hardware.

For example, if your someone like I or my family friend. Who keeps there hardware for a very long time, That upgrade factor is unimportain. My family had a pentium 4 desktop that about 5 years old that just died a month and 1/2 ago, while my family friend has an 8 year old Althon XP desktop that was built by my dad and it still running strong.

Plus anyways, If your getting a Phenom II cpu (AM3), wouldn't you want it to run at full on an AM3 motherboard, ect?




Now anyways, which performs better? Core i5 760 or a Phenom II x6?

Well depends on what you're doing with it.

If it's games that were talking about, the Core i5 IPC will win over as most games dont run on 6 cores yet.

If it's some like CAD, F@H, Video rendering, ect, Last i checked the Phenom II x6 will win.

But with the massive amount of software layer..Nowadays software arent built on hardware.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2010 7:58:55 PM

ghnader hsmithot said:
Technology moves too fast to even know if this is a good buy or not..

You could say that about absolutly anything at anytime, now or 200yrs from now. That fact will never change unless you can tell the future. I am not trying to start an argument or anything at all, thats just the way it is, things will never change.
[:bilbat:1]
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2010 9:20:55 AM

My Q6600 outperforms a lot today after much tweaking...its architecture is 3 years old now.

At 3.4Ghz its faster than a Stock i7 920 in gaming and through Sisoft Benches.

Also, Kentsfield is clock for clock 5% faster than Deneb...which I think is hilarious.
m
0
l
November 22, 2010 12:44:56 PM

I have to agree about the upgrade path. I'm an AMD fan from way back however my last build was with a I5 750. I don't expect to ever upgrade the I5 and if I were to buy a AMD hexacore I'd not expect to ever upgrade that ether since in both cases it will be years before they become a significant bottleneck for any gaming. In two years AMD Bulldozer (new socket) and Intels sandy bridge (new socket) will be old news. Your looking at a totally new motherboard and cpu at that point. If however you were strappef for cash and placed a sub 100 dollar amd CPU in an AM3 motherboard then I could see you upgrading to a top of the line hexacore in two years when they are cheap to extend the life of your system yet another 2 years.
m
0
l
a c 172 à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 22, 2010 2:24:20 PM

If they become - substantially - cheaper.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2010 4:48:57 PM

The AMD hexacores are fast only because they have 6 actual cores crunching at whatever you want it to run, but when you are comparing it with games that really only take advantage of 2 or 4 processprs at most, then you will find that the hexacore will be bested by several quad cores out there, including the Phenom II x4 965 and the Intel i5/i7 series that are in the same price range. When you compare any of these processors against threaded processes that do leverage the 2 additional cores, though, the Thuban comes into its own.

In my own house, I have both an AMD 1055T (GIGABYTE GA-890FX) and i7 920 (ASUS Sabertooth X58) to make comparisons. In real world everyday use, I can honestly see no difference between the two. The perceived difference is so small, I could probably circumcise a gnat and it would be bigger. The processors were roughly the same price, but the mainboard for the i7 920 was about twice the price as the AMD, and it had less offerings, such as USB 3 and 6 Gbps SATA (though that is probably a manufacturer thing than anything else).
m
0
l
November 22, 2010 7:41:52 PM

So If I were to get a Phenom II x6 and only run on 4 cores, meaning that i turn off 2 would that outperform the 760? BTW i am going to mostly be gaming.
m
0
l
November 22, 2010 7:48:05 PM

Just to correct the obvious troll from the second post the 1090t is faster in things like encoding, 3D rendering and other multithreaded applications. It also has 6 cores making it more future proof.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2010 8:13:01 PM

psychoactivist said:
So If I were to get a Phenom II x6 and only run on 4 cores, meaning that i turn off 2 would that outperform the 760? BTW i am going to mostly be gaming.

No, it's not th extra cores that slow down the 1090T, it's the fact that the cores are clocked slower (when compared to the Phenom IIx4 965) and the IPC per core is lower (when compared to the i7) on the quad-core processors. You can overclock, but you aren't going to get any better performance out of the Thuban than you would from overclocking the 965.

And to be perfectly honest, once you get to a certain point, you're gaming isn't slowed by your CPU, but rather your GPU, so go with the cheaper solution and sink more money into a faster GPU or a multi-GPU setup (Crossfire or SLI). You will get more gaming performance from this than you ever would from a CPU upgrade after you have determined that you aren't CPU-bound with whatever processor you choose. That's one of the reasons why TG considers the AMD Athlon II x4 such a good buy...sure, you can get faster processors, but do you really need to if all you are doing is putting lipstick on the pig (i.e., putting more processing power into your gaming system that will never really be taxed by your games)?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2010 8:24:10 PM

^^@phoenixlight,

You may want to have a look at this: i5-760 vs. AMD 1090T, before you just start calling people trolls.

That fact is the i5-760 performs so close to AMDs 1090t six core and cheaper that it puts the AMD to shame. The AMD can only pull ahead slightly of the i5 just because of the extra two cores in: Photoshop, little more than half the 3dsmax tests, cinebench multi-thread, only HD encoding, zip bench not real world, excel by less than a second, SMP bench, and the huge amounts of power it requires. This for the most part is by so little it makes no difference in the real world, beside the power use. And this is compairing an apple(4-core) to an orange(6-core) were the one assumed to be better(orange) is actually losing.

To put it simply AMD made a chip with 6cores that can barley compete with a Intel 4core CPU unless your doing some serious multi-threaded stuff and uses ALOT more power to do so.This is not trolling or fanboy-ism, these are facts proven by benchmarks.
m
0
l
November 22, 2010 11:52:11 PM

I love my i7 to death, but Intel is horrible for re-using sockets. If you want Intel, wait for their new chips coming out in Q1/Q2 2011, otherwise get an AMD.

I would opt to wait for 2011 since both Intel and AMD are releasing a new generation of CPUs. Now matter what CPU you get now, in 3 months, it will be a generation old and the new CPUs will be ~1.5 times faster per clock and the motherboards will be more upgradeable.

If you really want an upgrade, buy some DDR3 memory or an SSD.

A CPU generation is about once every 18 months, and you're straddling the transition.
m
0
l
November 23, 2010 1:46:48 AM

Thank you all for helping me pick which CPU to choose and thank you "thechief73" for showing be the website where you can benchmark different hardware. BTW do you guys think that i should wait for the next gen CPU that are coming out or just buy, if the next gen CPU are really that amazing and cheap (no more than 200) should i just wait. All i am going to really do is play games.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2010 6:17:52 AM

I would say only wait if you can, meaning that if your dont need a new PC urgently. I am waiting just too see what the prices will be and the real performance numbers, but that said probably only the new i5 model(the 2400) I belive will be ~$200 running at 3.1GHz(3.4GHzTurbo) almost same performance as the i7-880 extream, this is based on Anandtechs estimate not mine. And with all new released tech you'll always be paying the "early adpoters tax", but if your going to mainly play games with this PC and do not intend on doing X-Fire/SLI, anything from the i5-760 and up will do your just fine for several years.
m
0
l
November 23, 2010 7:55:46 AM

thechief73 said:
^^@phoenixlight,

You may want to have a look at this: i5-760 vs. AMD 11090T, before you just start calling people trolls.

That fact is the i5-760 performs so close to AMDs 1090t six core and cheaper that it puts the AMD to shame. The AMD can only pull ahead slightly of the i5 just because of the extra two cores in: Photoshop, little mor than half the 3dsmax tests, cinebench multi-thread, only HD encoding, zip bench not real world, excel by less than a second, SMP bench, and the huge amounts of power it requires. This for the most part is by so little it makes no difference in the real world, beside the power use. And this is compairing an apple(4-core) to an orange(6-core) were the one assumed to be better(orange) is actually losing.

To put it simply AMD made a chip with 6cores that can barley compete with a Intel 4core CPU unless your doing some serious multi-threaded stuff and uses ALOT more power to do so.This is not trolling or fanboy-ism, these are facts proven by benchmarks.


What's a 11090T? Oh you mean a 1090T. The i5-760 isn't faster than the 1090T at everything so you can't make such sweeping generalisations, and the poster above is a troll who constantly goes into threads trying to provoke AMD users with blatant fan-boy-ism.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2010 10:01:09 AM

Phoenixlight said:
What's a 11090T? Oh you mean a 1090T. The i5-760 isn't faster than the 1090T at everything so you can't make such sweeping generalisations.

C'mon, your going to go after me for a typo were a extra 1 got inserted? And I am not making a sweeping generalization hence why I listed the 1090T's strengths and weaknesses. The 1090T only pulls ahead in some muli-threaded apps, and when it comes to 4cores or less, it loses due to the lack of computing power in each individual core.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2010 12:33:52 PM

thechief73, you will have to admit, the trend will be towards more applications becoming multi-threaded, not less, and this includes games as well. As this happens, guess what? More actual cores (not hyperthreaded "virtual" cores) will make all the difference.

Also, most people who use more than one application at a time are already pushing work on to multiple cores, such as folks who encode/decode video while they check email and browse their favorite forums. Again, more actual cores makes all the difference.

Yes, the Intel processors have a higher IPC per core, but it isn't overwhelming in real-world performance (i.e., the average user really wouldn't notice the difference sitting in front of the screen since it is usually a matter of milliseconds to a few seconds).

It isn't until you start getting into higher and higher clocks that the Intel processors take an edge on performance, and the price tag shows it. Watch how precipitously the price tag goes up when AMD isn't able to offer a competing product. As a consumer, is this a trend you really want to encourage? Personally, I would rather see AMD have product that is competitive across the board, so the next time I go out there and buy a new processor, I don't have to spend $1000 to get the best one out there.

We are about to see the next generation of processors from both Intel and AMD, and I am hoping beyond hope that we will see neck-and-neck performances from both platforms, and price cuts across the board. Sure, you may prefer Intel over AMD, but you should also be rooting for AMD to make the best product they can, just to keep Intel on their toes.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2010 4:18:01 PM

^@Houndsteeth, Now thats what I call a well written response, +1 to you, as you have made a very valid point there and I can agree with you 100%.

[:mohsentux:7]
m
0
l
!