Amd vs intel

Intel's Core i7 typically perform better.

I find that PassMark gives a pretty decent overview of performance between different processors. Here is a link to the "high end" CPU charts:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

You can search for 'i7' and 'x6' in your browser to see how individual models stack up.

Intel is simply smoking amd right now in terms of perfomance. There really can't be to much argueing that.

With that said if you're looking for a cpu you need to figure out what you're primarly doing. And then look for a cpu that best matches your needs and budget. Best way to do that is to look at the benchmark results yourself.

As there is way to much bias from most people.

Here is a great CPU hierarchy chart.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-cor...

Right now the 1100T costs $240, and the newest i5-2500K costs $230. Not even looking at the newest i7, just looking at the newest i5... it already destroys AMD's top CPU in price and performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=288

Now if you really want to compare Intel's latest i7-2600k to that 1100t... maybe destroy isn't a strong enough adjective. But this i-7 is $330, so it doesn't compete with the AMD for price... but it owns the benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=287

And as for past i7's, the latest i5-2500k can beat 90% of them. The latest i7-2600k can beat all of them (considering overall speed and price, the 2600k is almost $700 cheaper than the i7-990).

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=287

The only benefit to the 1366 socket i7's are tri channel RAM and more full x16 PCIe lanes. But tri-channel RAM and more PCIe x16 lanes can only help the overall system by 5% or so... and that is not enough to beat the newest 1155 i5-2500k or i7-2600k.

Also on the horizon there will be new 6-12 core designs from AMD and Intel. Intel will have more i7's with a newer LGA2011 socket that will be better than what the 1155 platform is offering.

i7 performance is better from some of AMD Phenom II x6 .
But can not compare i7-2600k or Sandy Bridge becouse no perfact M-Board , all are faulty m-board after Appril2011 it wiil be Repaied m-board.

The new i7 performance isn't better than some AMDs, it is better than all their current offerings.

Only the SATA II ports have a fault. The SATA III connectors are just fine. AMD has had problems in the past like the TLB bug... so you can't say the new Intel CPU can't be tested or isn't good because 15% of people might have a failing HD connector.

That doesn't make sense.

well would a i7 940 oc'd to 4.0 ghz have better preformance than a stock i7 2600?

No with the Sandy being faster clock for clock they would be more equal. 2600 may still have an advantage ,2600K does for sure due to 4.5-5.0ghz overclocks.

dude in every way imaginable i7's 1366 take the floor .....
* Performance ..definitely intel ...
* Costumer support ...intel (ati/amd worst customer support ever)...
* Cheaper AMD ...
* Overclocking performance ...Intel ..
* Trichannel RAM features : exclusively INTEL.
* The sexiest processor of 2010 ... Intel ...

So there we have it the dispute is settled

P.S. the new i7's (non 1366 sockets) arent true i7's because they dont use tri channel they use dual channel motherboards

1366 takes the floor? How come the 1155 2600k is beating the whole lineup of 1366 CPUs in all the benches?

Intel has the crown, but it's on the 2600k now... not the last generation. The 1366 flavors can go up to $1000 while the 2600k is about $700 cheaper also... so the price vs performance crown is still on the 2600k, not any of the 1366 chips.

2600k still uses dual channel ram not tri channel. And 1366 boards have 6 ram slots, not just 4 that's why   and realistically 1366 processors have more to offer, as far as additional features on there motherboards go. All intel processors are revolutionary though.

1155 Wipes the floor with everything else. You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Look at the chart in my earlier post.

tri channel ram and more PCIe x16 lanes only offer you a 5% increase in bandwidth. If you know how to read you will see that these 2 things do not make up for a slower CPU no matter how you slice it.

Do you really need 6 RAM slots? If you really need more than 4, then you should be waiting for the Sandy Bridge LGA2011 socket that will have 4 memory channels.

Unless you have a reason to run 24GB+ RAM today, 1366 is already dated.

My $300 i7 2600K ( 1155 ) at stock beats a stock $1000 i7 980x ( 1366 )in almost every benchmark. Guess that triple channel RAM is not helping too much. You really should have a clue before posting incorrect information.

To be fair to the 980x, this is only true for gaming and lightly threaded workloads. The 980x utterly flattens the 2600k in heavily threaded throughput-based workloads. For most people, it doesn't matter, but there are some people for whom the extra threads genuinely are useful.

^ Completely agree with you.

Well for encoding the AMD 1100T with 6 cores can actually be 1 to 5 seconds faster than the 2500k... but overall it is a total waste of money since the 2500k beats it completely in everything else.

With 1366... the 2600k can still beat it at the encoding tasks with a tiny overclock. So for all purposes 1366 is dead unless you already own it. Purchasing it new now seems like going back a year or 2 in technology... not forward.

AMD is price/performance.well intel is the best at performance but you will find AMD cpus cheaper and at very good performance.    

tri channel makes a huge difference ... its one of those things that you wouldn't realize until you actually use it .... But lets put it this 8gb of dual channel ddr3 would barely run my system ... and so i use 12gb of tri channel 4 gb sticks .... and have already purchased 24gb 6x 4gb sticks of newegg 1600MHz for $320. Essentially what i am getting at is buying anything other then 1366 socket is limiting your overall setup.Yeah i am building the beast... its gunna be amazing

Lol @ 24GB of RAM in anything but a server. You do know you only need 4GB for gaming. 8GB gives a TINY boost to some titles. With video/photo encoding as your primary use 12GB should handle it just fine. Having too much RAM can actually hurt performance.

I did say almost   And for $700 less almost is good enough for me . But yeah I realize some people actually need a true hex, but that guy was saying triple channel RAM makes 1st gen i7 faster than the 2500/2600.

24gb is for After Effects cs5 and its 64 bit and utilize how much ever i set it 2 ... I was able to pull a stable 4.0MHz out of the Hydro 50.

When I first built my i7 860 system I had 4 x 2gig sticks, so I experimented with 4gig & 8gig setups and with a relatively empty hard disk, I couldn't tell any difference in performance.

But to my pleasant surprise(as I thought I had effectively overspent on RAM), when I filled my hard disks to over 70% capacity, then the 8gig made a notable difference.

I never had more RAM to test and I would be highly sceptical of the notion that for my uses any more than 8gig is required, but I certainly would not recommend anyone go for less than 8gig(or maybe 6gig on a x58 system), unless they are severely budget constrained.

the thing is that.... Ram on newegg.com right now is insanely cheap .... you can get 12gb for like $160 and 24 gb for $320 ... food for thought ... and i love how everyone says would never need more RAM but haven't actually used a system with that much ... Yet i have and it makes a difference especially the noticeable boost with tri channel functions. More Ram/ High Processing speed = Faster computer = happy me .. So I am running 24gbs 1600 speed DDR3 with an i7 930 oced to 4.0MHz that will get the job done

I agree that the pricing is so good, that unless budget constricted, that maxing out your ram doesn't have major downsides.

However when you do max out your ram, often it can lower your 24/7 overclock limits. Now it may not lower them by much, but still something to think about.

Also often when you max out all ram slots the Command Rate of the ram drops, but again we are talking about very small performance drops in selected applications only.

3rd one down.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i...

that was for 3d's Max not AE .... and i think the benefits outway the downsides on having more ram .... as it will make the overall performance of your machine better in the end... and also note that i am already at 4.0 and dont plan on going any higher as of right now so 24gb of ram with 4.0 i7 ... thats like months worth of sex  

"Our custom After Effects benchmark isn’t as demanding as the Premiere Pro test. It’s hardly a surprise to see a trio of Sandy Bridge-based CPUs take the top three places, followed by Lynnfield and Bloomfield."
It's the fourth one down.

still my point was i can set the ammount of ram i want AE and Premiere to Use. so if i set 16gb just for rendering... it will use it and render super fast

building a good setup with alotta ram is kinda like a bunch of hot chicks at a party ... the more the marrier

would a phenom II x6 oc'd to 4ghz be better than an i7 950 oc'd to 4 ghz in multitasking and gaming?

No the i7 wins in gaming and only a few specialty programs use 6 cores. Intel is faster clock for clock. Wait for Sandy Bridge to be rereleased in April. i7 2500/2600 are the fastest things out for less than $1000 for an Extreme Edition i7 980X and they beat those chips in quite a few benchmarks.

would i7 950 set at 4.1 ghz be faster than a stock i7 2600. what type of board does the i5 2500k use? cause i'm wondering if i should wait and get the i5 2500k and overclock it to >4ghz

also the non-k models of the new core series can't be overclocked, right?

The Core i5 2500K uses a P67 motherboard (Sandy Bridge). Note that there was a problem with a chip on these motherboards, and so they will not be available until the March/April timeframe.

Correct, there is very limited overclockability with the non-K Sandy Bridge processors.

which = HORRIBLE 1366 i7's ALL DAY ALL NIGHT !

The only benefit to the 1366 socket i7's are tri channel RAM and more full x16 PCIe lanes. But tri-channel RAM and more PCIe x16 lanes can only help the overall system by 5% or so... and that is not enough to beat the newest 1155 i5-2500k or i7-2600k.

5% where do u get your info ? try 55% "supposedly by Patriot representive". He said and i quote:

What's the differnce between dual and tri channel ram i asked ...

Patriot Homeslice Rep : The difference is that tri channel omung other things is 55% faster then dual channel

LETS END THIS ... i7 1366 WITH TRI CHANNEL WINS !

Your memory access and bandwidth is faster with tri-channel, your CPU clock for clock performance does not get 55% better. With your advice, even a slow CPU would be made magically faster by adding another RAM channel. If you actually need 24GB or more of RAM, perhaps you should change to a server/workstation socket with dual CPUs and much more bandwidth.

By your example more girls at the party is better, but you only got 1 dick and can only f*ck one at a time... looking at more girls (ram) perhaps makes you pop your load a little quicker... still the same load... not 55% more.

By the time you waste so much money on this single socket setup, you are already on the way to dual CPUs with much more throughput that will actually increase your performance clock for clock and bandwidth needs over 16GB.

This is already sounding like a "mine is bigger than yours" contest in which bigger doesn't mean much better (you wasted too much money on your chip because you are compensating for something else). Sounds like that Weird Al song All about the Pentiums... says he's got 100GBs of RAM. Guess you are still wagging it in our faces... you win... it's a little bigger. Congratulations!  

This whole thing reminds me of when the people who paid over $1000 for the Pentium 4 EE chips got pissed off when the new Core 2 chips came out clocked lower, were much faster and cheaper. Yet these kind of people still fought tooth and nail for why their extreme edition CPU is better. If you really are employed as a professional for rendering and CGI animation and you don't have a dual CPU setup with more throughput, then you are not much of a professional at all (BTW, working at a Walmart photo studio does not make you a pro).

When I used to work in the Amateur Radio industry, we had a name for people who like to spend $9000 on a radio over a $1000 radio that will do the same thing... we always called them "professional amateurs". Guess that applies in the computer industry too. People using photoshop and light rendering at home just have to accept what the consumer market is offering. True professionals like Lucasfilm, Dreamworks, or Pixar would not be caught dead using a cheap consumer oriented chip in the first place, even a single socket 1366.

So if you are a professional working for a company that demands this kind of work, you should write-off a real workstation through your boss for these purposes. Don't buy consumer rated crap on Newegg and then show off your receipt to tell the home gamers and photoshoppers that their system is 3rd rate junk. Intel markets 1156 and 1155 as mainstream, 1366 and the new LGA2011 as enthusiast... not professional. Professional grade moves into dual Xeons or Opterons. If I found your crappy computer being used for making movies or editing even at a local PBS station... I would tell you it sucks.

So you have won this argument that you are a "professional amateur". A true professional working for a movie company wouldn't worry about building their own system anyways and using any consumer market parts, they will have a real system that the user doesn't even assemble or pay for themself.

So if you are not a "professional amateur"... exactly what is your job? If your company only provides you with consumer crap and you have buy it and build it yourself, sounds like you need to look for a better job. The little photo processing studios at Wal-Mart that take family photos are not really in need of a professional setup. A cheap consumer oriented Dell or HP with 4GB of RAM is what they use every day even for large batch editing. So who exactly do you work for and what is your normal workload consisting of that requires such demanding requirements?

Home users should have no need for 24GB or more RAM at this time anyways, even for photoshop.

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey