Amd vs intel

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

^ Completely agree with you.

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

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.

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.

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

3rd one down.

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 33-15.html

"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.

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

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.

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

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

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 !

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.