Is this place in general an intel fanboy place

[squareenixx]

I mean I was a but shocked I found a thread on here where a guy was asking whether to get an i3 540 I think it was or the Phenom II X4 965 BE.


And everyone was saying the i3 kicks the 965's ass.

I don't get it I mean even the 955 beats the i3's in benchmarks I have seen everywhere. And I can't find any other forums that say i3 wins.


Please explain.


I mean here it is.

As you can see its in the top 10 cpu's and i3 is nowhere to be seen.

Also AMD cpu's shine more in gaming and the guy said he was a gamer so I don't get it one bit.

 

[k1114]

Please link. I'm sure people will say the i3 2100 beats the 965 in games but no one will say the i3 540 beats the 965 in anything.

 

[squareenixx]

Please link. I'm sure people will say the i3 2100 beats the 965 in games but no one will say the i3 540 beats the 965 in anything.

The 965 beats the 2100 in gaming since most games now are threaded for quad cores. Also the 965 OC's like crazy.

Hyper threading is nowhere near as effective as physical cores

 

[Motopsychojdn]

Theres a spread of fans either way, and some who just aren't bothered, but the essence of fanboiism is that you blindly argue your team over anything silly like real evidence
Moto

 

[k1114]

Benchmarks speak for themselves. Would you like an explanation why it's losing?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i3-2100-phenom-ii-x6-1075t,2859-10.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2120-2100_5.html#sect0

I'm not an intel fanboy, I buy whatever is better. 3/4 of my last computers were amd because the better price/performance but until bulldozer comes out amd is no match.

The link you posted is a synthetic which means absolutely nothing (imo) and its the 10 most common benchmarked cpus of that program not the 10 best.

 

[jaguarskx]

The benchmarks speaks for themselves. AMD had their limelight back in 2002/2003 with the Athlon XP starting with the Thoroughbred / Thorton CPU core and it lasted until mid 2006 with the release of the Windsor CPU core for the Athlon 64 X2. During that period of time the Athlon CPUs simply beat Intel's Pentium 4 CPUs. Back then Intel was about clock speed, clock speed and clock speed. AMD thought them a lesson, clock speed wasn't everything, it's more about how efficiently the CPU can handle instructions. I used Athlon CPUs during this time period.

What happened mid 2006's? Intel learned their lesson from AMD very well, clock speed was not king. They released the Core 2 Duo / Quad CPUs which can process more instructions than AMD's Athlon 64 X2 every clock cycle. Intel took back the performance crown from that point and still holds it today. I switched to an Intel C2D E6600 in 2006 since my Athlon XP 2600+ was 4 years old by that time.

As it stands now AMD is roughly a generation behind Intel. Their Phenom II X4 and X6 CPUs are competitive with Intel's older Core 2 Quad CPUs, not with Intel's current Core i CPU series. The general consensus of AMD's upcoming Bulldozer CPU is that it will probably be as fast as Intel's current Core i CPUs, everyone needs to wait for "real benchmarks", not "synthetic benchmarks" to find out how well it can perform.

 

[jimmysmitty]

The 965 beats the 2100 in gaming since most games now are threaded for quad cores. Also the 965 OC's like crazy.

Hyper threading is nowhere near as effective as physical cores

Very few games take any real advantage of quad cores. And I have a quad core and had one back when people said they were pointless and dual cores were the best CPU to go for. And ture, HT is not effective compared to physical cores but I will tell you this: The Phenom arch is not nearly as efficient as a Core i3 2100 or 540s arch. In fact, according to THGs tests (they took a bunch of CPUs ranging from 2005ish to now, put them all at 3GHz and used a single core on each CPU) a Phenom II is about the same as a Core 2:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/processor-architecture-benchmark,2974.html

Its a very well done benchmark. But what that says is that be it one, two or four cores a Phenom II is about the same as a Core 2. Anything above core 2 will have greater IPC meaning it will just do better, to a point. A Phenom II x4 or x6 will beat most Intel quads in heavily threaded apps, but then again the IPC difference helps Intel out there quite a bit.