The "REAL" price difference between a Phenom 2 and I7 System - Page 3

That was already answered, $200 difference between the cheapest i7 system you can build that is decent and a slightly lower end Phenom II system, expect $200+.

Yeah there is absolutely nothing wrong with i7, it just doesn't really justify itself in most builds. If you want i7 then you want it. If you have lots of multiple GPU power that needs some release or you do a lot of workstation type work then i7 is the clear choice if you can afford it.

Guys...the cost of the CPU's themselves is virtually identical.
As for mobos, the question becomes "Will you spend an extra $50 for both CF and SLI support?"
That leaves Tri-DDR3 as the main culprit...wait...I just brought 2 1600 DDR3 DIMMS (4GB) for my 790i for $80, so Tri-DDR3 goes for a reasonable $120 or so.

As for power, its not even close. Most GPU solutions are too weak for i7though, but I expect that situation to change soon, especially when you factor in PII's somehwat lackluster performance in CF/SLI setups in comparision.

I see 0 reason to build a new system without an i7. PII is a great upgrade option, but i7 for its cost simply isn't worth skipping over.

I've explained that...several times already...because most games are limited by the GPU, not the CPU. Any CPU powerful enough to drive the GPU will lead to no extra performance. Hence, why a Q9550 is still just as good for gaming.

When the next generation of cards comes out, I fully expect to see a consistent 3-5 FPS gap between the i7 and PII (as a result of what I call the "Crysis Factor", I expect a major leap forward in GPU processing power).

i7 is a better chip, and at most $150 more. For a new build, i7 is clearly the way to go.

Why recommend a C2Q when i7 is cheaper?

What is your definition of cheaper? Leaving aside motherboard prices and the difference between DDR2 and DDR3, here's the Core 2 Quad CPU price list at Newegg:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] rder=PRICE

Here's the i7 price list:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 20Desktops

Just for comparison, here's the Phenom II quad price list:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] rder=PRICE

The Phenom II falls in between various Core 2 Quads. Those are the AMD and Intel CPU's that go head to head. i7 is a curiosity that some will go for now, but it's not assured that you get the bang for your buck if all you do is gaming and some video editing and productivity. That might change with i5, but right now, both Core 2 Quads and Phenom II quads are better options for a new gamer's build with one or two GPU's.

When Intel duals vs. Phenom II triples are factored in, AMD does quite well in the bang for your buck system with a bit of futureproofing and support for video and graphics programs that support more cores.

Apples to apple and oranges to oranges.

i7 with ddr3 vs P2 ddr3, $ difference is under $100 no matter how you fan boys try to justify it.

Why would you run a P2 with DDR3?

Well DDR3 dual channel is only about $20 more anymore and since the AM3 quad is far cheaper we are still seeing around $200 of difference.

why is micro center the only place that sells the i7 920 for anything below $280? how can they get away with selling it so cheap, i cant beleive intel hasnt thrown a huge hissy fit over this. and the logic behind store pickup only?? im a little confused here. when i first saw that price a few months ago i thought it was a typo or a scam (i hadnt heard of micro center before that)

It´s more than clear:
X4 grants you more bang for the buck, and if you buy an 940 you have multiplier unlocked. But if you want raw performance, and have money to spare, go for the I7 ( it's my case), also it's very overclockable ( mine hits 3,5 Ghz with air without problems).
I'm waiting to see the how the x4 955 performs ( and how much is it cost).

I would say x4 grants more bang for the buck for gaming applications. I would actually argue though that i7 gives more bang for the buck for computationally intense, highly threaded software (like scientific computing). Most people here don't do that kind of stuff, so Phenom II x4 is the way to go for them (or the x3 720), but I wouldn't underestimate the value of i7 for raw computational power when it is needed.

Just curious: do you run ATI cards? and what i7 CPU do you have?

I know the TG comparisons between the i7 and PhenomII showed that Phenom did better with nVidia GPUs at higher resolutions, but they were comparable on ATI.

To me, I just hate paying tons for a CPU that in a year will be worth far less than what I paid. AMDs have held their value better, and given me good performance.

I'm not against using Intels. I just don't like paying their premium for their top-of-the-line product. It's not worth it to me to pay 3x the money to get a 30% performance improvement.

I was not talking about a "build", but their top processor. that is why the last line of my statement said:

"I'm not against using Intels. I just don't like paying their premium for their top-of-the-line product. It's not worth it to me to pay 3x the money to get a 30% performance improvement."

AMD Phenom II X4 940 Deneb 3.0GHz = $219

Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 965 3.2GHz = $999

999 / 219 = 4.56

So Intel's top product is 4.56 x more expensive, yet the speed gained is actually:

(3.2 - 3.0) / 3.0 = 6.67%



So, I was quite generous with my statement about Intels. You actually pay 4.5x the money for the Intel product for only 7% gain in clock gain.

Yes I use ATI cards. Only because they have proven themselves before AMD bought them out to myself with the 9700Pro I used to own then again with my 9800XT.

I don't own a Core i7, don't have the money to do a new build right now AMD or Intel. But I want to see what Intels 32nm offers since it is set for release at the end of this year. If I have money and it delivers what I want, I will probably get it.

As for the L4D comparison, they were using a Core i7 920, Phenom II 940 and a C2Q QX9450 all at 3.8GHz and the Core i7 on a colock per clock level got about 174FPS, the C2Q was on par with the 940 with about 14-150FPS. I will have to look for it again. And the thing is that Source is a very CPU dependant engine and with its new multithreaded capabilities in L4D and soon a update to add it for TF2 (and HL2:EP3 will probably use it too) thats what matters most to me hence why I even bothered to get a Q6600 last year. I tend to only play those games for the purpose that VALVe has the best FPS games I have ever played.

So far I have gotten well more than my monies worth out of my Q6600 and I got it when it was about $250. Thing is there was no Phenom at the time when I made my decision and even when Phenom was released it was the same price but the Q6600 was a better performer and I got a G0 stepping which gave me a 3GHz OC free. In fact I lowered my core voltage from its stock VID of 1.275v to 1.25v and its still 8 hours + Prime95 stable. So in short, the Q6600 was the best value for about 2 years. It is two years old and still has a lot of potential since games will slowly start to utilize multiple cores. Thats if you are mainly a gamer. I game and use my PC for DVDs and now Blu-Ray. My CPU never hits 10% usage when using a Blu-ray mainly because of my HD2900Pros UVD2 but still.

Value is mainly in what you can spend and what you are willing to see as valuable. Hell I got a Pentium 4 Northwood back when they were still good CPUs and the system is now 6 years old and my fiance uses it for her games since they are not as graphically intensive. Most graphically intensive game she plays is Age of Mythology. And considering I paid $1500 for that setup 6 years ago and it still is being used I would say that machine has some kick ass value. And I eeven upgraded to a Pentium 4 Northwood 3.4GHz EE for only $150.

I myself set a budget each build for $1500. If Intel has the best of the best and I can build with it in that range then I will. If AMD has the best of the best and I can build with it then I will. Plus I like to go every 2 process gens. I went 130nm to 65nm and the performance gain was awesome. Next step is 32nm so I can get another awesome gain. Unless I can find a way to wait till 22nm. But that I doubt.

All I can say is don't judge based on price for everything. Always set a budget then wee what you can get. If its Intel cuz they are the best in that range get it. If its AMD then get it. Hell I will admit that the Phenom X3s are a good step. I just fear that AMD has created a market they wont be able to sustain without purposley making good quads bad even though they could make more for their quad than a tri core. But time will tell.

Oh and I agree with CJL. You could use Intels top of the line to compare but then again when Athlon X2 was the best you could have compared Intels $150 Pentium D 805 to the $1000 AMD Athlon FX and the funny thing is the Pentium D 805 OCed better and outperformed the Athlon FX for 6.6x less money.

Many of Intel's products match it only when overclocking. Intel chips are known to overclock very well.

As for the P4EE being best, that was silly to say. Hopefully you knew that is not the point I was trying to make.

My statement was about "top end products", not about "fastest clock speed" in that post.

If you ask anyone at Intel, their top product in their CPU line for home users is the i7 965 Extreme.
If you ask anyone at AMD, their top product in their CPU line for home users is the PhenomII X4 940.

It wasn't about price shopping, or clockspeed, or even overclocking. It was looking at what you have to pay to get the premium product vs what you actually get. The reference to clockspeed was a pure reference of core speed, and not raw "horsepower". If I wanted to get into real performance, I'd start talking about chip internals, caching, etc., and how each one benefits over the other. Intel does math better, AMD handles high-end gaming graphics better.

It could even be pointed out that the PII 940 AM2+ benches better than all but the new x58/i7s and 1 C2E in the gaming suite testing (again...all processors that cost more).

But that wasn't the point either.

If you look at i7 920 to PII 940, you pay about 32% increase for about an over all 20% performance increase. Doesn't make sense to me.

It wasn't simply to make AMD look good.

It was to show that Intel charges a premium for their top of the line product, and that (something I thought was a no brainer) a) not everyone has $1000 for a CPU, and b) not everyone knows the difference between PII or P2, Phenom or i7, Wolfdale and Kentsfield and Yorkfield, or Agena, Deneb, or even Thunderbird, c) Intel's pricing at their top level is absurd.

And if price is your sticking point, then you should narrow it down and compare it to the Q9400 ($229) since it's the only one within $10 either way of the 940 ($219) according to newegg pricing.

If you want to get into "price class", that is an iffy proposition. what is a price class? $10? $50? $100?

If that's your mentality, then you should call the AM3 Phenom IIs 800MHz processors since they powerdown and conserve energy when idle, and apparently in your opinion the normal operating parameters of a processor are not what you measure them by or classify them.

Simply put, you've twisted the whole point. I could go on, but it's fruitless. You just want to argue points that were not what I was trying to make.

If you are a gamer, look at the conclusions that TG has come up with of the PII 940 vs. i7 920:

AM2+ PII 940 works better overall with nVidia cards, and just as well with ATI cards, in the highest graphics settings.

If you are a gamer and want to pay $70 for a i7 processor that is a total new technology that doesn't totally beat the AM2+ PII chip running on older technology motherboards that on average also have about a $50-100 price split and memory that will cost you about 10-25% per chip?

Need examples:

cheapest AM3 mobo: $139
cheapest i7 mobo: $189

cheapest DDR3-1333 memory set for AM3 Mobo: $31.50 per chip
cheapest DDR3-1333 memory set for x58 Mobo: $36.66 per chip


My point was:

Top notch means you're gonna pay far more for Intel...period. And, it's not worth the extra cash if you have a budget.

Most people have a budget, especially nowadays.

Intels are great for server applications and mathematical purposes.

But, I don't see a whole lot of people on TG Forums going "Yeah, I need a build that runs vector ray tracing applications and complex engineering applications best no matter what the cost."

More power to you if you want to spend $630 on a i7 920, mobo and 6GB of ram.

For that, I can get a 720BE, a 790 mobo, probably unlock the 4th core, OC it to 3.2-3.6GHz, get 4GB of RAM, and buy the hard drive, case, and PS.

AMD 720BE $145
GIGABYTE GA-MA790XT-UD4P $140
4GB Crucial Ballistix $79
Antec Three Hundred $60
500GB WD Black $75
OCZ700SXS 700W $95
------------------------------

Total: $594

or the sure quad-core top CPU:

AMD 940 BE $219
BIOSTAR TFORCE TA790GX 128M $110
4GB Gskill $47
Antec Three Hundred $60
500GB WD Black $75
OCZ700SXS 700W $95
-------------------------------

Total: $606

See my point? I'm a video card and DVD burner away from having a rig.

BTW, just for point of reference...

My 720 OCed/unlocked benches about 1300 pts lower than the benchmarked i7 920 that has a far better video card and faster memory than what i do...and that's me running a gimped processor.

I am just waiting, as I'd said to someone else, for the AM3 mobos to come out and the newer AM3 CPUs. I think they will be better than what a lot of people are expecting, considering the power the 720BE shows in all my benchmarking.

Yes: because we shouldn't actually look at something that people might pay a lot of money for to be a benefit. (After all Intel only charges much more for their unlocked CPU because they don't really want to sell as many of them; not because they consider it an important benefit.)

So we shouldn't consider it to be a benefit or worth any value for a competing brand when we make comparisons.

Another one with this bullcrap.

The Extreme editions/FX series always have and always will be a waste of money.

Comaring those cpus with the rest of the lines on a price/peformance comparision is utter fanboy nonsense. It was foolish back when AMD got the top cpu with the FX to compare it to a reg p4 for price/peformance.

The extreme editions are overpiced nonsense. Using them to make a point on price/vs performance for either company is pure fanboy crap.

Whats funny is if Intel dropped the price of its overpriced i7 940 down to low to mid 300 range and the EE to like 400 bucks, all of the AMD trolls like baron woud complain that Intels prices are to low. Now when the higher end of the Intels are overpriced cause there isnt a competitive cpu from AMD for them we got this nonsense in this thread. The enigma troll train of thaught.

We all know the i7 system costs more. For most gamers it doesnt make sense to go Intel. We all know the i7 is faster then AMD in just about everything else. Yet you rabib fanboys cant be happy with that. Yall deside lets compare price/peformance with a i7 965 vs a PII 940. TROLLS.

Actually, I would consider an i7 940 @ $300 instead of the PII 940 @ 220.

but, not at $550+. That is just far too much money.

My reply was not directed towards you jaydee

The EE will never be that cheap Just like if AMD ever fully trounces Intel (and I mean trounce by Athlon X2 vs Pentium D) then they would have a FX chip @ $1K.

The reason that AMD doesn't have one right now is because they would get very few sales only from their loyalists because anyone going for a uber high end setup would probably go for a C2Q 9770/9650 or Core i7 965 since at that price range it would rule supreme.

But the next time AMD is on top they will have a $1K CPU to make the money off of it. Hell I am sure you will see similarly priced to what Intel has had. $1K, $500, $300 and $200-sub $200.

I still doubt any true peerformance increase from AM3. Hell I think some sites have shown very little to non much like everyone has said since its just a jump to DDR3 and faster HTT which only apply to memory sensative programs like server apps. Much like how the true performance increase for Core i7 comes from the CPU enhancements itself and not as much the QPI and IMC. Thats just for the servers really.

Therell be some DDR3 improvements, and so far, no ones really tested AM3 with AM3 boards with a decent bios etc to my knowledge. With the better steppings, already theres a 3.2Ghz model to come. I doubt itll be much of a jump, but something more tahn it is currently, 3-4%. Hardly noticeable, like the difference between most of these cpus at same freqs. Only a bench would show it, real world experience, you wouldnt be able to tell, and thats truly why it comes down to price

a) If you know how
b) If you have good enough cooling
c) If you know how to install cooling
or
d) If you have the $2000-5000 (depending on how big you go) to have someone build you the system with watercooling for you to have a "overclock the hell out of it" computer.

Not everyone does what you and I can do with a computer.

To compare a mobile processor to a desktop processor is two different architectures, power models, etc., is jut silly.

Mine was top of the line, desktop processors for pricing.

And even you should admit: paying $1300-1500 for a CPU, motherboard, and 12 GB of performance memory is just silly too...unless you're Donald Trump's kid, of course?

TG also showed that PII-940 beats i7 920 with a 4870 512 as well as with a GTX 280 at any resolution 1680x1050 and above.

Read the data:

Chris Angelini's article: "Editor's Corner: Getting Benchmarks Right : It's All In The Numbers" (Page 2 gives you comparison numbers of platform vs platform, several video cards)

Only when he uses the 4870x2 or dual GTX280s does the Intel outtask the AMD in realistic gaming resolutions in his results. And even then in the highest res, it is not by much and the Intel with higher-end video are dropping off faster as the resolutions go up.

And as I have stated before, it could be drivers or a hardware interfacing issue.

But the fact still remains: Intel did not perform as well as AMD using nVidia in real-world gaming scenarios as I had stated. I was spot-on, at least according to the website I have come to respect for their thorough reviews.

I admit, I know little of Anandtech.

Funny...

AMD's shows 2800 when they call it a 2.8 GHz CPU

Intel is now calling their 3.46GHz processor 3.2? Why would they do that? They want to underrate their top product?

Maybe Intel needs to be corrected. You should call them and set their marketing and products people straight. You sound just like the person to do it.

Anyways, you are still missing the point.

Nowadays:
- not many folks are spending mounds of money, especially with unemployment at 8%+ and rising now.
- not many people are buying/building home PCs for high-end computational purposes
- most people walk into a Best Buy or call Dell for a PC

And no matter what kind of person you are...overclocker or not:

If I have a machine with processor A that is good I can get/build for $1400 with a GTX280.

Then I have this other machine with processor B that does better in most things like Dreamweaver and Quicken, but is slower in games like Crysis, Far Cry 2, etc., for $1700, and I can get it to perform a little bit better in high-res games as the first computer by upgrading to a video card in it for an extra $200-350.

Which one do you think most people are going to choose for use in their home??

Common sense should rule in your decision...unless of course, you have the extra $500-650 to blow on just wanting processor B and an overpowered video card you didn't really need.

I think most people would buy more memory, more disk space, bigger monitor, etc.

Or nowadays, it's more likely they will just save the money for a rainy day in today's economy for a later upgrade or something.

Like I said...Intel's top of the line is stupidly priced, both in regards to the amount and the "bang for the buck". Even if you get double the speed with Intel's top over AMD's top chip, you're paying 4.65x more. What makes sense for paying 2x performance for nearing 5x the cash?

Their comparable processor (i7 920) is still more money ($50), the motherboard to implement it is more money ($50-100), the memory is more money (per chip and as a set both), and to get it to do everything better than the AMD, I have to go out and buy the highest-end video card setup (ATI single 4870x2, 150-250 extra...dual card nVidia GTX280, $300-350 extra...over the cost of one GTX280) to make up for driver/hardware problems Intel's chip has rendering graphics?

Buying a Ferrari that will sometimes outrace a Corvette for 30% more money makes no sense either.

It just fiscally...and "bang for the buck"-wise...makes no sense. Sorry. The absolute premium is not there for the typical user with Intel.

The only thing less intelligent than doing what you say would be to ignore a feature that costs a lot of money on one brand and is offered for almost free on the other brand and pretending that the benefit is not real, valid, or important. To attempt to do this merely because it hurts your argument definitely reveals a large degree off fanboy nonsense.

To me, the AMD wins hands down because most people upgrading to the Phenom II are not starting from scratch. We're people looking to stretch our existing technology as far as it can go and dropping a Phenom II into our existing AM2/AM2+ Mobos and DDR2 Ram is a slam dunk compared to upgrading RAM, CPU, and Mobo.

Even further, we can still have the option of going DDR3 and a newer Mobo a little while down the line and still have a decent setup.

Not everyone, especially in this economic climate, can afford the highs costs for each upgrade that Intel likes to make us do. Sure after 3 years we will both probably have spent somewhere near the same amount, but Intel makes us do it all at once here, while AMD gives us a "flexible payment plan"