 |
|
Main
| FAQ
| Uploader
| IRC chat
| Radio
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Latest posts
| Calendar
| Stats
| Online users
| Search
| |||
| Views: 88,510,428 |
Main
| FAQ
| Uploader
| IRC chat
| Radio
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Latest posts
| Calendar
| Stats
| Online users
| Search
|
05-02-24 04:50 AM |
|
| Guest: Register | Login | |||
| 0 users currently in Computing | 1 guest |
| Main - Computing - AMD vs Intel? | New thread | New reply |
| cory21391 |
| ||
 Flurry Level: 37 Posts: 211/260 EXP: 332019 Next: 6234 Since: 03-01-07 From: NC, US Last post: 5134 days Last view: 5134 days |
In my quest for cheap, yet upgradable high performance parts, I've decided to go with AMD instead of Intel. While the corei7 may be all the rage and hailed as the best CPU in the world, I'm wondering how great can it actually be in comparison to AMD's best Quad Core offering, the Phenom II x4 AM3 CPU. One of the select few that make the grade for the emerging CPU slot technology known as AM3, full with support for the faster DDR3 RAM and for some reason has a smaller L3 Cache....
The best AM3 Quad core CPU for $180 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103650 The cheapest Intel Corei7 for $290 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202 ____________________ 
 |
| zeikxx |
| ||
 Rat Level: 23 Posts: 40/90 EXP: 63454 Next: 4269 Since: 03-18-09 From: New Orleans Last post: 5087 days Last view: 5082 days |
| blackhole89 |
| ||
 The Guardian Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows! Level: 124 Posts: 2419/4196 EXP: 21542799 Next: 293802 Since: 02-19-07 From: Ithaca, NY, US Last post: 477 days Last view: 90 days |
|
| Trapster |
| |||
 Morton Koopa Feel the pain of those inferior beings...as you burn in hell! Level: 98 Posts: 1318/2410 EXP: 9376880 Next: 277473 Since: 02-19-07 From: Sweden Last post: 4520 days Last view: 4502 days |
|
| KDE User X |
| ||
 Koopa Level: 25 Posts: 31/104 EXP: 79406 Next: 10214 Since: 12-26-08 From: Finland Last post: 5204 days Last view: 5203 days |
Intel and dot.
*goes back to play N64* ____________________ 
|
| chungy |
| ||
 Rex Level: 51 Posts: 366/533 EXP: 960772 Next: 53166 Since: 08-23-07 From: Las Vegas Last post: 4450 days Last view: 4252 days |
They both swap every other year on terms of which one has better performance, and the winner's magin is always so negligible, it's not worth playing that game.
Beyond that, I choose AMD on ideological grounds; they actively support free software. Intel has some of it here and there (for a while they had the only major graphics accelerator with free drivers, but since AMD bought ATi and released its complete documentation, that's changed), but they also have messes like ACPI which do nothing but hold back the progress of computers. |
| knuck |
| ||
 Spiny Level: 53 Posts: 536/586 EXP: 1110569 Next: 46550 Since: 07-22-07 From: BR Last post: 4641 days Last view: 4490 days |
Posted by chungyUh... what's wrong with ACPI? Ah, yeah, Intel > AMD. Intel always overclocks better. |
| chungy |
| ||
|
Rex Level: 51 Posts: 367/533 EXP: 960772 Next: 53166 Since: 08-23-07 From: Las Vegas Last post: 4450 days Last view: 4252 days |
It's a giant convoluted mess that was solved in better ways decades before on better architectures. (not like it's surprising, from the mid 80s on, x86 has been quick-n-dirty hacks piled upon each other) |
| cory21391 |
| ||
|
Flurry Level: 37 Posts: 214/260 EXP: 332019 Next: 6234 Since: 03-01-07 From: NC, US Last post: 5134 days Last view: 5134 days |
After looking at benchmarks, the increase in performance for the core i7 over the Phenom II x4 aren't really that great for how much more the former costs... ____________________
|
| Trapster |
| |||
|
Morton Koopa Feel the pain of those inferior beings...as you burn in hell! Level: 98 Posts: 1324/2410 EXP: 9376880 Next: 277473 Since: 02-19-07 From: Sweden Last post: 4520 days Last view: 4502 days |
|
| cory21391 |
| ||
|
Flurry Level: 37 Posts: 216/260 EXP: 332019 Next: 6234 Since: 03-01-07 From: NC, US Last post: 5134 days Last view: 5134 days |
Yes, but Hyperthreading just begins issuing an extra instruction per cycle, which (depending on the scenario presented) would hardly boost performance by that much if at all, unless the perfect scenario was presented at all times, then there would be considerable performance gain, but real world performance would hardly present such a case. And 8 virtual cores is a lot different from 8 real on die cpu cores. ____________________
|
| Sliver X |
| ||
 Paragoomba Level: 21 Posts: 66/66 EXP: 42473 Next: 7470 Since: 02-26-07 From: WV 
Last post: 5494 days Last view: 5349 days |
Yup, Hyperthreading maybe gives a 15% speed boost over all, but I wouldn't call that "hardly" boosting performance...
However, clock-for-clock the Wolfdale Core 2 chips are a little faster than the Core i7, if you're talking about single threaded applications. Put a Core i7 against a Core 2 on anything sufficiently multithreaded , though, and the Core 2 will be left in the dust. There's also all the interesting little things like "Turbo Boost" (Where the CPU will shut off a core or two and overclock the others by a certain percent: This is great for single thread applications that needs lots of power, as DOSBox does). The biggest caveats of the Core i7 are the price and just how fucking hot these chips run compared to the Core 2 line. However, I've been extremely happy with the Core i7 920 I've had since December. ____________________ Arc-Nova.org: More Chiptunes Than Your Mother Can Handle |
| Ailure |
| ||
|
Hats Steam Board2 group Level: 121 Posts: 3298/3965 EXP: 19788167 Next: 268529 Since: 02-19-07 From: Sweden, Skåne Last post: 3307 days Last view: 2058 days |
The diffrences between the performance of a single-core vs a dual-core tend to be bigger than between dual-core and quad-core.
Most games who do support multi-core right now isn't necessarily perfectly programmed for it. And seems to even then, be tweaked mostly for dual-core systems. Not having the system freeze up becuse a single thread is really busy with something is one of the nice things with a multi-core system so... perhaps I will look on a quad-core next time I buy a computer. But I can't say for sure yet.  ____________________ AIM: gamefreak1337, MSN: Emil_sim@spray.se, XMPP: ailure@xmpp.kafuka.org
|
| cory21391 |
| ||
|
Flurry Level: 37 Posts: 219/260 EXP: 332019 Next: 6234 Since: 03-01-07 From: NC, US Last post: 5134 days Last view: 5134 days |
Exactly, most apps probably wouldn't take advantage of multi threading/multi core architecture, and if each core's single threaded performance in the core i7 isn't as good as the core2's, then the Phenom II would perform even better, but not by much; the Phenom II is only a little better than the Core2Quads. Take into account the Turbo Boost feature in the core i7 and they'd probably be about the same. Then again, take into account the fact that both the Phenom II and corei7 can be overclocked pretty substantially, and in that scenario, the corei7 wouldn't have any headroom to use Turbo Boost to overclock a single core, and the Phenom II would run faster. Of course those perfect scenarios the corei7 would run faster and destroy the Phenom II, but I haven't seen an app yet that really uses TONS of computing power and multi-threads/cores. Crysis at Max Graphics plus a desktop of running programs and who knows how many background tasks didn't even use but about 30% of the corei7's CPU performance (according to Windows' Sidebar.) Taking out all other variables involved, if the corei7 was 20% better than the Phenom II after all trade-offs here and there in performance were taken into account, that would mean that, under the same load, the phenom II would be using roughly 36% of it's performance. I just don't see day to day programs necessitating that much more performance, especially for the price. The Phenom II will do anything an average user/gamer/whatever would need and not break a sweat. Maybe I would feel differently if I was a professional video editor or something needed every ounce of power I could get, but even then I would probably be content with the Phenom II. ____________________
|
| Trapster |
| |||
|
Morton Koopa Feel the pain of those inferior beings...as you burn in hell! Level: 98 Posts: 1334/2410 EXP: 9376880 Next: 277473 Since: 02-19-07 From: Sweden Last post: 4520 days Last view: 4502 days |
|
| cory21391 |
| ||
|
Flurry Level: 37 Posts: 221/260 EXP: 332019 Next: 6234 Since: 03-01-07 From: NC, US Last post: 5134 days Last view: 5134 days |
It's at 8, I didn't know there was a 16x AA  Anisotropic Filtering is at 16 I think, not sure; it might be at 8 also. It's my sister's boyfriend's rig, Cost him a total of about $1800. Now of course you could build a cheaper i7 setup than that, but it's still substantially more than a Phenom II build; which I think that the added cost doesn't justify the added performance. I don't think it's worth the extra money, the Phenom II can run everything just fine.____________________
|
| Main - Computing - AMD vs Intel? | New thread | New reply |
© 2005-2023 Acmlm, blackhole89, Xkeeper et al. |
|
MySQL - queries: 102, rows: 126/127, time: 0.019 seconds. |
