In some software categories, the difference between Intel and AMD is huge. So, after all those years, some companies must AT LAST, optimize their software for both AMD and Intel processors.
- Status
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
It would have been nice for the article to include data for
the 6000+ aswell. I'm sure quite there are many 6000+ owners
who never bothered with an original Phenom upgrade and are now
wondering whether a Phenom II is worth the cost compared to
switching to Intel. Games aside, my main focus is video encoding,
so despite the higher cost I'll likely go for an i7 920 system
unless, at the time, the total system cost means I could have
two complete Phenom II systems for the same price as one i7 setup. Or perhaps upgrade my existing system and get a separate
i7 system...
I figure on buying a new system for video encoding around
early summer, so by then I expect mbds/RAM for i7 will have
dropped somewhat.
Anyone else with 6000+ systems managed to find 6000+ vs. Phenom II
performane numbers somewhere?
Ian.
the 6000+ aswell. I'm sure quite there are many 6000+ owners
who never bothered with an original Phenom upgrade and are now
wondering whether a Phenom II is worth the cost compared to
switching to Intel. Games aside, my main focus is video encoding,
so despite the higher cost I'll likely go for an i7 920 system
unless, at the time, the total system cost means I could have
two complete Phenom II systems for the same price as one i7 setup. Or perhaps upgrade my existing system and get a separate
i7 system...
I figure on buying a new system for video encoding around
early summer, so by then I expect mbds/RAM for i7 will have
dropped somewhat.
Anyone else with 6000+ systems managed to find 6000+ vs. Phenom II
performane numbers somewhere?
Ian.
This cpu sounds like itg is going to be awesome, I have A friend who went and got a i7 nehlam and a mobo to go with it and had problems with ddr3 ram staight away(intels first true quad,does not support ddr2).
Also note that this cpu as a unlocked multiplier it should overclock well.
I have high expertations for this cpu and is only 200 quid and backwards compatable this will be a major advantage to AMD.
I am going to keep a eye on the development of this cpu and will proberly switch to AMD when I build my next rig towards the end of 2009 and get a 4000 seires graphics card.
Also note that this cpu as a unlocked multiplier it should overclock well.
I have high expertations for this cpu and is only 200 quid and backwards compatable this will be a major advantage to AMD.
I am going to keep a eye on the development of this cpu and will proberly switch to AMD when I build my next rig towards the end of 2009 and get a 4000 seires graphics card.
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
I guess it all depends on one's focus. For some, it's price.
For others, it's performance. For most, a blend of both.
A CPU that is faster but more expensive will get a job done
sooner, so the total power consumption may be less - something
many reviews don't bother to factor into their summaries. I use
DivX, for which the i7 utterly hammers the Phenom II. Over time,
the extra cost will pay for itself (I have hundreds of hours of
video to convert). But am I prepared to pay any price? No, which
is why an oc'd i7 920 looks to be the best value even though the
i7 940 and 965 are obviously faster. For gaming though, it may
well be that replacing my 6000+ with a Phenom II is a good
upgrade, but I'd like to see some comparison numbers first, and
not just with the best mega gfx card (I'm using an 8800GT, very
common card I expect these days). If anyone here does upgrade
their 6000+ to a Phenom II, please post their results/URLs.
Ian.
For others, it's performance. For most, a blend of both.
A CPU that is faster but more expensive will get a job done
sooner, so the total power consumption may be less - something
many reviews don't bother to factor into their summaries. I use
DivX, for which the i7 utterly hammers the Phenom II. Over time,
the extra cost will pay for itself (I have hundreds of hours of
video to convert). But am I prepared to pay any price? No, which
is why an oc'd i7 920 looks to be the best value even though the
i7 940 and 965 are obviously faster. For gaming though, it may
well be that replacing my 6000+ with a Phenom II is a good
upgrade, but I'd like to see some comparison numbers first, and
not just with the best mega gfx card (I'm using an 8800GT, very
common card I expect these days). If anyone here does upgrade
their 6000+ to a Phenom II, please post their results/URLs.
Ian.
daerohn
Distinguished
- Jan 18, 2009
- 105
- 0
- 18,710
ok now the problem is ofcourse the prize. First of all, here, we have to pay around 450$ for an intel i7 920 and around 300$ for the mother board. The phenom II costs around 300$ and 150$ for the MB. I just can buy an AMD CPU+MB with the price i would pay for i7 CPU. Yes i7 is a bit more performace but who cares. AMD rules again.
I have to agree that AMD is the way to go for those that don't have money to burn. Recently my mobo quit and the 5v line on my PS was only putting out 4.78 volts. I got a new AM2+ mobo and 750 watt PS. I was also considering the X4 9950 BE but didn't like the 140 watt power rating. I have a Zalman 9700 CPU heat sink but how much heat would that proc put out. Anyway I saw that the Phenom II X4 940 BE just came out and only $275 and 125 watt. My better judgment got the best of me and I ordered one. I also ordered 4 gigs of DDR2-1066 memory. If I was putting together an Intel system it would cost me around a third or more. Ya I would have a faster system but I'm happy with AMD and the performance I'm getting out of it.
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
That's why I said different people focus on different things.
Notice that none of us here mention the i7 965 at all, yet there
will be people who'll buy it because they can afford to and they
want the best. For me, the bias edges slightly more towards
performance than price, because as I said before a system that
completes a task significantly faster can be turned off earlier,
saving power, and a 30% speed difference literally means getting
my project completed in 3 years instead of 4.
For gaming, the Phenom II is a good choice in terms of
price/performance, but for video encoding the i7 is a clear
winner. It all depends on what you use your system for. I do use
my PC for gaming aswell, but I'm not yet playing games that
require the power of the current newer CPU/gfx products - still
playing Oblivion & Stalker which run 2048 x 1536 totally smooth
with 16X AF and max-detail settings using a 6000+ (3.25GHz) and
8800GT (790 core). I have CoD4 still boxed, but existing data
suggests my current setup will run it just fine at 1280x1024 or
1600x1200.
As numerous reviews show again and again, the extra useful
performance attained with ever more expensive products (especially
SLI/CF gfx) is often minimal, with driver issues commonly making
a mockery of any theoretical performance ceilings. Those games
that benefit already run well with a good card. It does seem as
if review sites are becoming obsessed with the goal of seeing
Crysis running 2560 x 1600 max detail AA/AF, which is a bit daft
when few people are using displays of this kind yet (mine is a
good quality CRT monitor, an HP P1130, but it was cheap [78 UKP]
and 2048 x 1536 is its max). Besides, I've still yet to see any
evidence proving Crysis is even using gfx hardware fficiently.
How can we be sure Crysis isn't making gfx cards crawl simply
because it's poorly written? Few apps ever get more than a 3rd
of the peak performance out of any particular card before the
product cycle moves on to something else.
In general, it's becoming harder to find reviews of products
that cater for the majority of users. Ultra high-end reviews
of things like 3-way SLI tests are interesting, but I'd like to
see more useful results come out of these reviews. Include some
other CPU/gfx combinations, allow people to make informed
decisions. I have a 6000+; if I bought a GTX285, would my system
be able to run the current games ok? If I kept my current 8800GT
and upgraded the CPU to a Phenom II, would that make a useful
difference? And what speedup for other tasks?
To daerohn: I care. Yes, price is certainly an issue, but it all
depends your priorities. For me, the extra $300+ is worth the
expense since the performance difference is significant for my
intended core task (video encoding), especially once overclocked,
unless, as I say, it turns out to be possible to have two complete
Phenom II systems for the same price as one i7 system (jury out
on that one).
For those on a budget, or just those who are savvy enough to
look into the performance & value of products properly, the
Phenom II is clearly a worthy product. If I was buying a system
for gaming and nothing else right now, then depending on my
budget I'd either get a Phenom II or have fun with an oc'd E8400
or some such (loads of games still can't exploit a quad-core
properly). I'd only get an i7 for gaming if cost was not an issue.
To each his own. Saying the i7 is too expensive is illogical. It
depends on what you want to use it for. For video encoding and
animation rendering, the i7 is way ahead. For gaming, unless the
game(s) one wants to play will significantly benefit from the
i7's extra speed (ie. check reviews), the Phenom II is better buy.
Much of this is still hard to judge properly though since there's
as yet no direct comparison between Phenom II and the range of
older AMD/Intel CPUs that most people have, eg. the
submissions to futuremark suggest a great many people own 8800GT
systems, but nobody has included one in reviews so one can decide
if an upgrade is worthwhile. Something that annoys me about most
reviews is the assumption that users will always stay in the same
price bracket; what if one wishes to step up the ladder a little,
if not necessarily to the max?
In other words, we see lots of comparing new to new, which is
great to read, but what we need are comparisons of old to new in
those combinations that will be usefully enlightening.
Ian.
Notice that none of us here mention the i7 965 at all, yet there
will be people who'll buy it because they can afford to and they
want the best. For me, the bias edges slightly more towards
performance than price, because as I said before a system that
completes a task significantly faster can be turned off earlier,
saving power, and a 30% speed difference literally means getting
my project completed in 3 years instead of 4.
For gaming, the Phenom II is a good choice in terms of
price/performance, but for video encoding the i7 is a clear
winner. It all depends on what you use your system for. I do use
my PC for gaming aswell, but I'm not yet playing games that
require the power of the current newer CPU/gfx products - still
playing Oblivion & Stalker which run 2048 x 1536 totally smooth
with 16X AF and max-detail settings using a 6000+ (3.25GHz) and
8800GT (790 core). I have CoD4 still boxed, but existing data
suggests my current setup will run it just fine at 1280x1024 or
1600x1200.
As numerous reviews show again and again, the extra useful
performance attained with ever more expensive products (especially
SLI/CF gfx) is often minimal, with driver issues commonly making
a mockery of any theoretical performance ceilings. Those games
that benefit already run well with a good card. It does seem as
if review sites are becoming obsessed with the goal of seeing
Crysis running 2560 x 1600 max detail AA/AF, which is a bit daft
when few people are using displays of this kind yet (mine is a
good quality CRT monitor, an HP P1130, but it was cheap [78 UKP]
and 2048 x 1536 is its max). Besides, I've still yet to see any
evidence proving Crysis is even using gfx hardware fficiently.
How can we be sure Crysis isn't making gfx cards crawl simply
because it's poorly written? Few apps ever get more than a 3rd
of the peak performance out of any particular card before the
product cycle moves on to something else.
In general, it's becoming harder to find reviews of products
that cater for the majority of users. Ultra high-end reviews
of things like 3-way SLI tests are interesting, but I'd like to
see more useful results come out of these reviews. Include some
other CPU/gfx combinations, allow people to make informed
decisions. I have a 6000+; if I bought a GTX285, would my system
be able to run the current games ok? If I kept my current 8800GT
and upgraded the CPU to a Phenom II, would that make a useful
difference? And what speedup for other tasks?
To daerohn: I care. Yes, price is certainly an issue, but it all
depends your priorities. For me, the extra $300+ is worth the
expense since the performance difference is significant for my
intended core task (video encoding), especially once overclocked,
unless, as I say, it turns out to be possible to have two complete
Phenom II systems for the same price as one i7 system (jury out
on that one).
For those on a budget, or just those who are savvy enough to
look into the performance & value of products properly, the
Phenom II is clearly a worthy product. If I was buying a system
for gaming and nothing else right now, then depending on my
budget I'd either get a Phenom II or have fun with an oc'd E8400
or some such (loads of games still can't exploit a quad-core
properly). I'd only get an i7 for gaming if cost was not an issue.
To each his own. Saying the i7 is too expensive is illogical. It
depends on what you want to use it for. For video encoding and
animation rendering, the i7 is way ahead. For gaming, unless the
game(s) one wants to play will significantly benefit from the
i7's extra speed (ie. check reviews), the Phenom II is better buy.
Much of this is still hard to judge properly though since there's
as yet no direct comparison between Phenom II and the range of
older AMD/Intel CPUs that most people have, eg. the
submissions to futuremark suggest a great many people own 8800GT
systems, but nobody has included one in reviews so one can decide
if an upgrade is worthwhile. Something that annoys me about most
reviews is the assumption that users will always stay in the same
price bracket; what if one wishes to step up the ladder a little,
if not necessarily to the max?
In other words, we see lots of comparing new to new, which is
great to read, but what we need are comparisons of old to new in
those combinations that will be usefully enlightening.
Ian.
jerreece
Splendid
- Sep 7, 2006
- 3,960
- 0
- 23,160
I have to say it, I'm still disappointed with AMD a bit. Their latest, greatest AMD Phenom II X4 940 is being compared with the Intel Q6600, still.
I enjoy this in that I have a Q6600, so it's nice to see stuff compared to it. However, when AMD's latest, highest end CPU (currently available) is being compared to Intel's last generation "mid stream" chip still, doesn't impress me a whole lot.
The AMD Phenom II X4 940 beats the Q6600 by 10%, and is more energy efficient. I should certainly hope so considering the age of the Kentsfield Q6600 now days (over 2 yrs now yes?)
I'd like to see AMD back to being a major rival/competitor, and not the "keeping up" tag-along it has become. 🙁 Folks talk about how AMD is targeting the mainstream, and not the highest end of elite buyers. However, part of me has a hard time not believing that's a marketing move or a cop-out for their lack of product prowess. Lemons to Lemonade, yes?
Though I'm glad to see AMD finally has a decent chip available now for folks who simply don't/won't/can't go Intel.
I enjoy this in that I have a Q6600, so it's nice to see stuff compared to it. However, when AMD's latest, highest end CPU (currently available) is being compared to Intel's last generation "mid stream" chip still, doesn't impress me a whole lot.
The AMD Phenom II X4 940 beats the Q6600 by 10%, and is more energy efficient. I should certainly hope so considering the age of the Kentsfield Q6600 now days (over 2 yrs now yes?)
I'd like to see AMD back to being a major rival/competitor, and not the "keeping up" tag-along it has become. 🙁 Folks talk about how AMD is targeting the mainstream, and not the highest end of elite buyers. However, part of me has a hard time not believing that's a marketing move or a cop-out for their lack of product prowess. Lemons to Lemonade, yes?
Though I'm glad to see AMD finally has a decent chip available now for folks who simply don't/won't/can't go Intel.
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
I mentioned before I'd like to see data comparing 6000+ and
Phenom II. One other thing occurs to me: to what extent does
the use of an older AM2 mbd hold back Phenom II's potential?
ie. the use of the older HT1 link speed and only DDR2/800 RAM.
So, dear Toms, please put together a test comparing an old
vs. newer mbd, DDR2/800 vs. DDR2/1066, HT1 vs HT3, same good
gfx cards in both (typical & mainstream, eg. 8800GT and GTX260),
test Phenom II in both, and compare to 6000+ in the HT1 system.
Benchmarks from games to video encoding, the usual.
It's at times like this I wish I was somewhat richer, I'd run
the tests myself.
Ian.
Phenom II. One other thing occurs to me: to what extent does
the use of an older AM2 mbd hold back Phenom II's potential?
ie. the use of the older HT1 link speed and only DDR2/800 RAM.
So, dear Toms, please put together a test comparing an old
vs. newer mbd, DDR2/800 vs. DDR2/1066, HT1 vs HT3, same good
gfx cards in both (typical & mainstream, eg. 8800GT and GTX260),
test Phenom II in both, and compare to 6000+ in the HT1 system.
Benchmarks from games to video encoding, the usual.
It's at times like this I wish I was somewhat richer, I'd run
the tests myself.
Ian.
hey guys.. let's not hate on each other.. we all pc gamers here..
it's either intel and amd here ya'll..
lets support both.. cause if one gets big market shares..
monopoly is inevitable..
we consumers suffer.. so let's keep the market balanced^-^
what ya'll say?
it's either intel and amd here ya'll..
lets support both.. cause if one gets big market shares..
monopoly is inevitable..
we consumers suffer.. so let's keep the market balanced^-^
what ya'll say?
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
Hear hear! 😀
I'm sure though that many would say we suffer anyway when a
company brings out a product that woefully underperforms despite
the prior hype, or other products that offer little extra real
gain in performance - especially those which make no sense at all
once price is taken into account. There are numerous CPU, mbd and
gfx card products around like this just now, eg. the original
Phenom1, the dual-core AMD 7K series (the 6000+ is a better buy),
some of the GTX variants, etc.
Review sites could do better in helping users to make decisions.
My biggest gripe is the lack of upgrade advice, ie. testing new
products in older setups. Real questions people have are things
like, I have an older AM2 mbd, is the Phenom2 a useful upgrade?
New products always get tested by being paired with the latest
matching 'system' (mbd/CPU/RAM/etc.) This is great for finding
out the true potential of a product, and useful for those buying
completely new systems, but not much help for anyone using older
or mixed setups which probably accounts for the majority of those
reading the reviews.
There's obviously a vast range of possible combinations of older
hardware that people could have, so answering every exact
question isn't viable. But even a single example would be useful,
eg. testing Phenom2 in a normal AM2 mbd, or testing the latest
mainstream/top-end gfx products with an older setup.
Ian.
I'm sure though that many would say we suffer anyway when a
company brings out a product that woefully underperforms despite
the prior hype, or other products that offer little extra real
gain in performance - especially those which make no sense at all
once price is taken into account. There are numerous CPU, mbd and
gfx card products around like this just now, eg. the original
Phenom1, the dual-core AMD 7K series (the 6000+ is a better buy),
some of the GTX variants, etc.
Review sites could do better in helping users to make decisions.
My biggest gripe is the lack of upgrade advice, ie. testing new
products in older setups. Real questions people have are things
like, I have an older AM2 mbd, is the Phenom2 a useful upgrade?
New products always get tested by being paired with the latest
matching 'system' (mbd/CPU/RAM/etc.) This is great for finding
out the true potential of a product, and useful for those buying
completely new systems, but not much help for anyone using older
or mixed setups which probably accounts for the majority of those
reading the reviews.
There's obviously a vast range of possible combinations of older
hardware that people could have, so answering every exact
question isn't viable. But even a single example would be useful,
eg. testing Phenom2 in a normal AM2 mbd, or testing the latest
mainstream/top-end gfx products with an older setup.
Ian.
hannibal
Distinguished
- Apr 1, 2004
- 2,937
- 275
- 21,190
Well mapesdhs is very right in this! These AM2 Phenow2 are mainly an upgrade option to users of AM2 based motherboards, so test with some older, but popular mother board would be usefull. How this chip owerclock with 2-3 years old system? Wery good point indeed!
Most of people who are going to buy new computer will wait what AM3 will do the potential of Phenom2 or go for Intel i7 solution at this moment.
It's guite possible that Intel will phase out core2 prouction after low and middle range i7 come out later in this year. And I am not expecting to see many new CPU's to AM2 allso.
Most of people who are going to buy new computer will wait what AM3 will do the potential of Phenom2 or go for Intel i7 solution at this moment.
It's guite possible that Intel will phase out core2 prouction after low and middle range i7 come out later in this year. And I am not expecting to see many new CPU's to AM2 allso.
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
Indeed, there'll be a hefty number who will wait for AM3.
I think I've found the i7 mbd I'd like to have though. 😀
http://uk.asus.com/products.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=2609&l1=3&l2=82&l3=860&l4=0
It has proper PCIX just like my existing mbd, so I could still use my U320 RAID, and
spare PCIe for U320 card (system disk = 147GB 15K). Strange part is, for a pro-type
board, it's not that much more than an ordinary i7 board (250 UKP atm).
They have another one without PCIX, has six PCIe slots instead. 😀
http://uk.asus.com/products.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=2697&l1=3&l2=82&l3=860&l4=0
Also good. Like the first, has spare PCIe slots for RAID options, etc. Funky. 8)
Ian.
I think I've found the i7 mbd I'd like to have though. 😀
http://uk.asus.com/products.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=2609&l1=3&l2=82&l3=860&l4=0
It has proper PCIX just like my existing mbd, so I could still use my U320 RAID, and
spare PCIe for U320 card (system disk = 147GB 15K). Strange part is, for a pro-type
board, it's not that much more than an ordinary i7 board (250 UKP atm).
They have another one without PCIX, has six PCIe slots instead. 😀
http://uk.asus.com/products.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=2697&l1=3&l2=82&l3=860&l4=0
Also good. Like the first, has spare PCIe slots for RAID options, etc. Funky. 8)
Ian.
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]some people on the blog don't seem to get at all that lower powerconsumption means less money.A system that is used 8 hours a day that uses 100W more than another system similar to identical in performance, essentially costs you about $20 to $30 more on the electric bill per month...[/citation]
Wow wow wow? 100w doesn't cost you $20 a month... 1 Kw hour is generally in the 10 cent range. 1Kwh = 1000 watts over the course of an hour. So 10 cents per hour per 1000 watts. If you ran a computer that used 100 more watts then another 24 hours for a month you would use 2.4 kilowatt hours more a day. Or in a 30 day month you would use 72 more kilowatts. They cost about 10 cents a watt so you are spending an extra 720 cents or about $7.20 more a month...
Wow wow wow? 100w doesn't cost you $20 a month... 1 Kw hour is generally in the 10 cent range. 1Kwh = 1000 watts over the course of an hour. So 10 cents per hour per 1000 watts. If you ran a computer that used 100 more watts then another 24 hours for a month you would use 2.4 kilowatt hours more a day. Or in a 30 day month you would use 72 more kilowatts. They cost about 10 cents a watt so you are spending an extra 720 cents or about $7.20 more a month...
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
Best thing to do is to look at other reviews that have compared
various Intel quad-cores and duals to the E8400, and then
extrapolate the differences. Indeed, lookup the review of the
E8400 - just google for, "Intel E8400 review". And of course,
take careful note of whether a review is using a stock E8400
or an oc'd version.
Ian.
various Intel quad-cores and duals to the E8400, and then
extrapolate the differences. Indeed, lookup the review of the
E8400 - just google for, "Intel E8400 review". And of course,
take careful note of whether a review is using a stock E8400
or an oc'd version.
Ian.
Hey,
In game testing settings I thought it says it says Supreme Commander in 1920 x 1200, whz the graphic is 1680 x 1050?
In game testing settings I thought it says it says Supreme Commander in 1920 x 1200, whz the graphic is 1680 x 1050?
Finally an intelligent article on the Phenom 2 procs. The guys over at CNET for some reason don't grasp the idea of backwards compatibility and the fact that these are AM3 processors. Of course they always are a little biased when it comes to alot of things.
Also I had heard that alot of what prevents powere leakage on this chip is because it is made partially out of Germanium which is a superior semiconductor but I cant vouch that this is 100% true because I think I was skimming an article and might have mixed it up. Does anyone else know anything about this?
Also I had heard that alot of what prevents powere leakage on this chip is because it is made partially out of Germanium which is a superior semiconductor but I cant vouch that this is 100% true because I think I was skimming an article and might have mixed it up. Does anyone else know anything about this?
I think that the Intel guy's missed the whole point. go ahead and build that I7 920 computer. after you build it your still going to be paying for it power wise (electricity use).
sorry that has been AMD's whole point for complaining about TDP and synthetics tests; real world application AMD cost you less overall at the wall socket and less money out of your pocket for supporting it over a period of time. sorry an AMD top of the line build only cost you 700-800 dollars, while an intel top of line will cost you 1.5 - 2 times that.
sorry that has been AMD's whole point for complaining about TDP and synthetics tests; real world application AMD cost you less overall at the wall socket and less money out of your pocket for supporting it over a period of time. sorry an AMD top of the line build only cost you 700-800 dollars, while an intel top of line will cost you 1.5 - 2 times that.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News UserBenchmark bashes AMD GPUs and claims they lack real-world performance- Started by Admin
- Replies: 90
-
Review AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D Review: Stunning gaming performance meets top-tier productivity
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 67
-
-
Review AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT and RX 9070 review: An excellent value, if supply is good
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 167
-
-
News We need your help to shape the future of Tom’s Hardware
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 97
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram