AMD Phenom II X4 965 vs. Intel core i5-750

[dantoshi]

Which of these processors is the best one?

 

[keithlm]

You, me and everybody else knows that all the people that think this feature is a gimmick or a tool to cheat on benchmarks are part of the AMD cult.

You admit you're AMD biased but yet when somebody points out your biased crap in your post they are labeled Intel fanboys. You're a joke

Since you say it then it must be true. At least in the minds of all the people that don't like minor things pointed out to them.

Minor things like the fact that this "feature" is basically useless in most situations and that the addition of this "feature" is actually a compromise added because it is a great marketing tool. Oh.. sorry... since you don't agree with that fact it automatically becomes not true. (Too bad it is true.)

Perhaps I'm a joke but you guys are truly pathetic.

 

[Chad Boga]

Not as stupid as somebody attempting to pretend that everybody will adopt and use this "feature".

It really is too bad when marketing causes compromising features to be added to hardware.

(It's even more pathetic when people that actually do have a bit of intelligence buy into the tripe.)

So you deny that Turbo boost functions will become an ever increasing part of CPU design in the next 10 years?

Is it your contention that the designers of POWER 7 have been cowered by marketing to include Turbo boost, when their customer base is one that they are dealing with high level computer users?

 

[keithlm]

So you deny that Turbo boost functions will become an ever increasing part of CPU design in the next 10 years?

Is it your contention that the designers of POWER 7 have been cowered by marketing to include Turbo boost, when their customer base is one that they are dealing with high level computer users?

I do not deny that a useless feature like this can be an ever increasing part of CPU design for the next 10 years.


And this kind of feature won't often be used on high level servers.

 

[Chad Boga]

I do not deny that a useless feature like this can be an ever increasing part of CPU design for the next 10 years.

Can you name another useless feature that BOTH Intel and AMD have incorporated into their designs before?

And this kind of feature won't often be used on high level servers.

Why did IBM go to the trouble of putting it in POWER 7, if it won't be used often on high level servers.

That is POWER 7's prime market isn't it?

 

[Raidur]

Are we still fighting about turbo mode. Who gives a sh*t, honestly. The real trick is amd using super high stock clocks resulting in high volt/watt with very minimal oc headroom compared to the comp to make people believe they keep up with new intel (and core2q for that matter, slightly). Clock for clock comparison with equal oc headroom (or max oc clocks) should be the true comparison. Especially considering 90% of us on this forum oc.

Turbo mode is a feature. People know about it. There are many benchmarks that show the difference it makes and intel still pulls ahead, its not fooling anybody.

 

[Chad Boga]

Are we still fighting about turbo mode. Who gives a sh*t, honestly. The real trick is amd using super high stock clocks resulting in high volt/watt with very minimal oc headroom compared to the comp to make people believe they keep up with new intel (and core2q for that matter). Clock for clock comparison with equal oc headroom (or max oc clocks) should be the true comparison. Especially considering 90% of us on this forum oc.

Your points are valid for quite a lot of the users on this forum, but probably less than 10% of users overall overclock, so out of the box experience still counts for 90% of the market.

I have no problem with AMD having less IPC and higher clocks to deliver performance that often is close to Intel's, those sort of things are always a trade off that designers make.

 

[Raidur]

Yeah I totally agree. I just believe a product should be rated by its full potentail is all. Even if some people will never get there. Its like a gma buying a twin turbo 300zx and never reaching turbo rpms and someone buying a mustang gt and going to the same rpms and since the mustang has more low end they see it as the 'faster car', when clearly the 300 would win.

Not a really good anology I know, but you get my point. I just don't believe phenom II should be considered faster than c2q when it only accounts for out of box performance and not the true potential (oc).

 

[sirheck]

Turbo boost a gimmick?
Hmm lets see....It comes with the CPU in stock trim, you dont have to apply special paste for it to work. It is included in the price, you dont have to download some
special program for it to work.....Its mostly automatic.

As was said before is a turbo that came stock on a car a gimmick or cheating?
So why the crying about it being a gimmick or cheating?

 

[sighQ2]

So in a thread where we have AMD fanboys trying to fud Turbo boost, you make comments about how an i7-860 can benefit over "the competition" in Super Pi, but may not do so in Pov Ray, and one is supposed to think that by "the competition", you mean against other members of the i7 family, rather than AMD processors?

While "fud"ing about turbo boost, as you say, might be amusing, the real interest is in discovering the truth of it. It seems likely that you who accuses others of fud, are more interested in hiding truth, or simply fear a closer observation of the facts. This is no surprise; but now you are quite visible as in fear of the "competition" and prefer anything that will preserve status quo for the king of antitrust. Well, go ahead; your tactics are already known. Please continue, rather than change, because now, even others also know where you are coming from.

I make it no secret I prefer AMD, and oppose criminal tactics - I announce that - there is no doubt where I am coming from. However, I prefer to know about brand, and specific hardware characteristics - armed with truth, I can oppose fudsters easily, and sometimes just slap them silly. If a particular product is superior, it is important to know how, and how that superiority can pay the user - it is not for the user to pay the product, after the user has paid for the product. The deal is, what is purchased must perform as advertised, as specified; otherwise the seller, or manufacturer is indulging in seduction, lies, misleading, misrepresenting - and these words are used to describe spintel a lot. The fanboy reactions are irrelevant; the truth is the bottom line.

I like AMD and their approach of collaboration. AMD has to play hard, clean and fair; the market demands it, and will not tolerate scams. AMD is always under the microscope. Putting spintel under the micro gets messy often - and people resisting the simple pursuit of truth about spintel products draws even more suspicion. Don't change; you are helping AMD more than you know. This adversarial approach is actually encouraged at AMDzone - it results in clear pictures of real information.

Their is no need to disprove truth. There is a need to investigate blindly accepted superiority supported by propaganda and a seemingly pretty corporate "inside" image. Well, "inside" is about antitrust - and you can support it for as long as think it's just plain ok.

AMD is not all perfect either. Most of their dirty laundry is public knowledge (not counting the distortion of the truth about them); and we are all free to investigate further. AMD is necessarily, it seems, held to higher standards - but the deception is there too - they are often compared to a company who is under legal, global, and domestic attack. So holding AMD comparable to spintel is easy and even helpful, at such times as these.

 

[sighQ2]

The lead an i7-860 has over an i7-920 in Super Pi is not so great that the term "rip up" would be applicable.

However with the amount by which an i7-860 beats anything from AMD, then the term "rip up" would be applicable.

There is one major problem with this. It's called "real world computing". For simple example: I have no use for SuperPi, I never use it, never have, and it is only really useful as a stability test, and I have no immediate concerns in that area either.

So I don't even care what super pi beats or what beats it. It is of no use to me.

The same, for me, with POVray. I don't use it; and so a cpu that is best performing in povray is of no use to me either. Some grafx gurus might be interested; but they need to know the environment of the tests used to create the table - so most tables are also useless; but are used to convince blind fools of superiority.

People need to take just a little peek behind the wall of bs that gets thrown around. Most of these products are good; for some reason, one costs 10 times the price of another - for what? Image of a corporation and their profit - that's ok too; they are allowed in the market; but I do not have to support it since I have no use for the products offered.

 

[sighQ2]

Are we still fighting about turbo mode. Who gives a sh*t, honestly. The real trick is amd using super high stock clocks resulting in high volt/watt with very minimal oc headroom compared to the comp to make people believe they keep up with new intel (and core2q for that matter, slightly). Clock for clock comparison with equal oc headroom (or max oc clocks) should be the true comparison. Especially considering 90% of us on this forum oc.

Turbo mode is a feature. People know about it. There are many benchmarks that show the difference it makes and intel still pulls ahead, its not fooling anybody.

is seems you have been "fooled" in many ways.

nice try. most of this post is fud.

 

[sighQ2]

Your points are valid for quite a lot of the users on this forum, but probably less than 10% of users overall overclock, so out of the box experience still counts for 90% of the market.

I have no problem with AMD having less IPC and higher clocks to deliver performance that often is close to Intel's, those sort of things are always a trade off that designers make.

haha
thx for small concessions.

but you still fuding
AMD does what it needs to do to compete in a dirty environment dominated by a company that is under intense government investigation - dirty environment?
DUH - WHAT IS THAT? 😴

such as - well, running on john Q Public's pc is software resulting from a dirty DEFECTIVE compiler.

such as - AMD for the last decade somehow survived despite the fact that they were PREVENTED from competing due to bribes - although they were just billion dollar rebates for sworn allegiance to exclusivity.

such as - anybody not know this yet?

google antitrust rebate oem new york EU Japan Korea
or similar
and enjoy the amazing reading.

 

[keithlm]

Can you name another useless feature that BOTH Intel and AMD have incorporated into their designs before?

Thanks for pointing out that up until now AMD hasn't bothered lowering their standards and putting in garbage that is basically worthless and only useful for marketing. Of course sadly we now have rumors that they are going to lower their standards in the future and add this trash. That's really too bad. But easily disabled so no worries.

Why did IBM go to the trouble of putting it in POWER 7, if it won't be used often on high level servers.

That is POWER 7's prime market isn't it?

You go ahead and keep pretending that benchmarking gimmicks like Turbo-Boost will be used on seriously heavy iron servers. It's even less useful on servers than on desktops. Dynamic overclocking might be slightly more useful on workstations. But going from mostly useless to slightly more useful isn't really saying anything positive.

 

[sighQ2]

Yeah I totally agree. I just believe a product should be rated by its full potentail is all. Even if some people will never get there. Its like a gma buying a twin turbo 300zx and never reaching turbo rpms and someone buying a mustang gt and going to the same rpms and since the mustang has more low end they see it as the 'faster car', when clearly the 300 would win.

Not a really good anology I know, but you get my point. I just don't believe phenom II should be considered faster than c2q when it only accounts for out of box performance and not the true potential (oc).

No. I don't get your point.

Potential is of no use. What is important is the end users' direct experience on his own system. And that's where all the wheels fall off in the benchmarketing lies and other misrepresentations.

Beyond that, you sound like a used car salesman; talk big hype and then sell me junk.

and then deny any protest, right? cmon. waiting for more?

 

[randomizer]

The same, for me, with POVray. I don't use it; and so a cpu that is best performing in povray is of no use to me either. Some grafx gurus might be interested; but they need to know the environment of the tests used to create the table - so most tables are also useless; but are used to convince blind fools of superiority.

Well it depends if the POV-Ray binaries are compiled with the Intel C++ Compiler or GNU G++ as to whether or not the benchmarks will show unfair "superiority." Being open source it may well be using G++, but I know it can be compiled with either.

A quick search of the POV-Ray newsgroup lends me to believe that compiling with ICC produces better machine code than G++, but I think this is well known anyway. G++ doesn't seem as mature as GCC.

 

[Raidur]

This is obviously a touchy subject. My point is, all angles of a product should be analyzed before crowning one king. Imagine if the difference was a little more extreme, would you think the same?

How about custom computers. We all know it is the better route, but 90% of the public would rather go the easy route and often think they are getting a better product than a custom pc. Now just because the majority believes this, does it make it true? Even if they will never use some of the custom perks such as upgrades, a custom pc is still preferred by us, but not most, and we still see it as the better move.

 

[randomizer]

"Better" is an arbitrary term when used on its own. You can have better performance or a better price, but to simply be "better" means very little to anyone except the individual. Because a person doesn't need to assemble the PC or have any knowledge of hardware they may find that a pre-built is better. In our case, "better" is defined more along the lines of performance/$.

 

[sighQ2]

Well it depends if the POV-Ray binaries are compiled with the Intel C++ Compiler or GNU G++ as to whether or not the benchmarks will show unfair "superiority." Being open source it may well be using G++, but I know it can be compiled with either.

A quick search of the POV-Ray newsgroup lends me to believe that compiling with ICC produces better machine code than G++, but I think this is well known anyway. G++ doesn't seem as mature as GCC.

Well, it's unfortunate that I am not as knowledgeable about compilers as you are; and I appreciate this information.

However, the table that someone presented as definitive proof of some dubious flames, does not specify what was used to compile it. Since it was used in a pro-spintel post by someone who has an infinite capacity to ignore the "open source" facts about antitrust; I can only assume that it was DEFECTIVE-compiled using the spintel sabotage compiler, and CPUID reporter.

However, I might be wrong - (not likely).

Additionally I don't know who ran the test; but perhaps bananatek since the aforementioned flamer is also a fanboy, by his previous posts, of that site. Some people will go to any lengths to support criminality and the general screwing of the public; and others present reasonable well-intentioned posts.

Thanks again for that accurate and educational information.

As I said before, I have no fear of truth; but when I detect otherwise, that's a violation of trust in general; and it's a long way back from such a low place. Spreading of gross blatant CBogus information for the purposes of a personal, if not corporate agenda, is not what I prefer to support or even choose as my desired association. The capacity to ignore is infinite in some individuals; and I think that describes the truth of the word "ignorance"; esp. when the presentation is see-through.

If only more people would look, and see for themselves, and be willing to consider what is actually being said. Apparently, for some, that is a literacy challenge - and they are the public targets of a monopoly. They know not what is done to them; and support it through popularity, in the name of cool, dude. And they are free to continue as long as they want.

 

[sighQ2]

This is obviously a touchy subject. My point is, all angles of a product should be analyzed before crowning one king. Imagine if the difference was a little more extreme, would you think the same?

This potentially describes the general idea behind opposing the great ultimate bestever monopoly "inside" antitrust king and associated henchmen; not to mention their support of endless sites offering highly conclusive and insistent disguisedly unbiased (not) test reports on the gangs hardware.

And the reviews are rushed out, and somehow all say the same thing - copy and paste? parrot syndrome?

The Zone discusses it to death; and they discover things that are between the lines of the reviews, the press, etc., and expose the propaganda for what it is. But they are branded as insane.

And then eventually Lost Circuits does a review - and they are thorough - and all the results and conclusions are not quite the same - for some strange reason. How could that be?

Meanwhile, a million units were sold; and now the truth is revealed - too late. That's benchmarketing. And all the little parrots do what all the big parrots said is true -woo hoo. And to defend their blindness to their mistakes, they flame anybody that disagrees. And in come the impressionable newbeez; and are fed to the wolves, cos all the good shepherds left in disgust - o well.

I have seen this - check out the /build your own area - bias supporting vulnerabilty. I stepped into one i7 project, and talked the op into a Phenom II rig - and he thanked me for saving him 300$. (even tho money was no object). But beating back the hordes was the fun part. Their logic was all flawed - they were the "little parrots". (the whole mess is nasty, devastating psychology- and people can get hurt in it - sad but true - what is tolerated should not be).

And all of this is so obvious to so many who refuse to support it. I am not the only crazy AMD fan here.

And that this is a touchy subject, yes it is, and that needs to be ignored; and this is easily done through a simple pursuit of truth.

And sometimes, I am wrong, which is ok too. Show me. But I don't eat 2nd-hand "parrot" food. or whatever.

 

[randomizer]

I was unable to determine what compiler was used to build POV-Ray, however I did determine that 3DMark Vantage uses MS Visual C++ 7.0, not ICC. SuperPi uses Borland's C++ compiler.

 

[Raidur]

What is it Lost Circuits showed that other websites have been 'lieing' about? I've heard jenny raving about this as well.

Are all of the other reviewers actually showing fake results or is it the way they do the review (mixing up components/showing bias games/benches)?

I must need some truth because to my knowledge Phenom II is just a high clock kentsfield, performance wise, and while it is plenty of power, is still generations behind the competition.

Anybody can ramp up the stock volts and clocks of a CPU, what we really need is some higher IPC and lower thermal/power.

I really want to believe in AMD again, and would love to pick them for my next upgrade if they progress enough. As a company I like AMD much better. I grew up using one of their 2800+ singles and an Uber dual core (4400+) when they first released and would love to go back. But, as it stands now intel seems to be quite a bit ahead when the old Q6600 with the right OC can perform near their best. You see me with a Q9550 now because I couldn't resist the E8400 4ghz temptation when they first came out and got one on an ix38.

 

[Pro Llama]

Core i5 750: $194.99 USD
Phenom II X4 965: $195.99
The price paid for a small boost? Enlighten me on how much "more" does one have to pay between these two processors?

When I went to your link the price for both was $199.99. The problem is intel motherboards cost more and if you are getting a PII you are going with the PII 955 not the 965, which is only $165.99. That makes a PII 955 setup cheaper setup with about the same performance. Now if amd didn’t drop their prices they would be screwed right now.