AMD x6 1050t/1090t vs Intel i7-930 (rendering)

[gunmetal]

Hey,

Basically the story is that I and one other guy are discussing build workstation/rendering pc.

AMD x6 1050t/1090t vs Intel i7-930 Our fight basically is about choice of CPU :/

I say that AMD x6 cpu would because:
*cheaper for one(mobo, cpu) it takes of at least 200$ from cost of build.
*We can spend that spare money for more ram that workstations for multimedia edition so like to eat up.
*power difference between amd and intel cpu is not so big(most likely user wouldn't notice the difference).
*Intel over expensive/overkill in this case, 3way memory and HT(which gives 15-20% performance increase) anyways inst better that few more cores, especially for these kinds of takst(multimedia as I mentioned before).

His points:
*better upgrade options
*more power(on which I really dissagre, adobe or CAD programs really wouldn't care, and x6 1055t/1099t have proved to be quite a monsters for these kind of task at least by reviews).
*3way ram memory

Any comments/suggestions for our discussion?

 

[Reynod]

Zippy I have deleted a few of your posts for being a bit inflammatory mate.

Lets try to keep things focussed on the discussion ... not butts / idiots / and other commentary that simply upsets other users.

I found the graphs / benchies interesting ... thanks.

Cheers !!

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

OMG your not getting it.

No I'm saying if you have a AM3 cpu NOW, you can get a BD board next year and use your current DDR3 and AM3 cpu in your NEW AM3+ motheboard until you can afford a new AM3 cpu (when prices drop).

Yes i7-930 has the advantage. That's because very few apps use 6 actual cores as of right now. This will change.

The biggest advantage i7 has over x6 is the price. LOL

No and No.

Because the benchmarks clearly show the 980x (a 6 core CPU) with a clear lead over the entire pack (therefore showing that these applications do make use of 6+ cores). And in those applications the Core i7 930 still comes out on top most of time.

So this fallacy that you and others are spreading (that things will improve over time in these applications) is just that... a fallacy.

I know you're saying that, but what sort of advantage is that? Are you insinuating that people are impatient and won't save up for both a new CPU and Motherboard? That somehow people need to first purchase the motherboard and then the new CPU? I don't get the advantage there as you have to rebuild your entire rig with the new motherboard and then tear it apart again a month later to install the new CPU.

Why not wait and buy both at once? I don't get the advantage you speak of. To me it sounds like a non-issue and more like you clinging to a talking point spread by AMD fans.

As for your pricing joke, there are Core i5s and i7s that are priced competitively with their respective AMD competing products. Anything over a Core i7 930 is superior to anything AMD has right now and thus, based on the laws of Capitalism, priced accordingly.

Again another talking point that really is a non-issue. Sure a 980x is expensive to a person like you and others. For you $200-300 is likely equal to what $900-$1100 is to me.

 

[Reynod]

I am not sure about the spending equivalence thing?

I'll spend over half a mill on a house ... but I'll only spend $200 on a CPU ... or less ... and overclock it.

Mind you I'll spend more than $300 on a Graphics card ... even with 5 gaming boxes.

So not all AMD fans are cheap ... that's my point.

Getting a better graphics card is usually a good answer these days ... unless you have some shabby low end dual core that won't overclock well (S939 X2 or a P4 anything).

Be careful about saying all AMD fans are poor ... that isn't the case ... call us cheap assed instead.

 

[Reynod]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/12

To quote anand (who managed to push the 1090T to 4Ghz)

Today's conclusion is no different than what we've been saying about AMD's CPU lineup for several months now. If you're running applications that are well threaded and you're looking to improve performance in them, AMD generally offers you better performance for the same money as Intel. It all boils down to AMD selling you more cores than Intel at the same price point.

Applications like video encoding and offline 3D rendering show the real strengths of the Phenom II X6. And thanks to Turbo Core, you don't give up any performance in less threaded applications compared to a Phenom II X4. The 1090T can easily trump the Core i7 860 and the 1055T can do even better against the Core i5 750.

You start running into problems when you look at lightly threaded applications or mixed workloads that aren't always stressing all six cores. In these situations Intel's quad-core Lynnfield processors (Core i5 700 series and Core i7 800 series) are better buys. They give you better performance in these light or mixed workload scenarios, not to mention lower overall power consumption.

 

[Reynod]

Good point.

I can buy 3 AMD X6's for one Intel 6 core CPU ...

The top end Intel i7 is also more expensive than any X6 AMD cpu ...

Both these Intel CPU's will beat the X6 on almost every application.

But on price ... nope.

That was my only point really ...

 

[keithlm]

BTW... I'm not a "fanboy".

That statement is humorous when said by one of the biggest fanboys on this forum.

Luckily this forum has a search engine so anyone interested can easily find out the veracity of that statement. (I.e., it has none.)

It seems apparent that in this case you are miffed that AMD has actually switched to doing the same thing that Intel has been doing for years. The only "confusing" thing that people are seeing is you do everything in your power to spin that negative for AMD. (While in the past "unbiased" Intel fanboys such as yourself completely saw absolutely nothing wrong with this business practice when Intel was doing it.)

 

[enzo matrix]

why not compare Amd six core to intel six core or top end i7 quard core.To keep the comparism fair.

How is that fair? The intel is obvious a superior architecture at the same clockspeeds with the addition of hyperthreading. This is why the intel x6 is $1000 and the amd x6 is $300. Fair to me means comparing processors of the same pricerange, which changes over time.

 

[eyefinity]

Like these apps?

Maybe these ones?

So this fallacy that you and others are spreading (that things will improve over time in these applications) is just that... a fallacy.

It seems reasonable enough to say when the software works properly the 6 core Phenom 2's pull ahead of the 4 core i7's. If that wasn't true wouldn't the intel quadcores win all the time? So its also reasonable to say that things will improve for the 6 core phenom 2s over time.

 

[keithlm]

How is that fair? The intel is obvious a superior architecture at the same clockspeeds with the addition of hyperthreading. This is why the intel x6 is $1000 and the amd x6 is $300. Fair to me means comparing processors of the same pricerange, which changes over time.

Get used to that happening.

Hypothetically what do you think will happen if a Bulldozer with 4 AMD modules is priced exactly the same as an Intel chip with four Intel cores? (In other words AMD's solution compared to Intel's solution.)

The flame wars on various forums are going to be epic.

 

[enzo matrix]

This thread is fast becoming a flame war. Let's try to answer your question.

The question is "AMD x6 1050t/1090t vs Intel i7-930" would that little gap of performance between these two cpu's be worth that money? And I know that for most of the time it might not. let's speculate in the long run (I also doubt that he will need to upgrade it in nearest 3-5 year's next step would simply be rendering farm(which I would love to build)).

1. intel - less ram for beginning in this option
2. amd - more ram and two extra cores << rendering loves eating up dual core power and ram

Also I prefer more real cores that HT virtual ones (but I still like that technology, Only not in this case).

With your price claims, the 1090t will cost you less and you can put that money towards more memory. I highly recommend this, since as you saw with the 3dsMax benchmark posted, although the i7 will perform better, it is not by a significant margin. I suppose it is up to the person you are building this for if the decrease in render time is worth the extra money.
I'd check where you are getting your prices from though because the last I saw the i7 930 was at $285 and the x6 at $295.

I'd like to point out also that the x6 1075T is out at 3GHz stock, for a much more reasonable $250 now (at least at newegg prices).

 

[amdfangirl]

I still think the 2,8Ghz one is more reasonable for the price.

 

[enzo matrix]

I still think the 2,8Ghz one is more reasonable for the price.

I completely agree.

 

[Reynod]

Keith I am an AMD fan but my X6 trails the high end i7's ... end of story.

I am not bitter about it, I am pretty happy with the performance I got for the price.

I don't see any of the Intel fans arguing that point.

The i7 cores just have a slightly higher IPC ... and the end of the day their cache seems more effective.

 

[amdfangirl]

If you're just doing rendering it makes sense to save money... by buying a cheap 880G mobo and using the IGP.

 

[reccy]

Progression is progression, people like AMD and people like Intel.

Intel is better here where as AMD is better there. Simple as. Sandybridge vs Bulldozer. i7 vs X6. Honda vs Ford. All have ups, downs, lefts and rights. The fact is that the user is the one who makes one more effective over the other. Simple as.

My i7 930 is the best chip in the world, but someone else Phenom II x6 is better than mine, somewhere out there someones P4 Northbridge is incontention of that prize.

These companies are progressing technology futher each day/week/month to satisfy the pockets of the MD's and to grab as much profits as they can, but they HAVE to utilise the researching knowleadge base moving forwards in the computer world. Weather AMD or Intel, both have there gains and margins.

Quick before my i7 blows up!

 

[enzo matrix]

My i7 930 is the best chip in the world, but someone else Phenom II x6 is better than mine, somewhere out there someones P4 Northbridge is incontention of that prize.

I think I am misunderstanding that sentence

 

[reccy]

I think I am misunderstanding that sentence

Basically ive bought a chip im happy with and what i wanted, regardless of the brand new Sandybridge out shortly.

People out there doing their thing on old P4's K8's etc.. meaning, no matter what the manufactors provide in terms of new technology, the user is in his own right to upgrade or not given what they think is best for there line of budget/use.

Meaning, If an AMD Athlon X2 4200+ Plays WOW flawlessly, why spend money upgrading something not worth it in the eyes of the user?

 

[amdfangirl]

I agree, but hoe does it relate to the topic again?

 

[croweater]

Like it or not, most apps will probably be tested and optimized on Intel CPUs first. So, even if the AMD X6 has more cores, it will probably take some time before apps are optimized for it. For real world usage, I think Intel will always run faster unless you're able to re-write and re-compile the app to take advantage of the AMD architecture.

 

[jrsprice]

Thats how i7 crush those useless x6.

Are you freakin serious? Your such a lamer and intel fanboi. Only the i7 980x outperforms the 1090t in most benchmarks. Also lets see the amd oc'd at 4.0 ghz. The 1090t destroys / "crush" most of the i7 models out there. The 980x is 1000 bucks compared to 280 ? Also if you look at the scores, the 1090t pretty much beats every single one of them besides the flagship cpu (980x). You're so ignorant and naive dude. You made yourself look like a fool. Just b/c a product is more expensive does not mean it is better.

http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/reviews/processors/AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1090T_1.html

 

[fazers_on_stun]

^ Some mod needs to close this sorry thread. Zippy already got a temp ban out of it, and it appears some others are headed for the barn as well.

 

[ares1214]

^ Some mod needs to close this sorry thread. Zippy already got a temp ban out of it, and it appears some others are headed for the barn as well.

Sigh...another i7 vs 1090T thread turned flame war. Ive done like 100 of these threads, and always come to the same conclusion:

Gaming: i7>1090T
Video Editing: 1090T>i7
Price: 1090T beats i7
Clock for Clock: i7>1090T
Stock: 1090T>i7
Overclocking: Generally a tie for max OC. AMD can generally go the highest, but thru conventional means, the i7 generally gets higher on air or water. Thats max OC, considering the i7s start lower, they obviously OC higher from stock.
Future Proof: 1090T. While it wont be AM3 compatible with BD, atleast you can put the 1090T into a AM3+ board. More importantly however, as time goes on, more apps use more cores. NOW, the i7 might beat the 1090T in CS4, but some time from now, the 1090T might beat it in CS6 due to added cores. Just an example, i have no knowledge of CS6 core usage.

Now, put all that together. Generally, i recommend the 1055T for video editing, and the i5 750 for gaming. So basically, scale that up and you have 1090T for video editing, and i7 950 for gaming. As this deals with video editing, id say 1055/1075/1090T is the way to go. You likely wont even be able to tell the difference. And for those die hard fanboys on both sides...stop. For one, i7 is faster clock for clock in the vast majority of situations. Just how it is. For the intel fanboys saying it takes 2 more cores and it still loses....no. For one, it doesnt lose every single benchmark. Secondly, if AMD can fit 2 more cores and there, and sell it at the price its at, why not?

 

[enzo matrix]

Sigh...another i7 vs 1090T thread turned flame war. Ive done like 100 of these threads, and always come to the same conclusion:

Gaming: i7>1090T
Video Editing: 1090T>i7
Price: 1090T beats i7
Clock for Clock: i7>1090T
Stock: 1090T>i7
Overclocking: Generally a tie for max OC. AMD can generally go the highest, but thru conventional means, the i7 generally gets higher on air or water. Thats max OC, considering the i7s start lower, they obviously OC higher from stock.
Future Proof: 1090T. While it wont be AM3 compatible with BD, atleast you can put the 1090T into a AM3+ board. More importantly however, as time goes on, more apps use more cores. NOW, the i7 might beat the 1090T in CS4, but some time from now, the 1090T might beat it in CS6 due to added cores. Just an example, i have no knowledge of CS6 core usage.

Now, put all that together. Generally, i recommend the 1055T for video editing, and the i5 750 for gaming. So basically, scale that up and you have 1090T for video editing, and i7 950 for gaming. As this deals with video editing, id say 1055/1075/1090T is the way to go. You likely wont even be able to tell the difference. And for those die hard fanboys on both sides...stop. For one, i7 is faster clock for clock in the vast majority of situations. Just how it is. For the intel fanboys saying it takes 2 more cores and it still loses....no. For one, it doesnt lose every single benchmark. Secondly, if AMD can fit 2 more cores and there, and sell it at the price its at, why not?

i think you should save this post and post it on every degraded and flaming thread you come accross

 

[ares1214]

i think you should save this post and post it on every degraded and flaming thread you come accross

Repetition is the best way to break a fanboy! This is thread 101 thats ive done this...absolutely no offense aimed at the OP, but to stop Flame War 3, id recommend just looking at the 100 other threads with this topic. This thread has also been hit pretty hard with Flame War...

 

[Reynod]

Best answer selected by reynod.