Core i7 vs Phenom II

cjl

Splendid
Jun 18, 2008
7,675
0
31,160
147
The i7 wins every one of those, most by a sizable margin. Make sure you look at each benchmark - in some of them, lower is better.
 

Cryslayer80

Distinguished
Aug 28, 2009
433
0
18,810
5
Sure it beats it. It is a cocktail of Intel's (slightly) superior architecture, bribe, optimization and marketing. And it has a $1000 price tag... Nice comparison. PII is only $800 less...
 

cjl

Splendid
Jun 18, 2008
7,675
0
31,160
147

The superior architecture part of this comment is correct. I fail to see how bribery has anything to do with a testably faster CPU though. If it were slower, and people bought it anyways, then bribery and marketing would be much more prominent (such as in the later P4 days), but currently, Intel has the faster processor, and it has nothing to do with marketing or bribery. As for optimization, that would be more believable if it didn't win every single benchmark across a broad range of tasks.

Sorry, but you'll just have to accept that Intel has the faster CPUs right now (even the lower end i7s, such as the 920). It's true (and visible in that set of benchmarks) that in gaming, the gap is significantly smaller, and it isn't worth the extra money for gaming alone, but for any real work, the i7 pulls ahead by a significant margin.
 

Cryslayer80

Distinguished
Aug 28, 2009
433
0
18,810
5
and it has nothing to do with marketing or bribery.

It does, else Intel wouldn't be paying 2.6 billion. End of story.

PS: In gaming, yeah, the gap is small in the favor of PII.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
Oct 5, 2007
18,741
12
58,165
975


The $1.25B Intel is paying is for pre Core 2 era not current. Marketing has nothing to do with benchmarks.

But I can see the bribery. Anything that shows Intel ahead is bribery.

And the games there show Intel ahead by about 10% in all games but Fallout 3 which uses the same horribly optimized engine that Oblivion used. Oblivion ruled but was bad for hardware.

I guess that also means Intel bribed MS when it worked with them to optimize Windows 7 for multicore CPUs.
 

Cryslayer80

Distinguished
Aug 28, 2009
433
0
18,810
5
Of course. What, is it maybe because Intel is more professional? No, it is because Intel has more money and is larger.
 

belial2k

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2009
1,043
0
19,310
15
As most people know, the i7 is undisputed as the current top of the heap of processors. It even has great value, as the 920 can be overclocked to well over 4.0ghz. AMD PII can compete on the budget end of things with the x2 and x3 chips near $100, assuming you can unlock the other cores. Other than that, intel is pretty much dominate as the price and performance leader since its chips overclock better and have superior architecture in most price ranges. I am not a fanboy by any means, I only care who makes the best product for the money. That is why ATI is way ahead in the graphics card race right now. Too many people in this forum are biased and refuse to admit facts that every unbiased benchmark shows. Price/Performance has nothing to do with Intel's shady business practices (that they are now paying for). Nobody disagrees intel got busted and got what they had coming, but that does not change performance data. If you want to boycott them, you have every right to, but don't come on the forum and mislead uninformed people that AMD PII outperforms i7, i5, or even C2Q because that is clearly not the case.
 

Cryslayer80

Distinguished
Aug 28, 2009
433
0
18,810
5
PS: You may have heard Intel recently payed 1.28 billion to AMD, thus ending their war. Heh, AMD was stupid to take it, they could have earned a lot more money in court by stating objective facts and calling companies harmed by Intel (IBM, HP). And Intel payed a similar amount to EU because of the same thing. Dirty tactics and abuse are not welcome in the world, and I am glad some people still believe in that rule.
 

Cryslayer80

Distinguished
Aug 28, 2009
433
0
18,810
5
but don't come on the forum and mislead uninformed people that AMD PII outperforms i7, i5, or even C2Q because that is clearly not the case.



And you are the trusted source worthy of stating that, right? This is a FORUM. On a forum, people post opinions, this is not strictly pro-Intel environment. And by the way, your statement that PII can't beat C2Q is a total BS, even die hard Intel fanboys confirm C2Q is outdated and weak compared to PII. I5 is Intel's marketing try to fool people they have regained price/performance crown. I7 is a nice, very architecturally superior chip that is great for many advanced uses, but for normal and everyday use including gaming, it is pointless.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
Oct 5, 2007
18,741
12
58,165
975


You obviously have no idea how it would work. Even if AMD would get a judgement right away, Intel would appeal it causing AMD to get nothing for another 10 years which would cost them probably most of what they would get in legal fees.

Instead they get the full $1.25B NOW and burry the hatchet, That allows both Intel and AMD to move forward and continue to innovate.

But I forget, you would rather watch AMD and Intel fight it out forever, causing us to lose out on new better performance CPUs right?
 

dna708

Distinguished
May 7, 2009
154
0
18,680
0
Core 2 quad is definitely outdated, but it is by no means weak. Of course anyone buying a system between C2Q and AM3 would choose the AM3 based system. It's more recent. But that's not to say that C2Q wouldn't put up a good fight.
 

cjl

Splendid
Jun 18, 2008
7,675
0
31,160
147

Nice try.

In gaming, the gap is small in favor of the i7.
 

Cryslayer80

Distinguished
Aug 28, 2009
433
0
18,810
5



Nice try.

In gaming, the gap is small in favor of the PII


PS: We can continue all day...
 

belial2k

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2009
1,043
0
19,310
15
Don't let facts get in your way, but look
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=16
clearly shows, clock for clock, Phenom II is behind i7, i5, AND C2Q...Opinions are fine...an opinion is "intel is evil, so I will never buy their products" or even "AMD offers better value in some budget ranges for gaming builds" but a misleading statement can be refuted by facts that are generally agreed upon. (also known as a truism) . So, when you say PII outperforms i7 you are misleading people, and that should be pointed out in case someone was to believe the misleading comment.
 

cjl

Splendid
Jun 18, 2008
7,675
0
31,160
147

We could. The difference is that the facts support my position.
 

belial2k

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2009
1,043
0
19,310
15
^this might be true for some people, but as I always say, if you are concerned with gaming alone, and are happy with "good enough" you should buy a console for $300.
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator
Jul 24, 2006
20,995
9
51,665
201

The i7 920 is not $800 more, but is still faster (marginally so, in many cases, except highly threaded ones). The same goes for the i7 860, which is faster than the 920 thanks to Cheater's Boost. However, since this thread is not about gaming alone, you have to look at other tasks. If you do rendering, there is no way you'd go for a "slow" Phenom II over an i7. If you do encoding and you're not rich, the Phenom would probably be fine, although if it was your business then you'd go with an i7. If you are just gaming, there's zero reason to buy an i7.


Intel was fined for bribing its customers, not reviewers. I'm tired of that old spin. Nobody bribes any reviewers, the manufacturers simply don't have the weight to do it. What they do certainly try is using their PR to twist things. But PR are paid to be full of crap, so that's expected. It is true of AMD PR as well.


Please don't...



No they don't. They are not facts because AMD is not winning. :sol:
 

jennyh

Splendid
Mar 3, 2009
4,292
0
22,860
26



Noody *smart* would. Big difference. :D
 

belial2k

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2009
1,043
0
19,310
15
sorry pepperman, I was responding to dna. Platform cost for PII and C2Q are almost identical, and the C2Qs tend to overclock much better and higher...so I see them as almost equal in price/performance with a slight edge going to C2Q for the OCers and tweakers. I would never recommend that for a new build, and I am always recommending the PII x2 and x3 for budget builds. My argument was purely an academic one that despite what Cryslayer was claiming, the PII does not win any clock for clock comparisons against intel.
 

jennyh

Splendid
Mar 3, 2009
4,292
0
22,860
26


C2Q's do not oc better than Phenom II's, that's nonsense.
 

Similar threads