Core2 vs phenom II vs core i

[enzo matrix]

Also discuss. I am interested in opinions and proof contradicting the obvious order of performance:
Core i
Core 2
Phenom II

I also want cost, heat, power consumption etc. to be a non-issue in this discussion. Ability to process only.

Still no interesting contradictions?

Oh. Now there are. 5 more AMD fanboys. None of them seem to have provided valid points that the Phenom II architecture is better than the core 2 or core i though.
So now, I bait them.

 

[sirheck]

If cost is a non-issue the only other issue i can think of would be heat.

 

[Deleted member 217926]

You read this? http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu,2492-6.html

 

[randomizer]

If we throw out cost/benefit, bang-for-buck, etc. then the i7 is of course faster. But how much faster is application dependent. In games it can sometimes fall behind the Phenom II (games involve the whole platform though not just the CPU), but as far as raw processing power is concerned it's definitely faster.

EDIT: I hope by "Core i" you mean "Core i7" because there is also Core i5 and Core i3.

 

[andy5174]

performance: core2 = PII < i5 < i7
cost-performance: i5 >= PII > core2 >= i7
power efficiency: i5 > core2 > i7 > PII

According to the info given by cadder, i7-920 is 52.7% more than i5 system and performance gain is minimal. Hence, you will want to avoid it unless you can get a deal of $220 or less. FYI, you can pick up 920 for just $200 if a Microcenter is nearby.

 

[andy5174]

I5 vs i7 860 vs i7 920

 

[randomizer]

According to the info given by cadder, i7-920 is 52.7% more than i5 system and performance gain is minimal. Hence, you will want to avoid it unless you can get a deal of $220 or less. FYI, you can pick up 920 for just $200 if a Microcenter is nearby.

He said he didn't care about cost, so deals don't matter 😉

 

[staalkoppie]

If you don't need the power of the i7, you are obviously money conscious and would be shopping for your needs, and not boasting rights. I personally found the PII is very well priced, and does everything flattout. When the time comes that the PII becomes to slow, AMD provided this chip with a lot of headroom for OC'ing which you should also take into account, and would extend the use of the PII... My 2 drops worth

 

[outlw6669]

Cost and other considerations aside, PII<Core 2<i7 and i5<=>i7 in clock for clock performance.

The i5 and i7 have a somewhat odd relationship.
The 'true' LGA1366 i7's Just Outperform their LGA1156 counterparts when both are forced to run at the same speed (NO turbo boost).
The i5 is exactly the same as the LGA1156 i7 with Hyper Threading Disabled.
As such, it should perform virtually identical to the LGA1156 i7's (just under the LGA1366 i7's) when 4 or less threads are in use and both are forced to run at the same speed but loses in heavily threaded apps.

When you factor in the Turbo Boost however, it gets slightly more complicated.
LGA1366 i7's can boost their speeds 133-266Mhz depending on how many cores are active, LGA1156 i7's can boost 133-666Mhz and the i5 can boost 133-533Mhz.
While similarly clocked i7's will still beat i5's in heavily threaded apps, the i5 has the potential to beat a LGA1366 i7 when only 1 or 2 cores are active and will either match or loose to a LGA1156 i7 (depending on which i7) under similar conditions.

 

[warmon6]

Cost and other considerations aside, PII<Core 2<i7 and i5<=>i7 in clock for clock performance.

The i5 and i7 have a somewhat odd relationship.
The 'true' LGA1366 i7's Just Outperform their LGA1156 counterparts when both are forced to run at the same speed (NO turbo boost).
The i5 is exactly the same as the LGA1156 i7 with Hyper Threading Disabled.
As such, it should perform virtually identical to the LGA1156 i7's (just under the LGA1366 i7's) when 4 or less threads are in use and both are forced to run at the same speed but loses in heavily threaded apps.

When you factor in the Turbo Boost however, it gets slightly more complicated.
LGA1366 i7's can boost their speeds 133-266Mhz depending on how many cores are active, LGA1156 i7's can boost 133-666Mhz and the i5 can boost 133-533Mhz.
While similarly clocked i7's will still beat i5's in heavily threaded apps, the i5 has the potential to beat a LGA1366 i7 when only 1 or 2 cores are active and will either match or loose to a LGA1156 i7 (depending on which i7) under similar conditions.

+1

 

[randomizer]

LGA1366 i7's can boost their speeds 133-266Mhz depending on how many cores are active,

From my own testing, I have concluded that the second speed bin for LGA1366 is more marketing than a real speed boost. While it does exist, 3/4 cores need to be in sleep states for >98% of the time to maintain that higher speed bin. This requires running assigning affinity of basically everything that uses CPU cycles to one core, active and background tasks. You'll probably find that allowing Windows to properly schedule threads itself yields a greater performance improvement than an extra 133MHz even in single-threaded tasks. It's also much less of a headache.

 

[enzo matrix]

EDIT: I hope by "Core i" you mean "Core i7" because there is also Core i5 and Core i3.

I thought they used the same architecture just removing hyperthreading?

 

[randomizer]

Not quite the same. LGA1156 has an on-die PCIe controller whereas LGA1366 does not. LGA1156 has a more aggressive Turbo Boost than LGA1366. There's a few other differences too. No Core i5 has the PCIe controller, but some Core i7s do (such as the i7 860) because i7 covers two platforms. I'm not sure about Core i3 as I've not looked at it much, but it's supposed to cover the low end of the market.

 

[jerreece]

Cost and other considerations aside, PII<Core 2<i7 and i5<=>i7 in clock for clock performance.

The i5 and i7 have a somewhat odd relationship.
The 'true' LGA1366 i7's Just Outperform their LGA1156 counterparts when both are forced to run at the same speed (NO turbo boost).
The i5 is exactly the same as the LGA1156 i7 with Hyper Threading Disabled.
As such, it should perform virtually identical to the LGA1156 i7's (just under the LGA1366 i7's) when 4 or less threads are in use and both are forced to run at the same speed but loses in heavily threaded apps.

When you factor in the Turbo Boost however, it gets slightly more complicated.
LGA1366 i7's can boost their speeds 133-266Mhz depending on how many cores are active, LGA1156 i7's can boost 133-666Mhz and the i5 can boost 133-533Mhz.
While similarly clocked i7's will still beat i5's in heavily threaded apps, the i5 has the potential to beat a LGA1366 i7 when only 1 or 2 cores are active and will either match or loose to a LGA1156 i7 (depending on which i7) under similar conditions.

LOL Although a complex answer, it's technically correct and detailed. I like it.

+1 from me as well.

 

[andy5174]

i5 vs LGA1156-i7-870 vs LGA1366-i7-920

i7-860 vs i7-920 vs i5-750

Most of the time(video encoding included): i7-870(LGA1156) > i7-860(LGA1156) > i7-920(LGA1366) >= i5-750(LGA1156)

The 920 is surely better than 750 but difference is within 5%, so not worth looking at 920 system if the cost is 52.7% more than 750 system IMO.

 

[enzo matrix]

Not quite the same. LGA1156 has an on-die PCIe controller whereas LGA1366 does not. LGA1156 has a more aggressive Turbo Boost than LGA1366. There's a few other differences too. No Core i5 has the PCIe controller, but some Core i7s do (such as the i7 860) because i7 covers two platforms. I'm not sure about Core i3 as I've not looked at it much, but it's supposed to cover the low end of the market.

I'm sorry, I was referring to the instruction set architecture not the CPU design. So the actual architecture of the CPU, not turbo boost, controllers, cache, etc.

 

[C00lIT]

Architecture victory for speed = Intel I5 or I7

Practical use for 80% of the people (home users or businesses who run excel on their futureshop garbage HP) nothing can top the cost effectiveness of an Athlon630 on an AMD Chipset/Radeon4200

 

[Cryslayer80]

performance: core2 = PII < i5 < i7
cost-performance: i5 >= PII > core2 >= i7
power efficiency: i5 > core2 > i7 > PII

According to the info given by cadder, i7-920 is 52.7% more than i5 system and performance gain is minimal. Hence, you will want to avoid it unless you can get a deal of $220 or less. FYI, you can pick up 920 for just $200 if a Microcenter is nearby.

A load of garbage, really. Let me fix that as I always have to do:

Raw power (performance) - I7>PII>I5>Core2
Bang/for/buck - PII>I7>I5>Core2
Energy drain - I5>Core2>PII>I7



Just because I7 is the most expensive doesn't mean it has a bad balance of power and price. That was an epic noob fail.

 

[Cryslayer80]

LOL Although a complex answer, it's technically correct and detailed. I like it.

+1 from me as well.

It is correct that the outdated Core2 is faster than PII and that I5 is nearly the same as i7? How many f'ing noobs are there for cry's sakes!

 

[outlw6669]

Did you read the linked benchmarks?
It is quite true.

Perhaps stop being a fanboi n00b?

 

[Cryslayer80]

I can say the same to you, but the difference will be that I am right.

And I read a lot of benchmarks, the ones posted here are not a holy Bible for benchmarking or something. One benchmark is always questionable... But noobs don't get that. I won't even TRY to post those thousand benchmarks that prove you wrong over and over because I see now that it is pointless. You just continue being irrational and post your own biased benchmarks.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

The question asked is which architecture performs the best. "Architecture" not released products.

Architecture means Performance/Clk.

I would then have to factually state the following (although the Phenom II X4 performance advantages per clk vs. the Core 2 Quad Kentsfield is not as evident as my following analysis makes it seem):

Core ix > Core 2 Quad (Yorkfield) > Phenom II X4 > Core 2 Quad (Kentsfield)

 

[Cryslayer80]

Phenom II is faster than all Core2's. Fact, and an undeniable one. Of course, there are always exceptions, but sometimes PII is even faster than I7 975 and nobody is counting that, so there is no reason to count exceptions on any side.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Phenom II is faster than all Core2's. Fact, and an undeniable one. Of course, there are always exceptions, but sometimes PII is even faster than I7 975 and nobody is counting that, so there is no reason to count exceptions on any side.

How do you figure? Are you talking about a Phenom II X4 965 clocked at 3.4GHz vs. a Core 2 Quad Q9650 clocked at 3GHz? Of course you then would run these processors using processor intensive applications and not applications which rely mostly on other hardware components (such as games).

If so either overclock the Q9650 to 3.4GHz or down clock the Phenom II X4 965 to 3GHz and compare the two clock for clock.


The question is about the actual architectures not the shipping products.

 

[enzo matrix]

Phenom II is faster than all Core2's. Fact, and an undeniable one. Of course, there are always exceptions, but sometimes PII is even faster than I7 975 and nobody is counting that, so there is no reason to count exceptions on any side.

Fact: Crystalmark's benchmark performance is not affected by cache. My overclocked 3.2GHz athlon II got the same score in arithmetic logic unit and floating point unit benchmarks as my friend's Phenom II 955.

Athlon IIx4 620 @ 3.25GHz
Scores:
ALU: 50484
FPU: 49101

Core 2 quad Q9550 (Yorkfield) at 3.1GHz
Scores:
ALU: 57724
FPU: 58663

I don't know if anything else could have affected the scores though. But I think it's pretty obvious. But now I am interested in benching the Kentsfield with this crystalmark.