Hello guys. I was talking in another thread about the temperature of Intel's chips (which are high), vs the temperature of AMD chips.
I like GTX 460 because Nvidia FINALLY found a way how to make cooler chips. I hate things that run at 90C-95C because that can damage my components.
I damaged my beautiful ASUS P6T Deluxe (a $250 motherboard), and a expensive Soundblaster X-Fi Fatal1ty Champion Edition, because my expensive GTX 295 SLI just damaged the whole freaking computer
I highlight the word EXPENSIVE because I learned the lesson.
Expensive is not necessarily better, so a 1090T processor might not be as good as the $1000 Intel counterpart, but maybe it's just a more efficient product.
Now, back to my case, I have 2 options
1) AMD - runs cool at 65C
2) Intel - runs hot at 80C-90C
In my own personal experience, AMD Phenom II X6 1055T was very slow with video games. However, when I disabled Turbo and overclocked that baby to 4.0Ghz, man, that CPU was running my GTX 470 to 100% of it's speed.
I was running Crysis 1920x1080 on High, Average FPS: 52.75 with the 1055T.
Can I expect the same with an Intel chip?
Unfortunately I sold my GTX 470 so I can't compare
If I overclock a 1090T @ 4.2 Ghz, then 6 real cores running cool and overclocked at a nice speed will be hard to beat
I like Intel because with 4 cores Intel is very similar performance to AMD with 6 cores
so Intel is more 'efficient', I know for a fact that with Intel my games will run 3-10FPS faster than with AMD
Maybe Intel Virtual cores (or whatever the name is), really works great in games.
I've seen benchmarks comparing the Intel Core it 930 vs AMD Phenom II X6 1090T, and they run about the same
the Phenom X6 runs better with true multi-core programs, such as Adobe Premiere CS5
however, in games, I remember Crysis running around 7-8 FPS higher with the Intel processors.
The way I see it, if I buy and spend money on Nvidia GTX 460, or GTX 470, I might as well buy a processor that uses every ounce of power in that video card.
Intel motherboards also have SLI, AM3 motherboards don't
however, with the SLI Patch, I can enable SLI on AM3 motherboards with no problems.
I like the fact that AMD makes every possible attempt to allow users to keep using their motherboards for long, long time
I know people with AM2 motherboards payed $299 and had an amazing 6 core processor, just a BIOS update.
I know on the other hand that Intel makes every single possible attempt to force users to change motherboards every 1-2 years.
So, I was thinking maybe donating this computer to my mom (I think a Intel Core i7-875k overclocked at 4.0Ghz might be a bit too much for Solitaire), but I want to have a good computer in my house, I can use it if I don't have one or if I sold mine.
So, what do you say guys?
Intel as the main computer and AMD as a backup?
or AMD as a main one and Intel as the backup?
One last thing thought, I know for a fact that Windows 7 64-bit is a GREAT program for multicore.
Windows 7 will use every ounce of juice my 1090T can handle, so do you think an Intel Core i7 875k runs better than an AMD 1090T or is it the other way around?
I like GTX 460 because Nvidia FINALLY found a way how to make cooler chips. I hate things that run at 90C-95C because that can damage my components.
I damaged my beautiful ASUS P6T Deluxe (a $250 motherboard), and a expensive Soundblaster X-Fi Fatal1ty Champion Edition, because my expensive GTX 295 SLI just damaged the whole freaking computer
I highlight the word EXPENSIVE because I learned the lesson.
Expensive is not necessarily better, so a 1090T processor might not be as good as the $1000 Intel counterpart, but maybe it's just a more efficient product.
Now, back to my case, I have 2 options
1) AMD - runs cool at 65C
2) Intel - runs hot at 80C-90C
In my own personal experience, AMD Phenom II X6 1055T was very slow with video games. However, when I disabled Turbo and overclocked that baby to 4.0Ghz, man, that CPU was running my GTX 470 to 100% of it's speed.
I was running Crysis 1920x1080 on High, Average FPS: 52.75 with the 1055T.
Can I expect the same with an Intel chip?
Unfortunately I sold my GTX 470 so I can't compare
If I overclock a 1090T @ 4.2 Ghz, then 6 real cores running cool and overclocked at a nice speed will be hard to beat
I like Intel because with 4 cores Intel is very similar performance to AMD with 6 cores
so Intel is more 'efficient', I know for a fact that with Intel my games will run 3-10FPS faster than with AMD
Maybe Intel Virtual cores (or whatever the name is), really works great in games.
I've seen benchmarks comparing the Intel Core it 930 vs AMD Phenom II X6 1090T, and they run about the same
the Phenom X6 runs better with true multi-core programs, such as Adobe Premiere CS5
however, in games, I remember Crysis running around 7-8 FPS higher with the Intel processors.
The way I see it, if I buy and spend money on Nvidia GTX 460, or GTX 470, I might as well buy a processor that uses every ounce of power in that video card.
Intel motherboards also have SLI, AM3 motherboards don't
however, with the SLI Patch, I can enable SLI on AM3 motherboards with no problems.
I like the fact that AMD makes every possible attempt to allow users to keep using their motherboards for long, long time
I know people with AM2 motherboards payed $299 and had an amazing 6 core processor, just a BIOS update.
I know on the other hand that Intel makes every single possible attempt to force users to change motherboards every 1-2 years.
So, I was thinking maybe donating this computer to my mom (I think a Intel Core i7-875k overclocked at 4.0Ghz might be a bit too much for Solitaire), but I want to have a good computer in my house, I can use it if I don't have one or if I sold mine.
So, what do you say guys?
Intel as the main computer and AMD as a backup?
or AMD as a main one and Intel as the backup?
One last thing thought, I know for a fact that Windows 7 64-bit is a GREAT program for multicore.
Windows 7 will use every ounce of juice my 1090T can handle, so do you think an Intel Core i7 875k runs better than an AMD 1090T or is it the other way around?