Why is Core i7 920 better than Phenom 2 955

[randomizer]

At least you can remove the DRM (or some of it) with vLite.

 

[amdfangirl]

Yep. I know. but I think that x86 has been around long enough. If Intel can find a way to get IA64 to emulate x86 at the same performance levels while providing a superior 64bit experience then we can move away from x86 into better processing power.

BUT that probably will never happen.

Nice avatar... but why did you chose to copy me and use a Jackie Chan adventures avatar?

Jeez, I was so first with Jade on my Steam.

what's the benefit of X64 over X86? wouldn't X86 give you better memory capabilites or is that totally different.

Well, x64 means you can address more RAM and execute programs more efficiently.

x64 is mainly 64-bit addressing, which means instead of 4GB virtually addressable memory total (which is usually reduced to a bit over 3GB since the video card memory is also mapped into that total), you now have up to 256 TB memory accessible. If that becomes insufficient 😀 then it can be raised to the exabyte level (giga < tera < peta < exa). Beyond that I guess we'll need x128 or maybe x256 .

There's other features as well, such as 64-bit integer mode, extra registers, and probably most important, the additional SSE instruction sets which execute certain tasks incredibly faster than integer or FP coded algorithms.

Also can use 64 bit integers rather than 32 bit ones.

 

[randomizer]

A C# long integer is always 64 bits long.

 

[amdfangirl]

This is why my excuse is that I work in the art industry.

 

[shinku_sai]

Core I7 is better as it is the next gen proc from intel. It was literally built from the ground up.... And we are comparing it to we AMD's well.. more or less... 6 year architecture... Sure Intel is bigger than AMD in about every way... I know for a fact that Intel is a GREAT company and AMD is well... not as great.... per se.... but I am still holding on to AMD as they offer a more cost effective system as compared to what Intel offers. I would like to reserve my judgement for AMD until their next generation processors that are built on the Socket C32 I believe it is then if they are able to match the performance difference or even surpass it then that is when i will make a judgement of which is the better processor maker. At this point in time I have 4 desktops in my house and all of them are running on AMD processors, as they do get the job done. But hey if I wanted to build a great system... Then WITHOUT a doubt it WILL have an Intel processor in it and I would be proud to put the sticker.... COREi7 INSIDE! 😀

ALL IN ALL... AMD ROCKS..... INTEL ROCKS HARDER... Hopefully AMD will BRING THE HOUSE DOWN!!!! 😀 (I hear heavy metal playing in the background)

 

[kassler]

For advanced games AMD is better (cache design matches better game code when the game needs speed from the processor)
i7 L3 cache runs faster compared to AMD, same speed as the processor. AMD L3 cache runs slower but it has higher hitrates compared to i7.
I7 cache is also inclusive, amd is exclusive. That makes i7 perform better when it synchronize data among cores. The prices you pay for this is higher power (i7 draws more power) and i7 can't turn of different parts on the processor as AMD is able to.

 

[cjl]

Kassler - i7 can turn off unused portions just fine - it can completely shut down cores if it needs to. In addition, for advanced games, the benchmarks are clear - i7 comes out ahead every time. Often the margin of victory is fairly small (aside from ridiculous multi-gpu setups), but you can't honestly claim that the i7 is worse than the Phenom II for pretty much any task. Also, the i7 L3 does not run at the same speed as the processor (learn the architecture before you comment on it please). My L3 is at 3200MHz right now for example, while my core is at 3730MHz (my daily use speed).

As for power, most of the tests I've seen put the i7's power consumption as similar to the high end Phenom II x4 models. It certainly isn't outrageous. The TDPs are somewhat similar, and the tests seem to support that (with the PhII at 125-140W, and the i7 at 130W).

 

[xaira]

i7 is better because intel has more money to invest in research, and intel finally stopped underestimating amd.

 

[amdfangirl]

That's why the EU needs to fine Intel again, for making CPUs.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I can hear it now.
Headlines:
Intel releases new cpus
EUs response?
OK fine [:jaydeejohn:4]

 

[Guest]

While this is close, its a bit off. Core 2 is actually based off of the Pentium III Coppermine that was a desktop part. What happened was that during the Pentium 4 era is that Intel needed a good mobile offense against AMDs Athlon that was low power and decent performance.

What they did is they wrapped the Pentium III Coppermineinto a mobile package naming it the Pentium M.

What they saw (well the guys in Israel anyways) was that it would run better than a Pentium 4 and clock per clock it whomped it and Athlon like there was no tomorrow.

So they took what they learned from Pentium 4 (lets faces it, the P4s pipeline design was better since it gave the ability to clock higher than others it was just the rest of the arch that had leakage up the arse) and applied it to the Pentium M thus creating Core 2.

Core i7 is Core 2 with a lot of IPC enhancements, a IMC and QPI.



Its not HT. And it was a gimmick but SMT actually does give a nice performance boost. But yes the average user wont see any difference which is why a Pentium Dual Core E2200 is suffice for most average users.



Well that depends on the Core i5s performance. It may be something AMD might worry about.

And Larrabee is a bit different. The design of the processors for it re mainly for GPU applications. Of course they could be using their design based off of Terascale mixed with Core i7s SMT (I think its supposed to be 32 processors with 64 threads and each core is capable of so many shaders) which will be great since Terascale was completely modular.

That means they could have some of the processors be PPUs(Physic Processing Units) and link it with Havoks Physics engine since they now own havok.

And you are right. If they released a CPU like Terascale or Larrabee they would end up monopolizing the market and especially the server market. Terascale was shwon to be able to do the same job as 130 CPUs (it was only 80) and only used 62w @ full load @ 2.5GHz per core. And we all know Intel doesn't want that to happen or they will be broken up again which in the end is bad for us end users.




Well what do you plan on doing? For gaming thats a pretty decent rig right there although for me I would go with the HD4870 2GB but thats cuz I am crazy.

Also, do you know what OS you plan to use? If its XP 2GB of RAM is fine but if its Vista or even Windows 7 4GB+ is always better.

 

[Upendra09]

what are u trying to say?^

 

[randomizer]

Second time in 2 weeks I've seen someone's first post being just a quote.

 

[Upendra09]

he just didn't want to write all that

 

[amdfangirl]

he just didn't want to write all that

Meh.

Nobody notices these days all my posts are just copy and pasted from what I've written before.

 

[Upendra09]

so topics are just repeating themselves huh? ^

 

[amdfangirl]

Well, how many damn times have you seen a thread asking "How do I monitor CPU heat?" "How do I figure out what CPU I have?" "What's thermal paste?" etc.

 

[Upendra09]

alot

 

[amdfangirl]

Yes.

 

[Upendra09]

people just don't want to look it up and come here expecting a 5 second response whereas they actually have to wait longer, but gogle it and you have under 5 seconds

 

[amdfangirl]

Like hell I'm gonna retype my answer.

Probably why my English teachers complain about my copy and pasting of writing.

 

[verndewd]

Kinda. Or many of the other various 64bit CPUs that came and went back in the day.



.

64 bit was neither an Intel or AMD creation, it existed in servers years before either used it

Most CPUs are designed so that the contents of a single integer register can store the address (location) of any datum in the computer's virtual memory. Therefore, the total number of addresses in the virtual memory — the total amount of data the computer can keep in its working area — is determined by the width of these registers. Beginning in the 1960s with the IBM System/360, then (amongst many others) the DEC VAX minicomputer in the 1970s, and then with the Intel 80386 in the mid-1980s, a de facto consensus developed that 32 bits was a convenient register size. A 32-bit address register meant that 232 addresses, or 4 GB of RAM, could be referenced. At the time these architectures were devised, 4 GB of memory was so far beyond the typical quantities (16 MB) available in installations that this was considered to be enough "headroom" for addressing. 4 GB addresses were considered an appropriate size to work with for another important reason: 4 billion integers are enough to assign unique references to most physically countable things in applications like databases.

Some supercomputer processor architectures of the 1970s and 80s used registers up to 64 bits wide. However, 32 bits remained the norm until the early 1990s, when the continual reductions in the cost of memory led to installations with quantities of RAM approaching 4 GB, and the use of virtual memory spaces exceeding the 4-gigabyte ceiling became desirable for handling certain types of problems. In response, MIPS and DEC developed 64-bit microprocessor architectures, initially for high-end workstation and server machines. By the mid-1990s, HAL Computer Systems, Sun Microsystems, IBM and Hewlett Packard had developed 64-bit architectures for their workstation and server systems. A notable exclusion to this trend were mainframes from IBM, which remained 32-bit. During the 1990s, several low-cost 64-bit microprocessors were used in consumer electronics and embedded applications. Notably, the Nintendo 64 and PlayStation 2 both had 64-bit microprocessors before its introduction in personal computers. High-end printers and network equipment, as well as industrial computers also used 64-bit microprocessors such as the Quantum Effect Devices R5000. 64-bit computing started to drift down to the personal computer desktop from 2003 onwards, when some models in Apple's Macintosh lines switched to PowerPC 970 processors (termed "G5" by Apple) and the launch of AMD's 64-bit x86-64 extension to the x86 architecture, processors based on this architecture becoming common in high-end PCs.

The emergence of the 64-bit architecture effectively increases the memory ceiling to 264 addresses, equivalent to approximately 17.2 billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM. To put this in perspective, in the days when 4 MB of main memory was commonplace, the maximum memory ceiling of 232 addresses was about 1,000 times larger than typical memory configurations. Today, when over 2 GB of main memory is common, the ceiling of 264 addresses is about ten trillion times larger, i.e., ten billion times more headroom than the 232 case.

Four Instructions per Clock
Core 2 is a "four wide" architecture, meaning that it can issue and retire four instructions per clock cycle. The Pentium and Athlon 64 architectures are "three-wide." That's not to say that Core 2 is immediately 33% faster, because pipeline stalls still occasionally happen. Still, the ability to issue four instructions per clock gives Core 2 an immediate leg up.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,1988794,00.asp

As you can see, AMD projects a 20% improvement in clock-for-clock performance over Phenom 9950, due largely to the increase in clock speed, which buys Phenom II 940 an additional 12% in performance. AMD estimates an additional 3% comes from instructions per clock (IPC) enhancements included in the new core, while another 5% comes from the CPU’s larger L3 cache. Finally, AMD projects a performance improvement of nearly 5% from DDR3-1333 when it becomes available.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_phenom_2_940_performance/

oddly AMD doesnt say how many IPC but says it accounts for 3% in performance increase according to firing squad.

where as core 2 duo issues 4 IPC correcting my earlier assumption that its 3. After 4 hours of searching for an actual number on the phenom ipc I give up, at least for today.

 

[Upendra09]

wow what up with the necro?? all the threads i have been in have been necroed