• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

4p

Status
Not open for further replies.
DavyBoy said:
What?!?!

I'd say that this is one of the most popular chips for us enthusiasts atm....
Click to expand...
Agree, for me it was the only option that offered the features i needed. Being primarily a gamer at high res (1920x1200) i wanted the best possible setup for multi gpu. With my previous q9550 p5q deluxe i was limited to crossfire at x8, id had sli on nforce boards, nforce boards cant clock quads for squat. With i7 i have the option of both crossfire/sli at x16, good overclocking potential (4ghz with ease) and a fantastic setup for encoding.
 
JonJ678 said:
This is a complicated issue, however I'll try to keep this coherent. I'm using cpu folding@home as the benchmark for my argument, as it ignores graphics cards and gives a fair indication of raw processing "power". It's a program which gives you points for finishing a given amount of calculation, the faster the cpu the less time each block takes, so leading to points-per-day or ppd as a measure of processing speed.

Firstly computer performance is always in terms of bottlenecks. This limiting factor will depend on use, a gaming computer will need powerful graphics cards or these will be the slowest link. One doing intensive numerical work doesn't need any graphics card at all. So an i7 @ 4ghz with 8800gt is graphics card limited for gaming, but processor limited for cpu folding at home. The "goal" is to keep the system balanced for the task it is nominally built for. Ideally you want ram, cpu and graphics card to all be the limiting factor at once, so improving any one of them makes no difference but weakening any will slow the system down.

This is different to "bang for buck" as the term is normally used. It's important to remember that performance/price has to be in terms of intended use, and this is often neglected. For gaming, I'm sure the amd quad core in the OP has the i7 thrashed, as the system is very likely to be graphics card limited. For folding at home I'm much less sure. The stock x4 620 gets 4k ppd. The stock i7 920 gets 6.5k ppd. I haven't looked for overclocked results as I have no idea what a "normal" overclock is on the amd. This suggests the i7 is about 50% faster than the amd at stock, so the gap is narrowed. I suspect it narrows further when overclocked, as the i7 breaks 4ghz easily and I don't believe the amd does.

However, say you want a processor/motherboard/ram that is as fast as you can afford, because your intended use is cpu bound. Taking your example, the two amd rigs combined would get 8k ppd, the single i7 6.5k. However given the duplication of other hardware: cases, psus, graphics card etc it's no longer going to be two amd rigs for the same price as the intel. Approximately £50 case, £50 psu, network boot, no graphics card (so as little duplication as possible) gives £585 for the intel, £685 for the amd. £ per 1k ppd for intel is then £90, for the amd £85. The gap is then pretty close. If you wanted a basic graphics card, keyboard and so forth I believe you'll find they have the same price per ppd. This leads to the conclusion that for cpu intensive work, the two alternatives are the same price per performance.

The kicker is that the i7 system does all this in one box, so there's no issue splitting the load across the two loads, no networking costs, software compatibility is much improved. Running a two computer cluster would be difficult, and the price/per performance improvement for amd would need to be significant to justify the hassle involved. The price per ppd is near equal, this makes the i7 system a no-brainer for computational work.

My personal opinion is that the faster the processor, the better (linearly, not just faster is better until gpu limited). Paying half the price for one that's half the speed only makes sense if you can't afford the faster option. As such I think the x58 950 makes no sense, as the performance per pound relative to the x58 920 is much worse. However I wouldn't buy the amd you've linked, as it's half the price for half the processing ability.

I look forward to your response.
Click to expand...

That's because i7 is a multithreaded quad, so in applications that can actually use all 8threads like folding, will get a lot boost while stuff like games that hardly uses more than 2 cores itself will see next to no difference if you get the point.

So now the question is, will you either spend 600 on rig to play your favourite game at 100fps or will you decide to pay 300 extra for total of 900gbp to play it at 110 or 115fps when anything above 40-50fps makes no difference in gameplay anyways?

It all comes down to what you use the rig for.

And also, it's better to have an athlon II x3 setup with 5850 than an i7 setup with 5750 for gaming. Then on the other hand if all you did was graphic design or folding, it's better to have i7 with integrated or 30quid old gpu than athlon or phenom with 5770/5850 or even consider dual xeon 8 core setup if you can afford it.
 
Last edited:
PhoenixUK said:
That's because i7 is a multithreaded quad, so in applications that can actually use all 8threads like folding, will get a lot boost while stuff like games that hardly uses more than 2 cores itself will see next to no difference if you get the point.

So now the question is, will you either spend 600 on rig to play your favourite game at 100fps or will you decide to pay 300 extra for total of 900gbp to play it at 110 or 115fps when anything above 40-50fps makes no difference in gameplay anyways?

It all comes down to what you use the rig for.

And also, it's better to have an athlon II x3 setup with 5850 than an i7 setup with 5750 for gaming. Then on the other hand if all you did was graphic design or folding, it's better to have i7 with integrated or 30quid old gpu than athlon or phenom with 5770/5850 or even consider dual xeon 8 core setup if you can afford it.
Click to expand...

According to Bit-tech it is more cost effective to get multiple Nvidia graphics cards for folding instead of a powerful CPU:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/buyers-guide/2010/01/11/what-hardware-should-i-buy-january-2010/5
 
Indeed, cuda is very exciting technology. Ansys have changed some of their code to allow it to run on gpu, and nvidia think they've got cuda playing nicely with sli. Fea on gpu is a brilliant idea. However it will be a long time before the majority of the code runs on gpu, so at present cpu remains very important for cad purposes. Some video encoding can be done on gpu now, and some decoding too decreasing load on the processor. HD playback with an atom and the ion chipset for example. I think this is brilliant, using the gpu for what it's best at (lots and lots of little equations in parallel) and the gpu for what it's best at (difficult equations in sequence).

Multithreading is a large part of why the 920 does so well at folding, with it disabled performance suffers considerably. This can't be used as a reason to discard its greater performance however, as amd don't have an equivalent technology in place at present. Perhaps I should find a comparison of intel 750 vs the OPs amd, but that's comparing two closely matched processors rather than the high end of each, and Wayne seems to want to avoid that.

@Easy, good call mate. The 920 is what you want :)
 
I think most people are bang for buck.
The whole reason I got into the C2D was it was a great clocker giving me more bang for buck.
I have stuck with intel to my quad but do not see any point in going to an i3/5/7 as they would not give me any real improvement for what I use my PC for.
I have been tempted just to keep up with latest tech, but I would now consider AMD as a real alternative to intel.
I think now its closer more 'enthusiats' are trying and clocking AMD's chips and seeing real improvements that the word is getting out that AMD is a real alternative again.
 
I agree with you Big.Wayne and I would like bang for my buck also but if you do things like multi box games like play 5 versions of World of Warcraft or any other MMO at once would these boxes cope with it?

If they could I would be converted but its hard to find a benchmark on how I play things. I need something wide rather than high I guess. i7 seems to be the wide boy and the amd seems to fit the bill like the old duel cores did with older games.

Should I get an AMD and hope it will run 5 or just maybe "waste" my money on an i7 ?

Thanks
 
I have to agree with Big.Wayne - AMD is better value for money, and not that different in terms of performance for what I would use it for (mainly gaming xD).

Although, doesnt the lack of a L3 cache affect the Athlon II's quite badly? Would a Phenom II X2 not be a better choice for a budget rig? (especially seeing as you can unlock extra cores for no extra cost :D)
Regards
Alistair
 
moleh said:
if you do things like multi box games like play 5 versions of World of Warcraft or any other MMO at once would these boxes cope with it?
Click to expand...
:D

moleh said:
its hard to find a benchmark on how I play things.
Click to expand...
You should send a polite email to your fave web-review site and ask them to start combining the benchmarks . . . You must be the nu-school of computer users come to outmode us oldies! :p . . . I can't really do that many things at once! :o (on the computer I mean!)

moleh said:
Should I get an AMD and hope it will run 5 or just maybe "waste" my money on an i7 ?
Click to expand...
Dunno what to say there, I've not met anyone who plays five games at once! . . . in the absence of the information you require to confidently make a purchasing decision it seems to be a case of "If in doubt, pay more!" . . . seems a pity there isn't such a thing as a Trial-Station/Demo-unit . . . that would solve this over-speccing problem right out as you would be able to remove any doubts you had (Try-before-You-buy kinda) :cool:
 
Cookeh said:
Hmmm, interesting.
But isnt the L3 cache better than another core? Esp. when you have the potential of unlocking extra cores anyway?
Click to expand...

The problem is that the Athlon II X3 could be unlocked to an Athlon II X4 and some of the Athlon II X3 processors are actually based on the Deneb core meaning you could unlock them to a Phenom II X4.

TBH,I consider both the Athlon II X3 and Phenom II X2 very good value for money.
 
Definately agreed on value for money :D
just wondering as Im going for a real budget build soon, and wondering how much difference the L3 cache makes because the £30 difference between Phenom II and Athlon II is quite substantial for a student with no job xD
 
Cookeh said:
But isnt the L3 cache better than another core?
Click to expand...
We are trained to always want more . . more GHz, more Cores, more Cache, more power efficient, more features, more CPU instructions-sets, more overclockability, more expensive, more better than what the other guys got etc etc . . . :D

To answer your question IMHO I reckon more cores would be better than more cache? . . . but of course one is likely to pay out extra for both (just in case!) :cool:
 
Big.Wayne said:
We are trained to always want more . . more GHz, more Cores, more Cache, more power efficient, more features, more CPU instructions-sets, more overclockability, more expensive, more better than what the other guys got etc etc . . . :D

To answer your question IMHO I reckon more cores would be better than more cache? . . . but of course one is likely to pay out extra for both (just in case!) :cool:
Click to expand...

Hmm, k. Ill bear that in mind :) Thanks
Does a pm exist on these forums? Or is that exclusive to x404? XD
Regards
 
moleh said:
if you do things like multi box games like play 5 versions of World of Warcraft or any other MMO at once
Click to expand...

Pardon? I don't understand how you can play five copies of a game simultaneously, or why you would want to. I'm interested to know though, could you explain?

Cookeh said:
But isnt the L3 cache better than another core?
Click to expand...
Usage dependent. If the processor spends a lot of time doing the same calculation, cache would be worthwhile. If it spends all its time doing different things, more cores would be better. I don't know how to quantify this though, so agree with Wayne- I'd pay for both.

Elfmeister. said:
easyrider do you realise how you come across in this thread for someone who's new or doesn't know you?
Click to expand...

It's good to have different opinions voiced. I'm quite happy to have him being as offensive as he likes as long as he keeps making thought provoking points, would be no use if he was frothing at the mouth and agreeing with Wayne. Plus I suspect I cause just as much offence as he does, so can't object too much :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom