4p

[Big.Wayne]

Off Topic:

Can you do me a sig please wayne?

Background the colour of the forums...That would be something

I can try . . . drop me your requirements in trust!

 

[Big.Wayne]

So quite a bit less than 4p?

Hey Superewza . . . . [edit] that **** out otherwise . . . . .

 

[PermaBanned]

My bad, i meant more than

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So to basically to sum up this thread:
1.)The Athlon II can offer good performance at a relatively low platform price.Good if you are on a very tight budget.Decent overclocker.
2.)The Core i3 offers better performance at a higher platform price.Good if you are on as a slightly less tight budget. Great overclocker.
3.)The Core i7 offers huge performance at a huge platform price compared to the Athlon II and Core i3.Good if you are the Terminator of lower end systems.

Anyway peace to all!

 

[PermaBanned]

I haven't seen the i3 beat the 620... link?

 

[Big.Wayne]

1.)The Athlon II can offer good performance at a relatively low platform price.Good if you are on a very tight budget.Decent overclocker

I wouldn't say very tight budget! but as you can choose from 1/2/3/4 cores it offers really good flexibility . . . . 3 cores is sweet spot maybe? . . .

2.)The [Intel® Core™ i7] 920 offers huge performance at a huge platform price compared to the Athlon II and Core i3.Good if you are the Terminator of lower end systems.

I am hoping to beat this with a AMD® Athlon™ II X4 620 . . . at least in most normal tasks, synthetic tests are a no go obviously!

Off Topic:

3.)The Core i3 offers better performance at a higher platform price.Good if you are on as a slightly less tight budget. Great overclocker

Who knows, hopefully we can do our own OcUK testing soon . . . . what is this chip doing in my thread!!!

I haven't seen the i3 beat the 620... link?

There are only two chips in the world as far as this thread is concerned!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I wouldn't say very tight budget! but as you can choose from 1/2/3/4 cores it offers really good flexibility . . . . 3 cores is sweet spot maybe? . . .


I am hoping to beat this with a AMD® Athlon™ II X4 620 . . . at least in most normal tasks, synthetic tests are a no go obviously!

Off Topic:


Who knows, hopefully we can do our own OcUK testing soon . . . . what is this chip doing in my thread!!!


There are only two chips in the world as far as this thread is concerned!

I predict that there is potential for a more expensive chip to maybe beat a much cheaper one!!

 

[feeddagoat]

big wayne mind if I take the thread on a parallel tangent? When the 620 was first released I remember thinking that it sucked. Not because of anything intel done but because of AMD's own strategy to flood the market. I'm gonna look back at the benchmarks in a lot more detail to try and confirm or disprove this theroy but i'm of the belief that

the phenom II X2 550 outperforms the athlon II X4 620 both at stock and then when overclocked.

Although I know this isn't as black and white as that and at stock both trade blows, Overclocked tho the 550 can take off and from memory the 620'slack of L3 hamstrings it. Obviously Im basing this from memory of the articles reguarding the processors so I could be deluded I will report back my findings. Ill also include the phenom II 720 and the athlon II 425. I also believe that the 425 is the best out of these four chips and as a result means that there is no place for the other chips. From memory the 425 matched the 720 at stock and overclocked.

All that probally didn't make sense but Ill explain better when I have my findings

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

big wayne mind if I take the thread on a parallel tangent? When the 620 was first released I remember thinking that it sucked. Not because of anything intel done but because of AMD's own strategy to flood the market. I'm gonna look back at the benchmarks in a lot more detail to try and confirm or disprove this theroy but i'm of the belief that



Although I know this isn't as black and white as that and at stock both trade blows, Overclocked tho the 550 can take off and from memory the 620'slack of L3 hamstrings it. Obviously Im basing this from memory of the articles reguarding the processors so I could be deluded I will report back my findings. Ill also include the phenom II 720 and the athlon II 425. I also believe that the 425 is the best out of these four chips and as a result means that there is no place for the other chips.

All that probally didn't make sense but Ill explain better when I have my findings

The X4 620 does beat the dual cores in software which is multithreaded like Cinebench and POV-Ray.

 

[Big.Wayne]

I predict that there is potential for a more expensive chip to maybe beat a much cheaper one!!

Ah but the Challenge is greater and the victory . . . sweeter!

 

[Big.Wayne]

Off Topic:

big wayne mind if I take the thread on a parallel tangent

Thanks for asking but no lol!

You can however make a thread yourself, your rules, I can lob you a few graphics to swish it up . . .

 

[Big.Wayne]

CAT-THE-FIFTH please take note . . . .

The X4 620 does beat the [non existant chip as far as this thread goes] in software which is multithreaded like Cinebench and POV-Ray.

Intel® Core™ i7 920
AMD® Athlon™ II 620

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The cheap one is definitely not twice as slow as the big one in most cases:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=47&p2=106

 

[Big.Wayne]

Thanks CAT-THE-FIFTH

 

[feeddagoat]

Off Topic:

Thanks for asking but no lol!

You can however make a thread yourself, your rules, I can lob you a few graphics to swish it up . . .

np just seems that the 620 doesn't show the true value potential. Ill write up my findings and post soon (in my own thread ofc)

 

[JonJ678]

I am hoping to beat this with a AMD® Athlon™ II X4 620 . . . at least in most normal tasks, synthetic tests are a no go obviously

There's some serious optimism here. The x58 chip offers far higher memory bandwidth, at I imagine slightly higher latency as intel are new to the imc on chip idea and amd aren't. In any of the standard cpu intensive tasks the i7 wins out, whether it's folding, transcoding, modelling, fea, compiling. I do all of these, so don't want to write them off as synthetic. This makes it likely that the two will be equivalent for office work, but I can't see the amd being quicker under any circumstances.

Which I think leaves you falling back on "use money saved to buy more graphics cards" which will indeed lead to the amd system being better at gaming overall, but if you put the same cards with the x58, intel would win through again.

What did you hope the amd would be better at?

got some hard evidence to back this up have we?

I'm also interested in this. You state that sales of the 920 are falling without proof, and imply that this is amd's work. I'd be curious as to what fraction of i7 x58 sales were taken by the P55 and now H55 chipsets, and what fraction by amd, as I have a suspicion that amd haven't sold any more or any less since P55 came out. Obviously this is an impractical statistic.

I remain more interested in P55 vs AM3, unsure if I have the patience to set a thread like this going and maintain it though. Respect to you for keeping it on target.

 

[PhoenixUK]

There's some serious optimism here. The x58 chip offers far higher memory bandwidth, at I imagine slightly higher latency as intel are new to the imc on chip idea and amd aren't. In any of the standard cpu intensive tasks the i7 wins out, whether it's folding, transcoding, modelling, fea, compiling. I do all of these, so don't want to write them off as synthetic. This makes it likely that the two will be equivalent for office work, but I can't see the amd being quicker under any circumstances.

Which I think leaves you falling back on "use money saved to buy more graphics cards" which will indeed lead to the amd system being better at gaming overall, but if you put the same cards with the x58, intel would win through again.

What did you hope the amd would be better at?

Ofcourse the 1000gbp intel system will do better than the 700-800gbp amd system ? What kind of assumption is that anyways?

Am I getting it wrong or what you saying is :
"Oh yeh if you have only 700gbp for system and use it to buy am3 setup + 5870 you're going to get a lot better performance than i7 system with low end GPU but then if you add another 200 and buy the 5870 to the already 700 i7 setup and spend 900 total the i7 will be faster ".

OH RLY??? So if I buy faster and more expensive PC it will be faster than the cheaper one ?? This can't be true ! I thought a celeron setup for 100 pounds will be better than i7 !??!

Pardon if I read it wrong : ).

 

[pieman109]

Having read the rest of this thread, I'm convinced ppl are getting the wrong idea about what wayne is trying to put over. We all know an i7 is gonna beat an athlon II X4 in almost every task they might be expected to do, that, I reckon everyone agrees with. What I think ppl are missing here is does the i7 do these tasks fast enough to warrant the double price tag?
Forget gaming, forget graphics cards, and forget benching, just all the usual stuff that ppl on this forum do, y'know, converting an audio file from one format to another, the same for video files, rendering in CS3 for example, that kinda stuff, the things ppl actually "USE" their pc for.
In every useage, the i7 is gonna be quicker, faster, better, worth owning, must sell the kids to own, etc, than the poor old Athlon II X4.

But, is it worth paying virtually twice the amount of money for? this is the question being asked and I really can't see the problem ppl are having understanding this concept, its called value for money, bang for buck, etc.

On a side note, you could do the same comparison with the a cray super computer. The cray is gonna be a bit quicker than the athlon II X4 in doing the normal stuff ppl do, but is it gonna be worth the gazillion pounds it'll cost to buy one over the cost of the X4?
Its just a question of cost ratio, not out and out performance.

Come to think of it, is the performance increase of on i7 over an i3 setup worth increased cost?

 

[Big.Wayne]

There's some serious optimism here. The x58 chip offers far higher memory bandwidth

192-bit Monster!

I'll get there maybe . . . are you any good at maths? . . . what Frequency would I need to match that with 128-bit?

What did you hope the amd would be better at?

Well initially games inc same graphics card, then processing with AMD clocked then beyond that I'm not sure . . . but basically need to work out a way to take it down and make it look *extra* expensive!

I'm also interested in this. You state that sales of the 920 are falling without proof

Indeed and I'm sorry for that (3 hours sleep!) all I can offer up is I've been flat out for nearly a week spreading the love in General Hardware, there is gonna be a lot of happy campers getting a nice Propus system togther all in at about £600 . . . heres one we did for feeddagoat girifriends dad, I was pretty amazed really . . .

Multi-Media Workstation (instead of DELL)

I remain more interested in P55 vs AM3, unsure if I have the patience to set a thread like this going and maintain it though. Respect to you for keeping it on target.

Thanks Jon, sorry for being crabby but that's coffee and sleep deprivation for you . . . had a real fun time reading this thread back *without* easy in ignore and as much as I'm teetering on being embarrassed it was a very interesting experience, although I have my personal differences with the guy on rare occasion's when I'm not under heat he does crack me up!

All I can say is taking a day out and coming back fresh changed everything but I still have concerns that we are losing precious new members due to the gruffness . . .if you can mediate or improve it a tad you will be doing the forums a real favour . . . I'll say no more and I won't speak of it again!

 

[JonJ678]

Written before Wayne's post above. I shall put effort towards avoiding gruffness, though the following abuse @phoenix is deserved and will remain.

Less sarcasm from you Phoenix. Re-read my post, including the quote. I am responding to Wayne saying he hopes the amd will be quicker under some circumstances, with an argument to the effect that I can't think of a single example where the amd could be quicker than the intel.

I don't know how I can make the line regarding graphics cards clearer. The only circumstance in which the amd can be considered quicker is if it's combined with a better graphics card than the x58 system, and you only judge it by gaming performance.

I'm hugely irritated that you were too thick to grasp this the first time around, and by how you expressed your incomprehension.

@pieman I agree, except that Wayne is repeatedly steering this away from a discussion on what system is the best value for money. Mainly by refusing to permit discussion of any other processors. If the cheaper system is good enough then that clearly makes more sense. Restricting the discussion to Intel high end and AMD mid end while forbidding discussion of the i3 in particular prevents any further conclusions being made however.

@wayne I look forward to any further thoughts on this. If it's actually possible to get more performance at lower cost under certain circumstances that's always interesting. In practice builds tend to be to a complete budget, say £800 for the tower, at which point slower processor + ssd is a brilliant idea, and I'm entirely in favour of balancing the components for the highest performance. However I can't see the amd motherboard/processor/ram in the OP outperforming the intel option in the tasks which these components do.

I'm aware I come across as short, in reality as well as online. I have found that wording replies such as to minimize the chance of causing offense has the side effect of clouding the point, and I'm then told I'm patronizing anyway. I'd rather cause minor offense while making a point coherently, so put effort into accuracy of replies rather than into friendly phrasing. Of course the system breaks down occasionally.