• 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.

AMD Phenom II X6 V's Intel I7 - What to go for.

Status
Not open for further replies.
i am also doing lots of transcoding and encoding and thinking of replacing the 920 with a 1090T, will only cost me an extra 50 euros and think a 1090T @ 4GHZ will be considerably faster...
 
Big.Wayne said:
From the results peppered around the inter-web the X6 looks a pretty good choice for the money ££ . . . if the results below are flawed in anyway or if I have missed something obvious could someone "politely" set me straight! :cool:
Click to expand...
Hi Big.Wayne. I think we pretty much already know that 1090T would be slightly faster than i7 920/930 at encoding at stock speed...but you got any comparison results for 1090T overclocked from 3.2GHz to 4.0GHz (25% overclock) vs i7 920 overclocked from 2.66GHz to 4.0GHz (50% overclock)?
 
Marine-RX179 said:
Hi Big.Wayne
Click to expand...
Hello Marine-RX179 :)

Marine-RX179 said:
I think we pretty much already know that 1090T would be slightly faster than i7 920/930 at encoding at stock speed
Click to expand...
When you say "I think we pretty much already know" who are you referring too as "we"? . . . from reading these forums and the "contributions" from a handful of specific posters one kinda gets the impression the AMD® Phenom™ II X6 is really not worth considering if you dabble in Video-encoding and could buy a Intel® Core™i7 instead? . . . however once you start examining the facts it seems that these claims are unfounded or at odds with the actual bench data? . .

Forgive me if that image of the benches misled you, it was prepared a week or two ago for a similar discussion, in the context of this thread I wasn't primarily looking at the AMD® Phenom™ II X6 1090T vs Intel® Core™ i7 920/930 at stock but actually the AMD® Phenom™ II X6 1055T vs the Intel® Core™ i7 930 . . . . i.e AMD® Hex 2.8GHz vs Intel® Quad + HT 2.8GHz . . . clock-for-clock


£159.99 vs £236.99 (+48% ££)


Marine-RX179 said:
but you got any comparison results for 1090T overclocked from 3.2GHz to 4.0GHz (25% overclock) vs i7 920 overclocked from 2.66GHz to 4.0GHz (50% overclock)?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I noticed in a few of your posts recently you seem to be trying to turn the lower stock clock speeds of the older 920 into an advantage by focusing on the percentage it can overclock? . . . it's not something I care about myself and I think having a higher stock processing frequency is more useful to more people than the percentage it can overclock from stock?

What I mean is . . . if you take two processors, one with a lesser stock speed and one with a greater stock speed and overclock them both to the same frequency so performance is almost identical . . . are you suggesting the first chip with the lower stock speed has some kind of tangible advantage to anyone because it's achieved the great percentage overclock? . . . do you think some people would view a higher % overclock as more desirable than a higher stock speed? . . . I'd say the only points of interest I hold myself are:

  1. Price
  2. Performance @ stock
  3. Performance @ max stable overclock
Sadly as I don't own either processors I must rely on the findings and evidence of others . . . . I'm here to learn and to know the truth of things so if you can help improve my knowledge I will be grateful . . . personally from the limited facts I've seen I don't see a lot of difference between the AMD® Hex vs Intel® Quad + HT when it comes to encoding . . . if you have some data linked that clearly demonstrates the Intel® Quad + HT is a superior choice for Video-Editing/Rendering then please let me know, I didn't see it myself . . . all I see is great performance from both AMD® and Intel® systems but one is priced higher while one is priced lower?

The comparisons I would be interested to see are:

  • AMD® Hex 2.8GHz vs Intel® Quad + HT 2.8GHz
  • AMD® Hex Max Stable Clock vs Intel® Quad + HT Max Stable Clock
 
As usual Big Wayne sums it up precisely. Performance at stock & max stable OC all relative to price is what matters. Anything else is marketing spin/fanboyism. Given my possible usage I would be swayed to a fast stock quad for my impending build and later something with great OC potential...build number 2 ;)
 
I have my 1055T now. Do I regret it? no chance, it's a great chip, and a vast improvement over my e6300. I'm glad I went this route rather than the intel route, as I've saved money as this does everything I want. Rendering is bearable now GTAIV is playable, and BFBC2 seems to love the CPU.
 
The difference in negligible in real world situations, it is only when you start benchmarking that the i7 shows it's beastliness!
 
Clock-for-Clock Performance!

CP-266-AM_400.jpg
CP-286-IN_400.jpg


Obviously not a comparison most people would make but for clock-for-clock analysis they do both run at 3.2GHz and perhaps give a little insight into any performance differences?



I wonder does the results of the two chips above have any bearing on how "any" AMD® Hex would compare to "any" Intel® Quad + HT clock-for-clock? . . . get some data posted up guys . . many hands make light work! :cool:

[edit] The two processors above are only being compared as they both run at identical clock-speed as the two processors below run at the same clock speed . . . .

  • Intel® Core™i7 930 2.8GHz
  • AMD® Phenom™ II X6 1055T 2.8GHz
 
Last edited:
tbh going by that ^^^, the 1090T is well worth the money, its only slightly behind the i7 965 which costs a lot more..
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom