AMD® Phenom™ II X6 and Intel® Core™ i7 Debate

[easyrider]

Thanks for the heads up Fire Wizard but I don't think we will make much progress in this specific topic unless we focus! . . .

"AMD® Phenom™ II X6 vs. Intel® Core™ i7 Debate"

Hello Big Wayne

I would argue that Fire Wizard has created a very focused post in order to clear this nonsense thread up.

You spout on about price V performance and yet dismiss the 750 rig that beats your X6 in those gaming benchmarks.

Now a debate is a debate so I will debate this with you,

If building a gaming rig and one wants the most performance for the same or even less money than the X6 rig your spec then i5 750 is the rig to go for.

This is beyond doubt...You can manipulate data to suit your argument as much as you like. Pretty graphs don't hide the fact that you can get a faster gaming PC in i5.

If we then compare the performance of the AMD Phenom II X6 1055T system to the Intel Core i5 750 one using the CPU Bench over at Anandtech, the Intel system would appear to be the better choice, slightly depending on what you use your system for.

This is true and if we go along with the OP notion of "Bang for Buck" and "Value" mentioned again and again in this thread then X6 doesn't look a good choice for a gaming pc in terms of outlay.

Thanks for highlighting the fact.

 

[easyrider]

Above is what I would call a "value" "Bang for Buck" gaming rig... Now if we take Big Waynes last spec of the cheaper X6 that loses the abilty to overclock by using a dead chipset then we can see that this little system would be just £2 more expensive than the X6 1090T alone (just for the chip) if it wasn't on this week only

This little i3 system will clock to 4ghz and after looking at the game benchies over at anandtech a stock i3 530 beats the X6 in many of the games.

So at 4ghz it will clealry destroy it.

We are not able to overclock the x6 in Big Waynes £303 spec as it uses a dead out of date chipset not really great for x6

So if you want value and performance and speed and the abilty to overclock and beat 6 core chips in games then i3 should not be dismissed.

 

[pazza]

I thought the main use was going to be encoding/rendering?

if so the i3 530 wouldnt be the best choice.

If it was for gaming only then the i3 530 or i5 750 specs posted would be ideal.

 

[psychas]

im sure 6 core come in play when game will come out that supports it properly .

for example quad core mostly came in play only when GTa 4 came out.

 

[Fire Wizard]

*Snip*

I think the majority of people reading this thread will understand the "premise" of the debate . . . I am of the opinion that LGA1366 Intel® Core™ i7 system in the O.P is faster in some tasks it doesn't appear to be faster in all tasks . . . if anyone has got some data where it can be demonstrated that in "fact" the Intel® Core™ i7 system hold a substantial advantage please feel free to post some links up in this thread as that could be something I have not yet seen and actually unaware of . . . as it stands at the moment the price-premium requires a large leap of faith which I would prefere not to make . . . I'm really only interested in "fact" from as close to the orginal source as possible . . . I'm not prepared to spend £120-£150 extra because someone who may not know what he is talking about tells me too? . . . I need some evidence that was is being said is actually true . . . not false?

18th Jul 2010, 21:36 - post 37

I think you have done enough research into this topic yourself Big.Wayne for you to draw a perfectly reasonable conclusion to things. If you don't feel the performance of the Intel system justifies the extra cost, then that's absolutely fine. I would probably say myself that a Intel Core i7 920 system is probably slightly more expensive than it should be in relation to the performance difference to a AMD Phenom II X6 1055T system. Though, products which don't have enough competition in terms of raw performance have always charged a premium.

Here is the link to the entire set of results of the two processors which we have been talking about in this thread, if anyone is interested. You can then form your own opinion on whether or not you personally think the Intel Core i7 920 is worth the extra over the AMD Phenom II X6 1055T one.

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T vs Intel Core i7 920

Just to reiterate what I said at the start though, you have done enough research yourself to form a perfectly valid conclusion and I think this part of the debate has reached a peak and can now be moved over to focusing on the following:

thanks for taking the time to clear that up . . . I noticed in the specs you omitted a cooler with the OEM Intel® processor, used an Intel® board without SATA 6Gb/s/USB 3.0 and then plonked a £119.99 whiz-bang AMD® SATA 6Gb/s/USB 3.0 in to boot!

Let me clarify what I was trying to primarily focus on in my post. It wasn't so much the price difference between the Intel Core i7 920 and the AMD Phenom II X6 1055T system but merely, if you're not happy paying the extra for the Intel system, by all means, push it to one side. However, simply based on just that comparison, you can't really say the AMD system would be the right one to choose due to the price difference. You should then create an Intel specification which is of a similar price to the AMD one, like for example; Core i5 and compare the performance difference between the two and choose accordingly.

 

[gareth170]

honesty it sounds like the OP as already made up his mind since post #1...

it's just going round and round. like previous thread.....

 

[easyrider]

However, simply based on just that comparison, you can't really say the AMD system would be the right one to choose due to the price difference. You should then create an Intel specification which is of a similar price to the AMD one, like for example; Core i5 and compare the performance difference between the two and choose accordingly.

Thats exactly what myself and you have done.

I think you have done enough research into this topic yourself Big.Wayne for you to draw a perfectly reasonable conclusion to things

Exactly, I have seen through the disguised nature of this thread. The message behind the start of this thread is to purely pimp AMD hardware.

Its getting tiresome and its making these great forums banal.

This subject has be done to death and no amount of analysis and conceptualised representation of both camps of hardware manufactures will change the facts.

Now most of us know these facts...Including Big Wayne.. So I have no idea why he continues to create these non arguments with rules within them to suit the constraints of his own ideologies.

 

[easyrider]

honesty it sounds like the OP as already made up his mind since post #1...

it's just going round and round. like previous thread.....

Of course...He must think the OCUK community are very thick in order for us not see through the contrived nature in which his post's are constructed to disguise the message within.

Its bordering on being sarcastic

 

[gareth170]

well i did say this.

bad idea doing another AMD Phenom II X6 vs. Intel Core i7 thread tbh....

every AMD vs. Intel thread will always go this way...

 

[wannabedamned]

Hey "flawed" is my word get your own!

Seriously though . . . if you can drop me a sample spreadsheet I'll be happy to give it a once over . . . this only address that one chart where it says 4.9% yes? . . . I'm not sure how I am getting lumbered with all the work hehe!

Hey, I already did the work in the last thread that got closed

I'll paste the results in. it wasnt done in a spreadsheet. It was done the old manual way, Notepad + Brains

sysmark 2007 video creation - 14.9% in favor of I7

sysmark 2007 - 3D - 8.14% in favor of I7

x264 HD encode test - 1st pass - x264 0.59.819 1.04% in favor of 1055t

x264 HD encode test - 1st pass - x264 0.59.819 10% in favor of I7

Cinebench R10 - Single threaded benchmark - 13% in favor of I7

POV-Ray 3.7 Beta 23 -SMP Benchmark - 11% in favor of I7

Fallout 3 - 1680 x 1050 - Medium Quality 0.11% in favor of I7

Left 4 Dead - 1680 x 1050 - max Settings 0.23% in favor of I7

Far Cry 2 - 1680 x 1050 - Playback (action Scene) - medium Quality 42% in favor of I7

Crysis Warhead - 1680 x 1050 - Mainstream quality (Physics on enthusiast) Assualt bench 6.2% in favor of I7

11.74% overall

 

[gareth170]

has i've said personly if the performance gap was 25-30% in nearly all things and £100 differents then it would be worth it

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello Fire Wizard,

firstly forgive me if you felt my last post was admonishing you, I just felt it was ironic that while trying to demonstrate to another forum member how to make a "fair" like-for-like (or tech-for-tech) comparison through your words you illustrated the concept by making an "unfair" comparison! . . . using this comparison you "roughly" concluded that there was a £100 price difference . . £100, £100, £100, £100 . . . how many times do you need to repeat a figure based on an irrelevant comparison?

If you had added the cost of a cooler to make the machine work and specc'ed a SATA 6Gb/s/USB 3.0 enabled board (as requested in the O.P) then I question where this rough figure of £100 comes from?

I think you have done enough research into this topic yourself Big.Wayne for you to draw a perfectly reasonable conclusion to things

Just to reiterate what I said at the start though, you have done enough research yourself to form a perfectly valid conclusion and I think this part of the debate has reached a peak

Are you saying you think I've done enough research or are you telling me I have done enough research?

The truth is whatever you think the reality is I haven't done enough research yet . . . I have barely started and won't be reaching a peak for many weeks yet? . . . I have contributed one set of facts to this debate and have spent many hours presenting my findings and writing posts to share my research . . . if at least five other people put time aside, collected some data and presented it with a supporting argument then this thread would be a lot closer to its peak . . . as it stands it is just myself, wannabedamned and Mr Krugga that are working together to scrutinize "facts" and are basically on the same page . . .

If you are in anyway suggesting you want this thread to end then I put it to you that you will not be serving the best interests of the forum members and depriving myself and other interested parties from the "right" to conduct a polite and informative discussion . . . I want to be sure that I am spending my clients budget properly . . it's a big budget for a big project, four machines . . .

Please feel free to join in with the topic, please respect the O.P and the "considered" spec . . . the aim of my research is to uncover the benefits the premium brings and if its worth paying . . . there is a lot of information to sift through and I am only one person here . . . please can you help me analyse the data, can you collect some of your own data and crunch it and post up your findings . . . this will be most appreciated by not only myself but anyone who is in a similar situation . . . depending on the outcome my client may have an extra £600 cashflow . . . it's my ethical duty to examine the two systems until any doubts I have are removed . . . .

I would probably say myself that a Intel Core i7 920 system is probably slightly more expensive in relation to the performance difference to a AMD Phenom II X6 1055T system

Thats fine . . . but that's actually your opinion and your "subjective" view of what is expensive and what is not expensive . . . meanwhile I am looking at two builds, like-for-like, tech-for-tech, one costing £400.86 and another costing £540.64 . . . to me £136.78 premium on one system is not slightly more expensive is a lot more expensive based on my subjective opinion . . . then when we consider this premium applied across four builds I am faced with having to "justify" an extra £559.12 of my clients money . . . when I present my two proposed specs to my client he will look at the totals and ask me why the Intel machine builds are an extra £559.12 I have to be able to give them a good and "justified" reason . . . it is not enough for me to say "it's faster"

Even if it was one single build I would still need to be able to explain where the extra £136.78 premium is going . .

products which don't have enough competition in terms of raw performance have always charged a premium

I've got two objections this with statement . . . firstly I think both builds I am looking at have plenty of "raw performance" but I am not yet able to tell with certainty which tasks perform better on which system . . . I don't know how you are either? . . please take the time to share the massive amount of information that you must have to be so sure of what you speak? . . . if it turns out that the AMD® Phenom™ II X6 has more "raw performance" in the tasks that I needed it for and you are suggesting I buy Intel® Core™ i7 this would imply that you are giving me unwise advice . . .

Secondly your statement is fallacious in as much as you are suggesting a policy, behaviour, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way."

For arguments sake lets say the Intel system is faster in the tasks I need it for, this assumes we have all done tons of research and reached an undeniable conclusion . . . this still leaves us to "question" why is it that the premium is so disproportionate? . . . if there was a great wiseman sitting atop a hill that we could go see to answer questions and we asked him

"Oh great Wiseman . . . why is it that my considered Intel® Core™ i7 spec is £139.78 more expensive than my AMD® Phenom™ II X6 spec??

The wise-man turns his head from the sky and looks the pilgrim in the eyes and says . . .

"it's always been done that way"

The pilgrim looks puzzled and walks away and says to himself

"I have asked a question from a great wiseman atop the hill and I am none the wiser?


If the slaves had accepted the reason they were slaves was because "it's always been done that way" they would still be slaves . . . if woman had accepted the reason there had little rights compared to men was because ""it's always been done that way"" then they would still have no rights . . . the Argumentum ad antiquitatem is an extremely popular fallacy in debate, hopefully you won't make that mistake again . . .

However, simply based on just that comparison, you can't really say the AMD system would be the right one to choose due to the price difference

I agree, It would be most "unwise" of me to make any assumptions based on a single set of performance data . . .I urge you to help me achieve my goals in this thread . . . I am not yet sure which way to go because I have only "examined" one set of data . . . as basic as my findings are they represent many, many hours of my time and research . . . alL I want is the Truth . . .


[Off Topic]

[Fire Wizard]

You have a conflict of interests in this thread, on one hand you are a computer enthusiast like myself, on the other hand you are an OcUK Don, do not confuse the two roles to enforce your viewpoint, I respect you and enjoy your posts but I will not be told what I can and cannot discuss when the discussion is perfectly valid and perfectly reasonable . . .your input to this thread has been most welcome and I'm sorry again for taking you to task over your "Mismatched" hardware, hopefully you can see the funny side of it!

• Moderation: The process of eliminating or lessening extremes
• Civilized: Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement

Please may I request that no alteration is made to the "considered" O.P System-Spec and that we try to conduct a friendly and informative on-topic discussion

1. You spout on about price V performance (spout: To speak volubly and tediously)
   
2. You can manipulate data to suit your argument as much as you like (manipulate:to manage or influence skillfully, esp. in an unfair manner)
   
3. I have seen through the disguised nature of this thread (disguised:Appearance that misrepresents the true character of something)
   
4. its making these great forums banal (Banal: devoid of freshness or originality)
   
5. have no idea why he continues to create these non arguments with rules within them to suit the constraints of his own ideologies
   
6. He must think the OCUK community are very thick in order for us not see through the contrived nature in which his post's are constructed to disguise the message within (contrived: obviously planned, artificial, or lacking in spontaneity; forced; unnatural)
   

Looking at these Argumentum ad hominem statements one can conclude they are neither civilized or moderate and they do nothing to address the question from the O.P? . . . I've made a pretty big effort here to get to the facts and I've only just started . . . . any debate conducted in the spirit of malice is doomed to fail . . . there is no malice on my part?

I feel ashamed at my lack of knowledge now and wish I knew as much about hardware as some of you guys . . . however I always thought the forums were a place that one comes to for discussion on important matters . . . this is an important matter to me? . . . . Am I not worthy of conducting a calm and informative debate? . . . Am I so foolish as not to believe something is the truth because someone tells me it is the truth? . . . . where is the evidence? . . . where are the "facts" . . . you cannot moderate the truth but you can moderate the extreme tones of which people deem to think is acceptable?

The calm and polite debate continues, freedom of speech and all that!

[Back on topic]

AMD® Phenom™ II X6 vs. Intel® Core™ i7 Debate

Facts, figures, data crunching, insights all very much appreciated!

 

[wannabedamned]

Just edited my post above with figures plus an 11%+ overall. For some reason my Wireless card stopped working mid post -_-

It ranges from hardly any difference in games, To 14% difference in video editting to 42% difference in an unoptimized hideous game(Farcry 2)

I hate means and averages in computing benchmarks to be honest. As they dont make sense. Individual tasks in computing, different software packages optimized in different ways and different performance through different genre of task(Encoding, Gaming, Crunching) means that finding a means makes little sense if you ask me. it's like getting 50 buses, 50 lorries, 50 sport cars, 50 bikes and 50 pedestrians. And finding a mean to the speed. Meaningless stats!

Keep the stats seperate. Show the difference on a 1 by 1 basis. As you lose any meaning by averaging it.

 

[james.miller]

Above is what I would call a "value" "Bang for Buck" gaming rig... Now if we take Big Waynes last spec of the cheaper X6 that loses the abilty to overclock by using a dead chipset then we can see that this little system would be just £2 more expensive than the X6 1090T alone (just for the chip) if it wasn't on this week only

Wayne's previous spec to your post included an asus 790 board. they have no such overclocking problems. are you referring to that spec, or something else? and if its that one, where are you getting your information from?

 

[Big.Wayne]

honesty it sounds like the OP as already made up his mind since post #1...

Gareth,

I have not made my mind up . . . not even close? . . . so little "fact" has been demonstrated in this thread? . . . My knowledge of AMD® hardware is very little, my knowledge of Intel® Core™ i7 is even less . . . it is wrong of people to "assume" anything other than I have a question which needs answering . . . .

it's just going round and round. like previous thread.....

Yeah it would seem that way but now people will stop playing with the "considered" specs and get to the question in hand . . . hopefully we can examine lots of performance data to help me understand better whhich system out of the two in the O.P will give my client the best possible "value" for there money . . . I really don't want to rush to any conclusions based on a single set of "simulated" clock-for-clock results?

So far based on that one set of results the AMD® Phenom™ II X6 seems to be the way to go? . . . or is it? . . . There could well be something special about the Intel® Core™ i7 spec that I am missing? . . . if I was to make a conclusion now and invest in the Phenom™ II X6 I could be making a mistake?

I just want to be sure mate, this is real life money here!

every AMD vs. Intel thread will always go this way...

I understand why you say that but this is nothing more than a self fulling prophecy . . . and as I said to Fire Wizard anyone who enters this debate with a spirit of mallice will doom it to fail . . . I have no mallice, only a question . . . I am not trying to cause offence here? . . and have no idea why some people get so heated by me looking for the truth?

Also just because I am comparing an AMD® vs Intel® system this does not give anyone the right to insult me or make unkind or untrue comments? . . . I've not said a bad word and have done nothing more than present a small amount of reasearch?

If you feel you have nothing more to add to this one single thread then don't feel compelled to keep posting in it . . .I'm sure you have better things to do than help me get to the information it will take me to purchase some new hardware with total confidence!

Thanks for your help anyway!

 

[gareth170]

If you feel you have nothing more to add to this one single thread then don't feel compelled to keep posting in it . . .I'm sure you have better things to do than help me get to the information it will take me to purchase some new hardware with total confidence!

but it's down to u what u purchase, people only can give so much advice/information then it starts to get in to a fighting match like it's starting to now....

also theres always a case that when buying now something better comes next month for cheaper..

tbh theres no right or wrong.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hey wannabedamned!

what would you consider a worth while performance gap? I7 shows improvements of 10% and more in several areas

It's a good question and one that almost merits a thread to itself, I did think about it and I suppose plucking a figure from thin air a minimum of 33%-50% extra for an extra £139.78 based on the "considered" spec from the O.P . . . both the Intel® Core™ i7 and AMD® Phenom™ II X6 builds both fulfill the "exact" requirements listed in the O.P and think both would be a pleasure to build and operate . . . do you see any problem with either of the specs in the O.P? . . . they both look really nice to me so I'm hoping some decent evidence turns up soon as I do fancy a little hands on experience with Intel® Core™ i7 but putting my personal wants to one side I have an ethical duty to my client to invest their cash wisely!

Honestly between me and you my brain doesn't respond that well to percentage figures and I understand things better if they are represented "visually" . . . if the 4.9% percent figure was innacurate then it was not my intention, just a simple lack of mathematical knowledge, however that does not effect any of the charts I produced based on "visual" representation such as this one from the O.P

or this one . . .

Hey, I already did the work in the last thread that got closed

Oh dear . . . I too put many hours and grey-matter in that thread too . . . and it got closed because of a handful of people conducted themselves badly . . . a few run amok and we all get no closer to the truth?

I appreciate your input in this thread so far and thank you for being patient and calm with me . . . if you have time maybe you can dig up another comparison between the two systems in the O.P please . . . if you link it to me I will crunch it . . . if you ( or anyone else) knows how to create a spreadsheet that can deal with Higher is better and lower is better results all in one chart then please help me out! . . . I will do the photo-editing work!

If you place yourself in the role of an Intel® salesman and manage to demonstrate the advantages and why the money is a sound investment you will be doing a great service to this debate!

Thanks!

 

[Big.Wayne]

I thought the main use was going to be encoding/rendering?

Yeah so did I?

It's funny how some people have no concept of a topic and no concept of helping the O.P anymore!

It's the two "considered" specs in the O.P I am interested in . . . I don't see a problem with either of them myself, they are both Tech-for-Tech and neither of them compromise the brief in anyway . . .

Hopefully soon some people will cotton on they can't hijack and derail a perfectly reasonable topic!

if so the i3 530 wouldnt be the best choice.

Whoever suggested that clearly didn't read the O.P and has no intention of helping me get to the "facts" I need?

AMD® Phenom™ II X6 vs. Intel® Core™ i7 Debate

 

[bifday2k]

Guess it all depends on the software used for the encoding and stuff, some intel are better with, others amd, and so on and on.

So its not that easy to say which of the 2 is outright best for the money.

To me there really is only a small difference in performance and if i was going that route id probably go AMD and save abit of cash. But thats just my opinion.

 

[Strepsils]

Let the debate continue, quite informative if I say so myself!