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

[wannabedamned]

Some other aspects of going to I7-920 over 1055t are the fact you'd be going to Tri-Channel memory, Which is in itself another plus and although the differences between the 2 types at present are small the differences are there and it's another plus for Tri-Channel.

Add to that the fact you'd be gaining 2GB over the the AMD spec, which is always going to be helpful. Personally in a Windows 7\Vista environment I tend to find 1gb of your ram is pretty much your operating system's to play with. The remaining RAM therefore belongs to the other software\game you're using. Others may not agree with this. I find that 5GB of RAM would be a fantastic sweet spot for the computers these days, 1GB for the OS, and 4GB for whatever else needs it(You don't need more) But obviously 5GB is a wierd number, So 6GB is the one that makes sense, add to that the nice tri-channel advantage too.

I must say I do not believe the extra RAM would help with encoding, just the tri-channel bandwidth. But 2gb RAM extra isn't something to be ignored.

 

[Big.Wayne]

but it's down to u what u purchase

I don't understand what you mean?

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

Hmmm . . . there is an obvious reason there is any bad feeling or harsh words in this thread and it's certainly not me! . . .

Why can't this topic be conducted in a cool, calm and collected manner? . . . all thats needed is a few folks to work together studying the facts!

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

Not waiting for Sandybridge/Bulldozer!

tbh theres no right or wrong.

I disagree! . . there is a right way to go about something and a wrong way to go about something . . . whether it be the hardware you buy or the way you speak with your fellow forum members . . . if I make the wrong choice here then I either saved my client a lot of money when it should be spent or I get them to spend money when it isn't needed . . .

The real problem is opinion doesn't constitude the truth as its one persons interpretation of facts . . . . all that is needed for this thread to be a useful resource is facts + some more facts + even more facts!

I am posting up a few facts . . . if someone wants to post up some more facts we will be in business!

Apart from that mate I hope you are well and take care!

 

[gareth170]

Not waiting for Sandybridge/Bulldozer!

i didn't say/mean Sandybridge/Bulldozer.... i mean any components...

example if u buy a motherboard now for lets say £85 and then let's say a month has past and theres another motherboard which has been refreshed or whatever and as better things and costs the same or less..

the big question is u want the system to last two or three years without upgrading, am i right?

both I7 and AMD x6 would last two or three years , i admin the I7 does some tasks alittle quicker but that comes with a high price....

has i said previously if the performance gap is 25-30% in nearly all things and £100 differents then it would be well worth it

Why can't this topic be conducted in a cool, calm and collected manner? . . . all thats needed is a few folks to work together studying the facts!

because a lot of people here are one sided.

I disagree! . . there is a right way to go about something and a wrong way to go about something . . . whether it be the hardware you buy or the way you speak with your fellow forum members . . . if I make the wrong choice here then I either saved my client a lot of money when it should be spent or I get them to spend money when it isn't needed . . .

what i mean was about the hardware. because theres always a better component out for cheaper after about weeks or a month

 

[Mr Krugga]

Phenom II X6 1055T vs Core i7 860

Earlier on I was suggesting a Core i7 860 build, now I'm going to draw my conclusions even further and prove that this build is better bang for buck than Phenom II X6 1055T for someone who looks for a new build

We've been comparing the costs of getting an Intel platform over the costs of getting an AMD alternative. I would like to move the discussion a little further on and talk about total costs of two similar builds that feature either AMD Phenom II X6 1055T or Intel Core i7 860.

Let's have a look at the costs of getting mobo+cpu+ram combos:


Phenom II X6 1055T - ~£350

Core i7 860 - ~£430

Costs difference - £80


We pay around 23% more to get an Intel combo. How much performance do we gain from this move?

Let's try to conclude that using Anandtech CPU Bench data:

Overall these 26 benchmarks show that Core i7 860 is on average 14.4% quicker in performing tasks than Phenom II 1055T.


We know it costs £80 extra to get this kind of a performance boost. But how much more expensive is the final build really going to be when we compare Core i7 860 with Phenom II 1055T? To draw a conclusion, I made two full systems that I would recommend to anyone without hesitation:


AMD Phenom II X6 1055T build - £778 in total:

Intel Core i7 860 build - £859 in total

So there's around 10.4% premium we have to pay to get some 14.4% performance extra.

I think it's a fair deal and for anyone building a system with those factors in mind, it would be a good idea to do a bit of research and choose whatever is the most appropriate and suitable for the needs. Of course there will be people who will prefer not to spend this £80 extra and rather live with a great system that most certainly Phenom II X6 1055T is. But we're at OcUK, performance over everything else

Feel free to correct me if I made any calculation errors although I highly doubt it. Numbers are rounded in a proper mathematical way, there should be no doubt about it

Good luck to you Big Wayne, make the right choice!

PS obviously the Core i7 860 build loses on Sata 6Gb/s and USB 3.0, feel free to choose another board. You'd be losing SLI option on AMD mobos on the other hand, thus it is really up to you to decide. There are some other nitpicking things about choosing those motherboards but it's hard to compare two different platforms really.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hey Mr Krugga,

firstly let me commend you on an excellent post! . . . if everyone put as much effort into things such as you did above these forums would be the best in the world!

Having said that your comaprison is unfair . . . its gotta be tech-for-tech!

Phenom II X6 1055T - ~£350

Core i7 860 - ~£430

Costs difference - £80


We pay around 23% more to get an Intel combo.

We know it costs £80 extra to get this kind of a performance boost

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T build - £778 in total:

Intel Core i7 860 build - £859 in total

So there's around 10.4% premium we have to pay to get some 14.4% performance extra.

Of course there will be people who will prefer not to spend this £80 extra

Feel free to correct me if I made any calculation errors although I highly doubt it.

• SATA 6Gb/s/USB 3.0

Can you ammend your post with either the cost of a separate SATA 6Gb/s/USB 3.0 card or in fact just select a native SATA 6Gb/s/USB 3.0 motherboard please?

I'm gonna jump on the Intel® Core™ i7 860 tonight and see how it compares, thanks again for a great post . . . . sorry to nag you about the small detail of missing specs but apart from that kudos!

 

[Mr Krugga]

Here you go:

Now I would have to argue that AMD's board doesn't match its Intel's equivalent now thus changing the board here as well

Let's have this excellent Asus board that costs a tad more but sports better quality than the previous Gigabyte board (bear in mind that UD4 and UD3H are suppose to be for different price points):

So we conclude £92 of a difference and Core i7 860 build being 11.5% more expensive and 14.4% quicker than its AMD equivalent. Other points stand still

 

[arknor]

anandtech comparrsion tool isnt accurate.... they dont use the same versions of programs and the tests arent done at the same time so one can have used much more mature drivers than anoher.

some benchmarks didnt put in optimizations for x6 core chips for awhile but they already had the intel ones..

theres a reason most benchmarks come with a warning that you cant compare results from a previous version

 

[Mr Krugga]

All right then, can you tell me how inaccurate these benchmarks are? I would have thought that Phenom II 1055T should have an edge being a newer CPU. Obviously I'm wrong? You know better, show us the prove.

 

[gareth170]

So we conclude £92 of a difference and Core i7 860 build being 11.5% more expensive and 14.4% quicker than its AMD equivalent. Other points stand still

but your basing this all on 1 review site results or even afew, am i right?

tbh i've never trusted/believe review sites results.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Please may I request that no alteration is made to the "considered" O.P System-Spec

Let's have this excellent Asus board that costs a tad more but sports better quality than the previous Gigabyte board (bear in mind that UD4 and UD3H are suppose to be for different price points)

Mr Krugga,

I don't want to pay extra for a motherboard because you think I should pay extra for a motherboard? . . . there is no reason at all why I need to pay a premium ASUS branding fee unless it offers me some extra function which my clients will need?

When I asked in the O.P "not" to change the considered spec I did that for a reason . . . the reason being I don't need anything more, why waste money? . . . its enough that you are suggesting a Intel® Core™ i7 LGA1156 system . . ok you made your case and its a good one but I don't want you to tell me what AMD® motherboard I should buy please . . . .

This is the board I want?

Gigabyte GA-890GPA-UD3H

£104.99 inc

I don't want this one below!

Asus M4A89GTD PRO/USB3

£119.99 inc VAT

Now I would have to argue that AMD's board doesn't match its Intel's equivalent now thus changing the board here as well

That's £15 extra for no reason and across the four builds you just added £60 to the build cost?

You have presented a very good arguement and introduced an "On-Topic" system I honestly hadn't considered . . . and I am now looking at some data which I wouldn't have been looking at if it wasn't for you . . . . don't now spoil it by imposing your personal viewpoint on me and my clients wallet and "skewing" the pricing data?

Apart from that I am wondering if you could help me with a spread sheet, I don't know how to compile a visual chart that comprises of results where higher is better and lower is better are both contained . . .if you or anyone else is a wiz with ms excel 2003 then please drop me a spread-sheet:

[email protected]

If nobody sends me or helps with a spreadsheet I will have to omit the lower is better results . . .one last thing can you tell me the maths for working out those lower is better percentages please?

i.e: from the first results on your anandtech comparison, lower is better

20.1
16 (+20%)

How is that worked out . . . sorry I'm not as good at maths as you!

 

[Big.Wayne]

anandtech comparrsion tool isnt accurate....

All right then, can you tell me how inaccurate these benchmarks are?

Hey arknor,

it's only one set of results and its a reasonable suggestion from Mr Krugga, pity he is trying to bend the brief to not present a true and accurate representation of the costs? ££

Apart from that small detail I totally commend him for a great contribution to this thread . . . . anyone can produce good posts like Mr Krugga, it just takes a little time and effort!

If Mr Krugga doesn't adjust the build and figures according to the brief I will do it for him . . . I also intend to produce a set of "visual" charts as said before percentages are a bit dry and hard for me to gauge the worth of!

It's certainly looks like a good suggestion but its early days still and no firm conclusions can be drawn yet!

• As much Bang-for-Buck as possible!

Sadly this means no Krugga "stealth" taxes!

 

[gareth170]

Big.Wayne you have choosed a great board

gigabyte amd boards doesn't have vdroop..

3rd gigabyte board i've had. all 3 no vdroop

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hey gareth,

I didn't change anything heh!

I wanted the Gigabyte GA-890GPA-UD3H board since the O.P . . .but to be honest thats only due to the fact that I think the premium for the ASUS board is a pure branding fee!

If both boards were the same price I would take the ASUS though, mainly because I used ASUS boards since 2003 but gigabyte offer better Bang-for-Buck and as far as I am aware there is no meaningful difference between them . . . . vDroop is not a problem? . . . there is a feature called LLC that negates vDroop in the BIOS and it works great!

 

[Mr Krugga]

@Gareth

I drew my conclusions basing it on the Anandtech Bench data, I thought it was clearly stated in my post, no? 26 benchmarks that make for the average performance difference are included.

@Big Wayne

Didn't mean to upset you BW but in all honesty, we either try to make the system as cheap as possible or look at the other factors such as build quality. If you think that the Gigabyte UD3H compares well with Gigabyte UD4 then that's fair enough for me. I don't really care what you choose and am trying to be fair in drawing conclusions but I'm subjective when it comes to making the right choice I never built a system that I wouldn't personally use or want.

Regarding the spreadsheet, I can't be arsed today tbh. Maybe sometime tomorrow if I find the time.

Analysing "Lower is Better" data is fairly easy, looking at how much better/worse Core i7 860 is than Phenom II 1055T you'll need to divide i7's score by Phenom's.

That would be 16/20.1 in this case. It comes up with 0.796 that rounded up to 3rd place gives 0.8. Being "Lower is better" means that you're looking for the difference between the result and 1 which is 20%. Hard to explain really, think about the time that takes two machines to process, say one does it in 4 sec, another in 5 sec. Then do your maths and you should draw your own conclusions quickly. Remember the percentage that Core i7 is being faster/slower than Phenom II is usually different than the other way around, that is Phenom II from Core i7.

Getting complicated now and I'm tired, good luck with making the right choice, hopefully you're not feeling that I'm biased towards any of the products. I would personally get a better quality AM3 board and try my luck with whatever Bulldoser has to come up with in the future.

PS using that UD3H board, the costs difference is 13.6%, doesn't make much of a difference to me tbh. AM3 doesn't SLI though

 

[gareth170]

Hey gareth,

I didn't change anything heh!

i clicked the wrong word, i meant choosed..

read my post again

there is a feature called LLC that negates vDroop in the BIOS

not on the gigabyte board... it does it automaticly, which is a great thing about the gigabyte amd boards.

 

[gareth170]

@gareth

I drew my conclusions basing it on the Anandtech Bench data, I thought it was clearly stated in my post, no? 26 benchmarks that make for the average performance difference are included.

i know but what i'm pointing out is we don't know for sure if them Bench data at Anandtech are 100% right/accurate or even at any review benchmark sites..

 

[Mr Krugga]

i know but what i'm pointing out is we don't know for sure if them Bench data at Anandtech are 100% right/accurate or even at any review benchmark sites..

Can't argue with that but I'd think these benches are fairly accurate. Just have a look at other websites for comparison.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Didn't mean to upset you BW but in all honesty, we either try to make the system as cheap as possible or look at the other factors such as build quality

You didn't upset me . . . you "frustrated" me heh!

You got everything right apart from flying off with your subjective opinion of what quality is? . . . . there is nothing wrong with the Gigabyte board but if you can present some "fact" demonstrating why you deem my client should spend an extra £15-£60 because you deem one product lower quality than another?

The "considered" AMD spec Gigabyte motherboard offers all the technology that is needed, I think there is no logical reason to pay £0.01 extra!

I never built a system that I wouldn't personally use or want

Thats great . . . the only thing is I'm building the systems . . . not you and it's not your money . . .

I would personally get a better quality AM3 board

Flippen heck your persistant? . . . explain to me why?

using that UD3H board, the costs difference is 13.6%, doesn't make much of a difference to me tbh

Sorry, you can hide in the realm of percentages but meanwhile none of us have percentage notes in our wallet? we have £5.00 notes and £10.00 notes . . . your giving me the fear that if I don't spend £15/£60 extra now these GigaByte boards are gonna blow up or something? . . . are you scaremongering or is this there a genuine reason for your dislike of the GigaByte boards I want to use?

• Full HD (1920x1080) FPS/RTS subsystem (will take GPU request to other subforum)
• Multi-GPU capable motherboard (using single card but option is required)

[Technical Focus Of This Thread]

• Does either system in this O.P have any advantages/disadvantages that are not obvious from the performance data?

AM3 doesn't SLI though

That is a "genuine" advantage not reflected in the benchmarks although now we gone down to PCI-E 2.0 8x/8x instead of PCI-E 2.0 16x/16x

Anyway for the moment the LGA1156 Intel® Core™ i7 is an official "considered" spec . . . will be doing some graphs because I want to see what this extra + £106.66 brings in terms of "value" . . . the LGA1366 Intel® Core™ i7 920 spec is + £139.78 so basically that's £33.12 or £132.48 you may have saved from the overall build costs! . . . lose 2GB ram, lose 16x/16x, lose Triple-channel etc apart from that it fits the brief . . . oh gosh now I got three systems to compare the performance data for . . thanks!

 

[easyrider]

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

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 speak the truth.

Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement? You are playing games my friend.

Moderation: The process of eliminating or lessening extremes..Fire Wizard has already suggested other routes and alternatives and yet you dismiss them...IMO you need moderating to stop posting pretense.

The OP (you) already knows the answers to the questions. I have read your post's for years.

So don't for one minute think your fooling me buy "suddenly" not knowing what to buy or how to spec a system.

You have a hidden agenda and its getting tiresome imo.

. oh gosh now I got three systems to compare the performance data for . .

Don't bother in all honesty.

You know, we all know that i7 is the fastest then its i5 750 in games and then i3 beating X6 in many benchies for far less.

 

[easyrider]

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?

The 760G costing £303

Can this mobo overclock an X6 to 4ghz?