-
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 and Intel® Core™ i7 Debate
- Thread starter Big.Wayne
- Start date
You didn't upset me . . . you "frustrated" me heh!
Do not care tbh.
Dunno where you get this £60 from.
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!
Gigabyte it is then.
Do your own builds then, let me do mine. I'm not asking you to purchase whatever I suggest.
Flippen heck your persistant? . . . explain to me why?
Quote the whole sentence. Because, I would rather spend some £160 on the board now and get a cheaper Quad Core Phenom for the sake of having a future proof build. Stop raging
Still £60 crossing your mind, really? It's £106.50 price difference or 13.5% if you compare my builds. I prefer to use percentages because they reflect the real cost difference at the end of the day.
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?
Nope, I have nothing against these Gigabyte boards. I made up my decision reading up the reviews of both boards.
Does it matter? Same goes with AM3 anyway. PCI-E 2.0 8x/8x vs 16x/16x is a subject of no concern for current graphics cards.
If the person is not planning to overclock then they could just as easily remove the £40 heatsink from that i7 860 configuration leaving only a ~£65 difference, the stock Intel heatsinks are pretty decent unless you're overclocking heavily unlike the tiny AMD 1055/1090T ones that are extremely noisy under any kind of gaming/load.
If the person is planning to overclock to 4ghz then they should be giving an i7 920/1090T system serious thought.
Last edited:
This is what I mean about conceptualised representation to suit the constraints of the op's own ideologies.
Is it just me or do other poeople feel this way?
So now you are comparing PC hardware that will be obsolete in a few months from both intel and AMD to slavery?
I find this offensive,
Ban TBH
WTF!
"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 . . .
"The fastest and without competition can always charge a premium however small that may be. Look at the ATI/AMD 5970 GFX card for validation of this simple concept of economics"
The pilgrim looks puzzled and walks away and says to himself
"I have asked a question from a great wiseman atop the hill and now I am non the wiser"
The Wise-man runs after him and says " check post 65 from Fire Wizard...Fire Wizard say evreything you need to know....Wise man Fire Wizard say " Products which don't have enough competition in terms of raw performance have always charged a premium"
pilgrim " oh right...i'll jog on then"
See ya!
The wise-man turns his head from the sky and looks the pilgrim in the eyes and says . . .
"The fastest and without competition can always charge a premium however small that may be. Look at the ATI/AMD 5970 GFX card for validation of this simple concept of economics"
The pilgrim looks puzzled and walks away and says to himself
"I have asked a question from a great wiseman atop the hill and now I am non the wiser"
The Wise-man runs after him and says " check post 65 from Fire Wizard...Fire Wizard say evreything you need to know....Wise man Fire Wizard say " Products which don't have enough competition in terms of raw performance have always charged a premium"
pilgrim " oh right...i'll jog on then"
See ya!
Last edited:
Hey Jokester!
Ok it took a day to sink in but your suggestion has now peaked my interest!
I initially was thinking of the Intel® X58 Express carried a premium compared to the Intel® P55 Express . . . therefore offsetting some of the cash saved from only buying dual-channel DDR3 . . . however having had a butchers at the boards tech-for-tech it seems my initial concerns were unfounded!
I think I read someone say that instead of using 3+3 Tri Channel its also possible to use 2+2+2 Dual-Channel? . . . is that correct? . . . if so that could be a slight advantage for upgrading down the line?
PCI-E 2.0 16x/16 is not to be sniffed at either . . . not that's its a huge incentive right now but I think if given a choice between two boards costing the same one with PCI-E 2.0 8x/x8 and PCI-E 2.0 16x16 most would opt for the latter! . . . I'm not aware it makes much difference in 2010 but a few years down the line it may be useful . .
Anyway thanks for an interesting suggestion!
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,871
Easyrider, as well as everyone else, lets try and keep the discussion somewhat constructive please. Thank you.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,871
Firstly, I was not trying to illustrate anything. The specifications which I created in my first post was not a continuation to the first part of my post in response to Easyrider. I said to Easyrider that if you're going to downgrade a component for one system, you also need to do the same for the other, otherwise it is not a fair comparison. My response to Easyrider ended there and then.
I'm afraid it appears I put a lot more emphasis on something which was largely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, which was a mistake on my behalf. The price difference between both systems was not what I was going after. What I was trying to portray was if you compare two systems (A and B) which are at different price points, if you don't think the more expensive system (A) is worth the extra over the cheaper one (B), going ahead and purchasing system B based on that alone would not be the right course of action.
As per a lot of your other posts, particularly surrounding this topic, you're making things so much more complicated than they need to be. Researching into whether or not system A will be the better than system B for a particular users needs is not rocket science, but yet you're making out as if it is.
The following is the entire part of my snipped post above.
Let me clarify what I meant by the above. The overall cost difference between the two systems is, and lets use your figure, £136.78. The Intel system doesn't necessary represent a performance increase equal to that off £136.78, but say for example represents an increase equal to £80. The reason why the difference isn't £80 but is instead £136.78 is due to those products generally being better than the competitors products and thus, charge a premium due to that very reason.
Well, I do have an invisibility cloak which I use to sneak into highly top secret buildings as well as my sacred futuristic laser beam to cut through the vaults where they stash the reviews and benchmarks of the systems like the ones which are being discussed in this thread, which is what it would apparently take to form a reasonable answer about this topic, along with years of research.
Yes, it would be unwise and I haven't suggested anything.
I'm not quite sure how you have come to that conclusion. I simply stated products which consistently perform better than other products on the market charge a premium not necessary in relation to the performance differences due to being the top dog. I did not share an opinion regarding whether or not I think that's right or acceptable.
Yes, you need to take the time out to research things to be able to form an accurate answer. However, you certainly don't need to do the rocket science type research, which you appear to be suggesting, to form one.
I'm guessing what you mean by the above is a 33% increase in price doesn't represent a 33% increase in performance? Well, we don't live in our own fairy tale world where everything makes logical sense all of the time.
Please do not pull a fallacy into a discussion, one which I have not made. You have read my post and assumed what I had written, I agreed with when I was merely highlighting the reality of things.
Good and I will try and create some specifications soon along with some figures.
You're making this sound like there is some kind of terrible conspiracy going on here.
No, I do not have any conflicts of interests in this thread, nor any others which I participate in. I wrote my post as a member of these forums. The fact that I am part of the moderating team, I can say for absolute certain, had absolutely no influence in what I have said and I would have said the exact same thing if I wasn't part of the moderating team. That, I can assure you off.
Indeed.
I fine this thread destructive though...with lets face it "odd post's" from the OP?
Last edited:
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!
wannabedamned posted the data in post 70. And yes, my nitpick was purely about that one table. I agree with the rest of your data.
It does mean that this chart you posted earlier is wrong:
The blue bar should start at roughly the 90% position and fill up to 100%.
Intel Core i7 870 is on average 0.2% faster than Intel Core i7 940, based on 31 benchmarks above
Now, I wouldn't personally conclude that clock for clock Lynnfields are faster than Bloomfields BUT it shows that the differences are negligible and for an average user who does not overclock the difference is not existent. There ARE however some tasks where Bloomfields perform significantly better. I would imagine that with a higher clock those differences would only deepen.
Nonetheless, the above comparison shows that Lynnfields are not slower than Bloomfields and should be treated equally when speaking of performance kings. There is Triple Channel and more memory that Bloomfield is benefiting from but there is also Turbo Boost on the Lynnfields side. I do not have a clue how Triple Channel helps to beat Core i7 870 in some of the tasks that were part of the benchmarks but I would have thought that the differences between Lynnfields and Bloomfields were the latter comes out a winner would disappear thus running the conclusion that they perform similarly, to say the least, when measured clock for clock.
There is a comparison of Core i7 860 and Core i7 920 I can attach here but measuring stock vs stock performances draws the Lynnfield a clear winner.
show us the proof? go look in the i7 vs x6 media encoding thread....
the latest version of the h264 benchmark didnt include the actual h264.exe that has the x6 optimizations once someone told us to replace the exe in the benchmark with the latest one all of the x6 results gained atleast 25%
what more proof do you need most benchmarks are flawed unless they are up to date and include optimizations for both chips something which wont happen when benchmarks are performed at times often months apart
Ok then, explain this Mr I Know Better - http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Prod....48.49.50.53.54.55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,080
- Location
- Between Realities
There's no need to start getting bitchy. Fair enough ask him to explain it. but keep it friendly
a lot of benchmarks are biased from which ever site theyre from one will always lean towards a side who benefits them
the only way your gunna get true facts real benchmarks is if you line up similar components and bench side by side and record it or view it yopur self.
also what is true is a lot of these benchmarks are not upto date or havent had newist drivers so they are fully at there best.
the pricing structure is often the real tell tale sign off which is faster but not always.
the whole post is just amd vs intel.
get someone at ocuk to do a couple of tests or people on here with similar rigs and a selection of benchmarks that people agree on
the only way your gunna get true facts real benchmarks is if you line up similar components and bench side by side and record it or view it yopur self.
also what is true is a lot of these benchmarks are not upto date or havent had newist drivers so they are fully at there best.
the pricing structure is often the real tell tale sign off which is faster but not always.
the whole post is just amd vs intel.
get someone at ocuk to do a couple of tests or people on here with similar rigs and a selection of benchmarks that people agree on
I disagree, you don't update CPU drivers and AMD Phenom II X6 being a new processor should have an edge with theoretically improved software. Or looking at that from the other point of view, Phenom II processors are older architecture thus software is better optimized for them. I'm not bashing AMD CPUs in any way, just saying that these benchmarks DO reflect real performance differences and if you have doubts, prove me wrong. I read a lot of reviews before where there were different benchmarking techniques and overall gains of Core i7s would remain the same. In reality there's no performance improvements in new versions of software but rather bug fixes.
The benchmarks speak for themselves and no amount of PJC is going to change that.
Mr Krugga you are totally correct in your above post.
This thread is contrived nonsense and should be closed.
There is a reason AMD stuff is cheaper its basic economics.
i5 750 is faster in games and cost's less but this gets ignored for the sake of PJC
Its sad IMO.
I can quote rjkoneill (ocuk Don) who gets paid for testing all the latest Kit.
Both AMD and Intel....Impartial beyond doubt and yet he has stated that i7 is faster than Hex.
You lot are ruining these forums by posting gash.
You have all been hooked into a contrived baiting thread to massage the OP's ego.
Its that simple
Mr Krugga you are totally correct in your above post.
This thread is contrived nonsense and should be closed.
There is a reason AMD stuff is cheaper its basic economics.
i5 750 is faster in games and cost's less but this gets ignored for the sake of PJC
Its sad IMO.
I can quote rjkoneill (ocuk Don) who gets paid for testing all the latest Kit.
Both AMD and Intel....Impartial beyond doubt and yet he has stated that i7 is faster than Hex.
You lot are ruining these forums by posting gash.
You have all been hooked into a contrived baiting thread to massage the OP's ego.
Its that simple