• 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

Big.Wayne said:
When I say I want the "truth" that means I want "facts" not somebodies opinion . . . . an opinion that perhaps is flawed or biased in some way? . . . am I not entitled to form my own opinion based on "facts" so I can know the truth!
Click to expand...

The facts are that i7 is faster.

Thats the truth.

What you are doing is trying to work out if this speed increase is worth it.

Thats it.

Either it is or its isn't

End of thread TBH
 
So what was the point of your other thread easyrider?

Can you not live with the fact your i7 is roughly the same as a Hex @ same clocks?. Chill dude, you take this stuff too seriously - its only a couple of fps here and there (for us gamers who tend to buy super duper toys ;) )

Me tinks your in denial b, hell your avatar location thingie says so :) :) :)

Another factor here is that most AMD users chose X6 as an upgrade path, whereas Core i7 users will require a whole new setup. This makes the Hex's far better value for money taking into account the next gen of cpu's is due soon enough. Good move by AMD, they always said the X6's were a stop-gap till bulldozer, - after all it wasn't till they released the X6's that Intel dropped they're prices. If the AM3 boards can support the first gen of bulldozer then thats an even bigger bonus in terms of saving cash.

Computer stores however will promote Intel systems more - as they will sell more components (taking into account the above).

Everyone knows Intel got ketch not too long ago purposely disadvantaging competitors with they're code compilers, so I would conclude that AMD is just as equal as the Intel stuff. Supporting AMD is better for the CPU market after all, irrespective of which product is (ever soooo slightly) faster.
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
The facts are that i7 is faster.

Thats the truth.

What you are doing is trying to work out if this speed increase is worth it.

Thats it.

Either it is or its isn't

End of thread TBH
Click to expand...

it's just a shame there isnt anybody on these forums capable of answering that question.


edit: does anybody know why that x264 test gives me crazy results with a quad core?
 
Last edited:
zoomee said:
So what was the point of your other thread easyrider?

Can you not live with the fact your i7 is roughly the same as a Hex @ same clocks?. Chill dude, you take this stuff too seriously - its only a couple of fps here and there (for us gamers who tend to buy super duper toys ;) )

Me tinks your in denial b, hell your avatar location thingie says so :) :) :)
Click to expand...

There we go again with that old chestnut "roughly"

Some use "similar" some use "nearly" some use "about that same"

Fact is I want AMD to be faster then I could change my rig for something new to play with and it would stop certain forum members pimiping AMD

I have use both AMD and INTEL and both ATI and Nvidia,

I don't care who makes what I want the best hardware for my money,

This is what gets my goat. People buying into Brands then defending them brands for no reason other than the pathetic notion of brand loyalty.

People need to chill Not Me. and stop defending mediocre products as the people with the last laugh are not us its the companies making billions of pounds in profit.
 
james.miller said:
it's just a shame there isnt anybody on these forums capable of answering that question.
Click to expand...

Exactly

For me the tiny bit extra is worth it for i7

Its gets me the fastest CPU currently

Now others are happy to save a bit of cash and have something slower.

You can analyse it until the cows come home But the facts are there for all to see.

If someone doesn't think i7 is worth the extra then so be it, But making a thread to state this claim, is BS not needed and a waste of time.
 
it's interesting when you compare that x264 benchmark on my quad to a hex at the same clock speed

Results for x264.exe r1342
--------------------------
encoded 1442 frames, 110.52 fps, 3908.62 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 108.85 fps, 3908.62 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 109.16 fps, 3908.62 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 110.85 fps, 3908.62 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 23.29 fps, 3964.52 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 23.34 fps, 3964.64 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 23.33 fps, 3964.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 23.35 fps, 3965.10 kb/s


System Details
--------------
Name AMD Phenom II X4 965
product System Product Name
Codename Deneb
Specification AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor
Core Stepping RB-C3
Technology 45 nm
Core Speed 3642.3 MHz

Northbridge AMD 785GX rev. 00
Southbridge ATI SB750 rev. 40

----------------------------------------------------------

Results for x264.exe r1666
--------------------------
encoded 1442 frames, 130.50 fps, 3909.64 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 130.14 fps, 3909.64 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 130.03 fps, 3909.64 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 130.03 fps, 3909.64 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 34.45 fps, 3961.53 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 34.62 fps, 3961.28 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 34.66 fps, 3961.07 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 34.67 fps, 3960.93 kb/s


System Details
--------------
Name AMD K10
product System Product Name
Codename
Specification AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1090T Processor
Specification PC3-12800
Core Speed 3600.0 MHz

Northbridge AMD 785GX rev. 00
Southbridge ATI SB750 rev. 00

and then Iraklis F.C.'s 3.6ghz 920 results

HT ON
encoded 1442 frames, 129.83 fps, 3907.78 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 131.31 fps, 3907.78 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 130.92 fps, 3907.78 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 130.37 fps, 3907.78 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 32.02 fps, 3961.12 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 31.86 fps, 3960.56 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 32.05 fps, 3960.75 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 32.05 fps, 3962.26 kb/s


Code: 
[b]3.6hgz quad    3.6ghx hex    3.6ghz 920 HT on[/b]
110.52         130.50        129.83
108.85         130.14        131.31
109.16         130.03        130.92
110.85         130.03        130.37
23.29          34.45         32.02
23.34          34.62         31.86
23.33          34.66         32.05
23.35          34.67         32.05

[b]first pass average:[/b]
109.85         130.17        130.61
               [color=yellow](+18.5%)     (+18.9%)[/color]

[b]second pass average:[/b]
23.32          34.85         32.00
              [color=yellow](+49.4%)       (+37.2%)[/color]

it's pretty obvious that benchmark even with the latest x264 isn't optimised for 6 cores - the hex should be 27-33% quicker than my quad. it's a little over half that. not sure if the same should apply with the 920 though!

easyrider said:
People need to chill Not Me. and stop defending mediocre products as the people with the last laugh are not us its the companies making billions of pounds in profit.
Click to expand...
They arent mediocre, not from what im seeing. That's the other side of the argument - calling a hex 'mediocre' because it's on, let's face it, virtually level pegging most of the way.

they are not anything close to mediocre.
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
There we go again with that old chestnut "roughly"

Some use "similar" some use "nearly" some use "about that same"

Fact is I want AMD to be faster then I could change my rig for something new to play with and it would stop certain forum members pimiping AMD

I have use both AMD and INTEL and both ATI and Nvidia,

I don't care who makes what I want the best hardware for my money,

This is what gets my goat. People buying into Brands then defending them brands for no reason other than the pathetic notion of brand loyalty.

People need to chill Not Me. and stop defending mediocre products as the people with the last laugh are not us its the companies making billions of pounds in profit.
Click to expand...

erm to everyone other than you it seems thats what you doing...

people post benchmarks where x6 is faster or performing almost identicly to an i7 clock for clock and you either dismiss it or try to find benchmarks that are flawd to prove your point....

like the x264 benchmark that you knew run like crap on amd cpus unless you manually got the updatex h264 codec and copy/pasted it over the older version in the benchmark.

even though you obviously know this from your other thread you still try and use the results when you know for a fact they dont show an accurate picture.

its beyond belief how your alowed to get away with this you seem to come here just to post negative x6 info
 
That benchmark does not use 100% CPU

Find me one that does and I will happily bench my 4ghz 920 against HEX

Now the handbrake one I setup

Gareth was getting 45 % cpu usage others where getting 65-85 %

The whole bench was no good using that codec or video file.
 
james.miller said:
it's pretty obvious that benchmark even with the latest x264 isn't optimised for 6 cores - the hex should be 27-33% quicker than my quad. it's a little over half that. not sure if the same should apply with the 920 though!
.
Click to expand...

The whole bench is flawed... Just look at results. the x264 bench is not a good way of comparing performance hence I got the thread closed.
 
I was going by james.millars test with the quad core against hex and i7.

He says it uses the latest build, so we can accurately say what has happened, can't we?
 
He said latest x264.

Granted you're saying it's flawed, depends what processes are going on, though I suppose that's minimal at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom