Cinebench 10 i7 V X6

wannabedamned · 21 Jul 2010 at 12:45

kierenharrold said:
Ive never played WoW lol, i just looked up the system requirements

haha, During raids there can be 50+ NPCs and users on screen at once. And it'll make even the better systems lag and cry, when they're all casting spells, attacking enemies

james.miller · 21 Jul 2010 at 15:57

mmj_uk said:
27% slower in single CPU render test though.

Having owned both i7@4ghz and 1090T@4ghz that's where the problem lies in my opinion, in a perfect world the difference would be 6% but not all games/applications are multithreaded properly and the i7's brute force when using only 1 or 2 cores pays off, World of Warcraft is a prime example.

yeah....nobody wants to render on a single core though

So it's settled then. i7's are faster than hex's. They are also more expensive, to a point where the price doesnt outright justify the increase in performance.

I also expect these facts to be fully ignored the next time the question is asked. Some people just can't deal with the truth.

mmj_uk · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:01

kierenharrold said:
Lol you only need a pentium 3 to run WoW.

WoW is CPU limited more than any other game if you have the settings high enough, it is a prime example of a piece of software that benefits more from an outright faster CPU rather than just having more cores thrown at it.

Say for example that X6 and i7 are exactly equal at full tilt, what happens when a piece of software is only optimised for say 2 cores? you get close to 50% theoretical performance from i7 (I say close because no HT) but only 33% from the X6, so it would be (theoretically at least) about 15% faster on the i7.

The problem with X6 is you rely on developers having updated their software to make full use of 6 cores in order to match the i7 as this thread has demonstrated perfectly, if any piece of software for whatever reason doesn't make full use of all the available cores then it's clearly going to be faster on the i7.

easyrider · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:02

james.miller said:
yeah....nobody wants to render on a single core though

So it's settled then. i7's are faster than hex's. They are also more expensive, to a point where the price doesnt outright justify the increase in performance.

I also expect these facts to be fully ignored the next time the question is asked. Some people just can't deal with the truth.

Things like sli and xfire on x58 need to be taken into account.

Software usage.

i7 is faster in games too,

But its all about personal choice.

Hug?

kierenharrold · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:13

My 1055T got 6.97 @ 4GHz

Setters i7 920 got 6.70 at 4GHz

so how is the i7 considered faster?

Hug?

easyrider · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:16

kierenharrold said:
My 1055T got 6.97 @ 4GHz

Setters i7 got 6.70 at 4GHz

so how is the i7 considered faster?

Hug?

It was the software.

The previous version loved HT hence the 3000 point difference going to i7.

Subliminal Aura very eloquently put:

Subliminal Aura said:
No what it goes to show is that AMD's horizontal scaling(adding two extra cores) brings the x6 right on the doorstep of the i7.

However the vertical scaling gap still remains the i7 core by core is supremely much faster than AMD's offering.

IMHO both platforms are great but the one you choose will depend on much multi-threading you need. It's a pity really as although horizontal cpu scaling is here right now in your face, optimized software still lags behind the hardware potentials.

Hugs all around

gareth170 · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:24

easyrider said:
Things like sli and xfire on x58 need to be taken into account.

Software usage.

i7 is faster in games too,

But its all about personal choice.

Hug?

but at 10-20%+ high price if u do like for like components .

easyrider · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:27

gareth170 said:
but at 10-20%+ high price if u do like for like components .

Thats ok

I'm loaded!

Can I have my Hug now?

Troop · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:28

No comments on the 860 out running the 920 clock for clock then

gareth170 · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:39

easyrider said:
Can I have my Hug now?

*****HUGS*****

easyrider · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:41

gareth170 said:
*****HUGS*****

zoomee · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:49

/group hug

(sneakily touches easyrider in his darkspots)

easyrider · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:54

zoomee said:
/group hug

(sneakily touches easyrider in his darkspots)

pazza · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:55

Thanks all its nice to finally see some people post there 920 benchmarks (cinebench 11.5).

I think this thread proves that if the software is optimized for x6 core it will be faster than the 920.

But most things arent so for the majority of things 920 is faster.

easyrider · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:56

pazza said:
Thanks all its nice to finally see some people post there 920 benchmarks (cinebench 11.5).

I think this thread proves that if the software is optimized for x6 core it will be faster than the 920.

But most things arent so for the majority of things 920 is faster.

Hug?

pazza · 21 Jul 2010 at 16:57

kierenharrold · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:00

pazza said:
Thanks all its nice to finally see some people post there 920 benchmarks (cinebench 11.5).

I think this thread proves that if the software is optimized for x6 core it will be faster than the 920.

But most things arent so for the majority of things 920 is faster.

So it is settled, AMD hex is faster...but developers are being lazy.

easyrider · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:03

kierenharrold said:
So it is settled, AMD hex is faster...but developers are being lazy.

Not quite

pazza · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:04

The intel chip is better per core tbh,if i had the money id bag me a 980 without a doubt

kierenharrold · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:08

Well so far my 1055T has beaten the i7 920 in the latest benchmarks. We cannot look at individual cores, we have to look at the CPU as a whole since that is what is being used.

The conclusion ive made is this.

1055T > i7 920

1090T > 1055T

980x > 1090T