Cinebench 10 i7 V X6

kierenharrold · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:10

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

So we are no longer comparing the HEX against the i7s we are now comparing individual cores?

easyrider · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:10

kierenharrold said:
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

If this is was you want to believe than that's fine. But this is not the case due to many factors not just including one bench.

wannabedamned · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:10

kierenharrold said:
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 problem is, How much of the software out there is optimized for hex core. if the worlds software was infact optimized for hex yes. The hex core is better. But in the grand scheme of things the remaining software will benefit from the faster(Higher IPC) I7 cores.

Cosimo · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:17

Cinebench 11.529:

kierenharrold · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:20

simulatorman said:
Cinebench 11.529:

Apparently you cannot use that benchmark because the world is still using single core processors.

wannabedamned · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:23

kierenharrold said:
Apparently you cannot use that benchmark because the world is still using single core processors.

Obviously you cant comprehend what's being talked about

No one is saying that benchmark cant be counted. We are all in agreement that hex core surpasses I7 in hexcore optimized programs. Where you're failing to keep up with us, is in the department that a lot of the worlds software doesnt use it, and in those departments the I7's Higher IPC on each core comes through. In all those millions of pieces of software where hex will never be introduced, in all those programs where Quad will never be introduced. in all those games that will not use more than dual or single cores. Those programs are the ones that benefit from I7.

pazza · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:27

kierenharrold said:
So we are no longer comparing the HEX against the i7s we are now comparing individual cores?

NO im not saying that,im just saying the intel chip is more up to date tech,the Amd chip is based on older tech with 2 extra cores bolted on.

From this benchmark 11.5 and the other video encoding benchmarks the 1090t is faster but you could also look up another 20+ benchmarks which show the intel being faster,because its got more grunt per core and these programs are not optimized for x6.

IF everything was optimized for x6 this wouldnt be a problem,but by the time the developers catch up,we will all have moved on to yet another faster chip.

kierenharrold · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:27

wannabedamned said:
Obviously you cant comprehend what's being talked about No one is saying that benchmark cant be counted. We are all in agreement that hex core surpasses I7 in hexcore optimized programs. Where you're failing to keep up with us, is in the department that a lot of the worlds software doesnt use it, and in those departments the I7's Higher IPC on each core comes through. In all those millions of pieces of software where hex will never be introduced, in all those programs where Quad will never be introduced. in all those games that will not use more than dual or single cores. Those programs are the ones that benefit from I7.

I have no problem with accepting that, but people on here have a problem with an AMD chip beating an intel chip.

easyrider · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:35

kierenharrold said:
I have no problem with accepting that, but people on here have a problem with an AMD chip beating an intel chip.

I think the only person with that problem is you

We concluded the findings a number of post's back.

Maybe re-read the thread and catch up with the rest of us.

We are now all hugging each other

kierenharrold · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:35

The sad thing is, next year this will all happen again

setter · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:42

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?

Sli/xfire was my main consideration when building this rig, currently running a pair of gtx 275's, pretty cheap they were as well at £230.00 for the pair, might not be the latest DX11 cards, but they handle anything i play easily enough at 1920x1200. Gotta say though, the amd chips certainly do represent good value for money, im actually considering a new amd based rig as my second machine, an old s939 a64 4000 is on its last legs.

Oh and obligatory hugs all round.

kierenharrold · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:43

easyrider said:
I think the only person with that problem is you

We concluded the findings a number of post's back.

Maybe re-read the thread and catch up with the rest of us.

We are now all hugging each other

Can you please quote were everyone concluded the I7 to be faster?

Im having a hard time finding it.

Edit**

Big hug for easy

=VTA=MANFACE · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:44

Here's mine.

=VTA=MANFACE
1x 5097
2x 27828

Clocked to 4Ghz

=VTA=MANFACE.
1x 5977
2x 32506

arknor · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:46

mmj_uk said:
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.

its not massively faster though look at most gaming benchmarks and the performance is about the same.

people used to say amd are better for gaming but intel are better at encoding/rendering....

look at all the old spec me threads where people mentioned encoding or rendering, anyone who mentioned x6 were instantly bashed because they blindly believed forum gossip that intel were better at it by a huge margin.

most things that only use 1-2 cores run almost equally well on either cpu because a program only needs so much power and most of the stuff that cant use atleast 3 cores are old programs that dont need massive processing power

easyrider · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:50

arknor said:
its not massively faster though look at most gaming benchmarks and the performance is about the same.

people used to say amd are better for gaming but intel are better at encoding/rendering....

look at all the old spec me threads where people mentioned encoding or rendering, anyone who mentioned x6 were instantly bashed because they blindly believed forum gossip that intel were better at it by a huge margin.

most things that only use 1-2 cores run almost equally well on either cpu because a program only needs so much power and most of the stuff that cant use atleast 3 cores are old programs that dont need massive processing power

hug?

Jokester · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:50

i7 920 @ 4.4GHz

easyrider · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:50

kierenharrold said:
Big hug for easy

kierenharrold · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:51

arknor said:
its not massively faster though look at most gaming benchmarks and the performance is about the same.

people used to say amd are better for gaming but intel are better at encoding/rendering....

look at all the old spec me threads where people mentioned encoding or rendering, anyone who mentioned x6 were instantly bashed because they blindly believed forum gossip that intel were better at it by a huge margin.

most things that only use 1-2 cores run almost equally well on either cpu because a program only needs so much power and most of the stuff that cant use atleast 3 cores are old programs that dont need massive processing power

We(easyrider

) have concluded that hex cores are useless at encoding/rendering. Have you not read the thread. HAVE THY NOT BEEN SPREADING HUGS!!!

Edit**

HUGS!

Well he does have a pretty sweet home cinema setup.

wannabedamned · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:57

kierenharrold said:
We(easyrider) have concluded that hex cores are useless at encoding/rendering. Have you not read the thread. HAVE THY NOT BEEN SPREADING HUGS!!!

Im confused as to where you've got this from.

Its not what is being said atall. What is being said is if the encoder or renderer is hex-core optimised, It will perform better than an I7. But if it's not, then it wont.

kierenharrold · 21 Jul 2010 at 17:59

wannabedamned said:
Im confused as to where you've got this from.

Its not what is being said atall. What is being said is if the encoder or renderer is hex-core optimised, It will perform better than an I7. But if it's not, then it wont.

My last post was a joke. was not meant to be taken seriously.