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

[Big.Wayne]

 

[wolvers]

Cheers for collating all of this information into one place. I've been thinking of replacing the S939 stuff in our office PC with a 1055T set up so I'll be having a good look through all this to see how it stacks up to the 920 in my gaming machine.

BTW, you've posted the same graph twice in the above post.

 

[Freddie1980]

Hey wannabedamned,

I just put all the average performance data into a spread sheet, totalled the results from each system and worked out the percentages from that?

I'm sorry to say that's not the way you should work out the difference. I put all the same result scores you've got into Excel and worked out the difference between each individual set of results and it works out like this (Blue = Intel Advantage, Green = AMD Advantage, Black = draw/within the margin of error/)

Sysmark 2007 - 14.9%
Sysmark 2007 - 3D - 8.1%
x264 HD Encode 1st Pass - 1.0%
x264 HD Encode 2nd Pass - 10.9%
Cinibench R10 Single thread - 13.3%
Cinibench R10 Multi thread - 1.5%
Pov-Ray 3.7 beta 23 SMP - 11.8%
Fallout 3 - 0.1%
Left 4 Dead - 0.2%
Far Cry 2 - 42%
Crysis Warhead - 6.2%

Add up all the %'s and it comes to 108.1% which you then divide by the number of tests which is 11 which gives you an average of 9.8% advantage for the Intel based setup.

To prove that I've worked out the %'s for each test correctly simply choose a test eg Sysmark 2007 the AMD scored 241 and the Intel chip was 14.9% quicker so 241 * 0.149 = 35.909 So just add 35.9 to 241 which gives you 277
(rounded up).

If you take out the Fallout 3 and Left for Dead results (since they are the same and are simply watering down the result) the Intel Advantage increases to 12%.

You can't look at these results are pure percentages though, for a start the game scores are based on games being run at medium and reduced settings, crank them up to high and both CPU's will be play second fiddle to the video card.

 

[RizlaKing]

You ask what the point of OcUK fourms is well simply it is there so people can go read the other stuff on the net and come here to ask end user's if the figures they have read are near to reality in a given spec or buying advice in general not to the tiniest detail. No one place is ever going to be the definitive yes or no on something unless they are prepared to commit an horrendous amount of resources which no one place will. Personally i read at least six reviews i take them all together and any personal experience i have of whatever product (which seems to be the mian problem here as you have stated you don't have that much on these components) and make a choice and with both these cpu's that is possible to do and doesn't need to be this over complicated or time consuming.

My simplistic summing up is correct in what it says that the I7 is generally the faster cpu and that yes there are areas where the X6 is close to it and sometimes ahead of it thats a fact no amibiguity. There are enough graphs on here to sink a battleship and still we seem to be no nearer to what it is you seem to want i am really not sure there is much else this forum can do to aid in whatever it is you want and all that seems to be happening is the same ground is being retrodden and the same old animosites coming to the fore.

If the question is which cpu is best then it comes down to what your client wants to do with the pc if he wants to use it in areas where the X6 is ahead then your choice is clear get the X6 being honest unless they are using specific programs the average user will notice very little difference between either cpu. If he wants it for general computing then the I7 is the way to go that covers yours and his backside more then the X6. I did read the op but the fact is given how much debate and time your dedicating to this a better use of that might be to tell your client to wai until things get a little clearer if this choice is so difficult to make at this rate so much time will pass that you'll be debating products that are about to be replaced.

In the last three months i have built systems using both cpu's for different groups of people and far as i am able to judge it really comes down to what the client wants and most of mine want me to simplify things for them not complicate them to the level this thread has gotten too. Also being honest if i was having this degree of trouble making a decision i would inform my client and recommend they replace me with someone else.

 

[easyrider]

Cheers for collating all of this information into one place. I've been thinking of replacing the S939 stuff in our office PC with a 1055T set up so I'll be having a good look through all this to see how it stacks up to the 920 in my gaming machine.

BTW, you've posted the same graph twice in the above post.

The office PC does what exactly?

Does it run Office?

 

[wolvers]

The office PC does what exactly?

Does it run Office?

Pretty much, and Mrs W's itunes rubbish. I'd like to be able to do some more intensive tasks on it though, like video encoding, and maybe add a gpu sometime in the future that will cope with a little light gaming.

I have to admit to a bit of an urge to play with some newer AMD stuff as well, especially if it has 6 cores.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello Freddie1980!

I'm sorry to say that's not the way you should work out the difference

Firstly don't be "sorry" . . . secondly I think what you mean to say is "that's not the way you work out percentages"

Add up all the %'s and it comes to 108.1% which you then divide by the number of tests which is 11 which gives you an average of 9.8% advantage for the Intel based setup

If you take out the Fallout 3 and Left for Dead results (since they are the same and are simply watering down the result) the Intel Advantage increases to 12%

This percentage stuff is complicated! . . . . I don't see how you managed to come up with two Intel® figures that have a 22.45% difference between them? (9.8% > 12%)

I'm grateful for the pointers but I'm still not sure how your figures are working? . . . while I agree "some" of the game advantages in these results are very similar I think the tiny percentages still get added into the pot so to speak? . . . I also don't see how the Intel performance advantage "jumps" an extra 2% because the game results are similar? . . . i.e how the heck does the Intel systems overall performance advantage "increase" from the AMD system matching it in two games?

I'm not saying your wrong Freddie but I lack the brain power or mathmatical knowledge to differentiate if what you are saying is "true" or "false" . . .

You can't look at these results are pure percentages though

The figures behind the chart below were not directly involving percentages but instead total performance . . . what I did was to view the total output from both systems and note the actual difference in the numbers . . . like so

1. 27160.90 (AMD® Phenom™ II X6)
2. 28495.40 (Intel® Core™ i7)
3. 1334.50 (Performance difference)

I then lined them up on top of each other using the Intel® numbers as max and then layed the AMD® numbers on top of them and got this chart?

I think I may have used the wrong method of creating the chart but viewing the total output from both systems I don't see how the Intel® advantage doubles? . . . i.e the actual performance data says 1334.50 more but someone you are suggesting this should be 1468.22?

1334.50 >> 1468.22 . . . an extra 133.72 more performance?

This doesn't seem "intuitive" to me but as said before I am no maths genius heh!

for a start the game scores are based on games being run at medium and reduced settings, crank them up to high and both CPU's will be play second fiddle to the video card.

You mean two of the four games FPS results in this one single set of bench results right? . . . so for instance the Far Cry 2 results which show a great 42% advantage to the Intel system would "shrink" if someone in the real world decided to play at max settings? . . . that would totally skew the figures we are discussing right as the GPU would bottleneck and the Intel advantage would diminish further!

If you get any spare time Freddie and your a dab hand with a spreadsheet it would be most appreciated if you can "crunch" any of the other performance charts published in this thread . . . thanks for your feedback and any futher help you can contribute!

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello again RizlaKing!

thanks for taking the time out to write a reply . . .

You ask what the point of OcUK fourms is well simply it is there so people can go read the other stuff on the net and come here to ask end user's if the figures they have read are near to reality in a given spec or buying advice in general not to the tiniest detail.

Hmm interesting, what you are saying appears to contradict what some other forum user has stated . . . I am being told not to google for information and you are saying I should google for information? . . . Personally you are entitled to your "subjective" opinion of what the idea behind these forums are but sadly I do not share your viewpoint . . or at least I can see a better use of these forums where people can "collaborate" on their researching instead of everyone lumped with the task of doing it alone . . . many hands make light work if you will!

They say the "Devil is in the details" . . . I've always been one to pay more attention than normal to details . . . in the case of this thread the tiny detail is a large sum of money which I may have to spend or I may not have to spend . . . I'm doing most of the work so far so I'm not sure how this is cause for complaint . . . . if I was ordering you to help then fair enough you could feel a bit put out!

No one place is ever going to be the definitive yes or no on something unless they are prepared to commit an horrendous amount of resources which no one place will.

I don't see it that way myself . . . I'm prepared to put in the hours and I'm sure a few others are too . . . if your not then that's your call . . . I do think OcUK forums could become quite an "authority" on PC hardware though . . . it's just a matter of people working together to produce and crunch data . . . kinda like parallel processing is you will . . . .

Personally i read at least six reviews i take them all together and any personal experience i have of whatever product (which seems to be the mian problem here as you have stated you don't have that much on these components) and make a choice and with both these cpu's that is possible to do and doesn't need to be this over complicated or time consuming

Your opinion is what is "over complicated or time consuming" is entirely "subjective" . . . If you like to deem a task simple and quickly skim over details I can't complain . . . if I like to immerse myself in collecting, sharing and analysing data on PC hardware and sharing my findings I don't see how anyone can be "justified" in saying I am doing something wrong? . . . I don't see my quest for technical accuracy based on lots of "Fact" is a negative thing for me or a negative thing for anyone else?

My simplistic summing up is correct in what it says that the I7 is generally the faster cpu and that yes there are areas where the X6 is close to it and sometimes ahead of it thats a fact no amibiguity.

Thank you for your "simplistic summing up" . . . It doesn't help me "justify" if I should spend the extra money on the Intel® system though?

There are enough graphs on here to sink a battleship and still we seem to be no nearer to what it is you seem to want i am really not sure there is much else this forum can do to aid in whatever it is you want

I'm still in the early stages of collecting data . . . there is a lot more to come . . . If you want to add some "facts" of your own then I will be most grateful . . . if you feel this topic is perhaps a bit complex for you there is no shame in that . . . come back in a few weeks and perhaps I will be nearer to a conclusion that may be useful to you . . .

and all that seems to be happening is the same ground is being retrodden and the same old animosites coming to the fore.

Really? . . . are you reading my posts or are you being effected by a few Nay-Sayers that are giving you a headache? . . . all I am doing at the moment is going "out there" and bringing data "back here" . . . there is no animosity coming from myself (the O.P) so if you tune into my posts a bit more and ignore the off topic squabbling I'm sure you will see I am making a lot of effort to reach my goals from this thread . . . even if you were to share a little bit of your data you personally collected just for yourself that would help me!

If the question is which cpu is best then it comes down to what your client wants to do with the pc if [they] want to use it in areas where the X6 is ahead then your choice is clear get the X6 being honest unless they are using specific programs the average user will notice very little difference between either cpu. If [they] want it for general computing then the I7 is the way to go that covers yours and his backside more then the X6

The question is not "which cpu is best" but rather which system offers my clients the best "value" . . . . I've already been over this during the thread many times . . . . I am trying to understand what extra "value" will come if I spurge the extra on the Intel® system . . . . your answer appears to be that the "justification" of spending the premium is to "cover my bottom" more than the X6

Already from the "facts" being published in this thread I can see some advantages to the Intel system that work towards "justification" of this premium . . . . perhaps in a week or two I may gain more "insights" into the Intel® Core™ i7 that could result in me spending more money to get more "Value" . . . .

I did read the op but the fact is given how much debate and time your dedicating to this a better use of that might be to tell your client to wai until things get a little clearer if this choice is so difficult to make at this rate so much time will pass that you'll be debating products that are about to be replaced

I understand what you are saying and to some extent you are correct . . . if I was to spend a year on this subject it would probably be a bad thing! . . . . actually though I didn't spend hardly any time at all so far . . . . if some people were to actually contribute some "Facts" I would be closer to my goals . . .

There is no rush here although I would like to order the parts within the next two months . . . .

In the last three months i have built systems using both cpu's for different groups of people and far as i am able to judge it really comes down to what the client wants and most of mine want me to simplify things for them not complicate them to the level this thread has gotten too

Your opinion of what is and what is not complicated is entirely "subjective" . . . if you feel this thread is overly complex for yourself then don't feel compelled to keep posting in it . . . . I won't think any less of you and neither will anyone else . . . it's just there is some big money being spent so I prefere to do my homework . . . If I can draw some conclusions though based on "fact" I think it may be a useful thing for anyone else who is in a similar situation . . . . nanos gigantium humeris insidentes

Also being honest if i was having this degree of trouble making a decision i would inform my client and recommend they replace me with someone else.

Thanks for that RizlaKing, your contribution has been most helpful! . . . take care!

 

[Big.Wayne]

 

[gareth170]

Already from the "facts" being published in this thread I can see some advantages to the Intel system that work towards "justification" of this premium . . . . perhaps in a week or two I may gain more "insights" into the Intel® Core™ i7 that could result in me spending more money to get more "Value" . . . .

but the amount of time it's taking u to do this, the new tech will be here or very near....

i've never seen anybody spend this much amount of time trying to find out which is more value...

life is short. the world could end tomorrow....

also all i'm seeing here is results from review sites. u need real world results from people, not review sites

 

[wannabedamned]

What are you still struggling to figure out? Everyone else seems to have done it already, how come you're still lagging behind?

Hexcore if your client is going to be using hexcore optimized programs
Hexcore if your client isn't willing to pay the extra for the I7

I7 if your client is willing to pay for it, isn't looking at using hexcore optimized programs constantly and is wanting the extra 10+% performance available in some tasks
I7 if your client wants to benefit from the more powerful cores and see improvements in anything optimized for 1-4 cores.

 

[RizlaKing]

I may not be upto the standard you seem to feel you are with all this but i have never had a single complaint from any of my clients and never skim when it comes to spending money other then my own. Also i have always dealt with the requirements of my clients in a speedy and efficient way taking as much or as little time as is needed by my clients to completely satisfy the needs of my clients. In the past i have also told a client i was not sufficiently knowledgeable on certain components and recommended them to someone i knew at the time that was.

An action that gave me initial misgivings on passing up business but was greatly appreciated by my client and has led to me getting a great deal of work from them for my honesty. Being totally honest with you i feel you may be in the same situation where it might be better for your client and yourself to pass on this one get familiar with the components in hand and be able to make a speedier decision for future clients.

Either way despite your claim to want to garner help and opinion on this subject that is not the way this thread is coming across, it is coming across as an agenda being served without being totally forthcoming about it so i am more then happy to leave you to it for you to head off in whatever direction you see fit.

To help in that i would urge others who may feel the same as me to also leave the thread allowing the others you mention and yourself to make the thread what you want.

 

[D13]

bad idea doing another AMD Phenom II X6 vs. Intel Core i7 thread tbh....

anyway. it depends on how much u wanna spend and if u wanna spend it all.

i havent read the whole thread but tbh this just shows that you cant really go wrong choosing either, they will both eat up anything thrown at it.

 

[Big.Wayne]

 

[gareth170]

his STILL posting review sites stuff...

is it just me that thinks posting review sites stuff is pointless.. real world results from people is better.....

 

[wannabedamned]

What is it your client is doing exactly? Dual, TRi and Single GTX 285s?

I thought he was looking at a rendering or an optimized encoder to go with a Hexcore not a gaming rig?

* Encoding/Re-Encoding & Rendering Duties

I mean if you're lookin into this so thoroughly for the best processor then why not look into the graphics card too? A rendering card should be something like a Quadro or FireGL

Also 4gb vs 6gb ram, if you're looking into big rendering jobs then more RAM is beneficial over less. Especially if you're multitasking.

 

[Fire Wizard]

Guys, if you disagree with some of the things in this thread, feel free to say but please do so in a constructive manner. If you're getting tired of the thread or simply don't want to participate in it any more then that's fine, but please refrain from posting in here.

Thank you.

 

[Big.Wayne]

 

[PhoenixUK]

Wall of benchmarks crits you for over 9000.
You die.

 

[Mr Krugga]

The consequences will never be the same.