4p

[Big.Wayne]

Cheaper for *two* excellent AMD® Athlon™ II X4 than one Intel® Core™ i7

Much has been made of AMD's inability to compete with Intel's fastest processors in the extreme enthusiast market. To be blunt, this is true. Yet while AMD has no ready answer for the Core i7 processor, it's also true that the majority of computer buyers will never need the power a Core i7 processor provides, or justify the cost of such a PC either. Judging by the latest road maps, AMD is focusing much of its efforts on infusing bang into budget-priced processors, so you might want to think twice about building a Core i5 LGA1156 PC right now.

What are you thought's about this? . . . do you think the Intel® Core™ i7 is worth a 100% price premium?

Honestly, I can't put my finger on it but something is bugging me about Intel® lately . . . they seem to be releasing products that do not appeal to me personally which makes me feel a bit left out i.e I seem not to fit into their preconceived idea of the market!

They have some brilliant engineers and all that but I'm not sure if they understand the market? . . . maybe it's me that doesn't the market but I certainly do understand the computer enthusiast as I've been one for years and I also read all your posts and I have a pretty good idea what your like too! . . . do you feel *connected* with Intel atm, are their products hitting the sweetspot for you personally?

This is intended to be a discussion and I am genuinely interested to hear peoples viewpoints . . . My personal thoughts are that I also see a lot of people buying computers that won't offer them good value . . . I know a few users really do benefit but I would wager they are a small majority compared to the users who don't know any better and come to OcUK forums in the hope of getting some good advice for their next builds and walk away with an expensive Nehalem . . .

I would like to think that people will *not* forget two of the basic principles of overclocking . . .

• Bang-For-Buck
• Price/Performance Ratio

I just hope that more people become aware of the huge price premium intel are charging for products that do not empower you as much as you would believe and I hope to see more *enthusiasts* buying into AMD as IMHO they really do understand us better . . .

With a record sales forecast predicted this first quarter I can see why Paul is happy but . . . if you want cheaper Intel® products or design that you feel hits the spot then it's time to start buying AMD® . . . their products are better than you realise!

Paul S. Otellini - President and Chief Executive Officer - Intel® Corporation

 

[Nico_Joey]

Hmm when you put it like that...

Seems i have been missing out on somthing very special with AMD. Intresting read thx.

 

[Didaco]

bragging rights mate
i can assure you most of the time its the reason for buying i7
ps i dont have an i7 or an athalon i have a stupid pentium d

 

[StarGazerX]

That was a good read, thanks . Although I'm relatively new to the whole overclocking scene, I'd consider myself to be an AMD (bang-for-buck) guy.

I have grown tired while lurking of people requesting a full on i7 setup for games like CS:S, where it's just not necessary.

Hopefully your post will inform more people that there is another option to Intel.
Personally I can't wait to see what AMD has in-store for this year.

 

[cavemanoc]

This is exactly why I bought my new rig around the AMD Phenom II X2 Dual Core 550 - at £70ish (assuming I get lucky) it's an incredibly cheap quad-core with enough overclocking headroom to keep the 'itch' at bay, and enough performance to keep the games flying.

As you mentioned - I am definitely in the 'bang-for-buck' catagory - but then I've always been like that - I always went for the Opty 165 over the FX range

 

[pieman109]

I've just converted all the pcs in our house to AMD phenoms II systems. Me daughter needs a tri or quad cpu now shes using photoshop CS3 (god, its expensive though) for her graphics design degree course, I've just got a 955 BE 'cos I wanted one, (no other reason,) so the spare 550BE went in me son's pc.

 

[JonJ678]

This is a complicated issue, however I'll try to keep this coherent. I'm using cpu folding@home as the benchmark for my argument, as it ignores graphics cards and gives a fair indication of raw processing "power". It's a program which gives you points for finishing a given amount of calculation, the faster the cpu the less time each block takes, so leading to points-per-day or ppd as a measure of processing speed.

Firstly computer performance is always in terms of bottlenecks. This limiting factor will depend on use, a gaming computer will need powerful graphics cards or these will be the slowest link. One doing intensive numerical work doesn't need any graphics card at all. So an i7 @ 4ghz with 8800gt is graphics card limited for gaming, but processor limited for cpu folding at home. The "goal" is to keep the system balanced for the task it is nominally built for. Ideally you want ram, cpu and graphics card to all be the limiting factor at once, so improving any one of them makes no difference but weakening any will slow the system down.

This is different to "bang for buck" as the term is normally used. It's important to remember that performance/price has to be in terms of intended use, and this is often neglected. For gaming, I'm sure the amd quad core in the OP has the i7 thrashed, as the system is very likely to be graphics card limited. For folding at home I'm much less sure. The stock x4 620 gets 4k ppd. The stock i7 920 gets 6.5k ppd. I haven't looked for overclocked results as I have no idea what a "normal" overclock is on the amd. This suggests the i7 is about 50% faster than the amd at stock, so the gap is narrowed. I suspect it narrows further when overclocked, as the i7 breaks 4ghz easily and I don't believe the amd does.

However, say you want a processor/motherboard/ram that is as fast as you can afford, because your intended use is cpu bound. Taking your example, the two amd rigs combined would get 8k ppd, the single i7 6.5k. However given the duplication of other hardware: cases, psus, graphics card etc it's no longer going to be two amd rigs for the same price as the intel. Approximately £50 case, £50 psu, network boot, no graphics card (so as little duplication as possible) gives £585 for the intel, £685 for the amd. £ per 1k ppd for intel is then £90, for the amd £85. The gap is then pretty close. If you wanted a basic graphics card, keyboard and so forth I believe you'll find they have the same price per ppd. This leads to the conclusion that for cpu intensive work, the two alternatives are the same price per performance.

The kicker is that the i7 system does all this in one box, so there's no issue splitting the load across the two loads, no networking costs, software compatibility is much improved. Running a two computer cluster would be difficult, and the price/per performance improvement for amd would need to be significant to justify the hassle involved. The price per ppd is near equal, this makes the i7 system a no-brainer for computational work.

My personal opinion is that the faster the processor, the better (linearly, not just faster is better until gpu limited). Paying half the price for one that's half the speed only makes sense if you can't afford the faster option. As such I think the x58 950 makes no sense, as the performance per pound relative to the x58 920 is much worse. However I wouldn't buy the amd you've linked, as it's half the price for half the processing ability.

I look forward to your response.

 

[cb_linus]

<snip>

^Agree with much of that but affordability is a real world measurable and plenty of budgets won't justify the i7 if the amd system can do the same and better for the same cost, my argument centre around the gaming enthusiast pc and sticking to a long/medium-term budget:

- AMD System - £240 for initial upgrade then spend £240 (plus money made from selling old gpu) on a new gpu in a year or two's time - same overall cost as the initial i7 upgrade, but the limiting factor is improved, making for a faster overall gaming system.

- Intel System - £480 but still limited by the old gpu unless you spend extra above the initial £480 budget. Further improvements as a gaming machine will need a spend above the initial £480 (minus any money made from selling old gpu).

The faster the processor the better perhaps but as long as you can actually use and benefit from the extra processing power, otherwise why spend extra on something that won't make a difference for what you use the pc for? I'm not suggesting the AMD system is better, as personally the Intel range is looking the better choice for me - the i7 920 doesn't justify the 100% price premium for my uses but their are other Intel & AMD chips available which for me would be better than both chips given in the op's examples (I'm looking for a fast cpu with low power consumption / quietness).

 

[Adrianr]

Will be interesting to see what tasks are offloaded onto the GPU and how much of a role CPU's will even play in their current dominating arena. May be the better idea in time to build a system with a cheaper CPU and badass GPU than the otherway round.

 

[Big.Wayne]

This is a complicated issue, however I'll try to keep this coherent. I'm using cpu folding@home as the benchmark for my argument

Hi JonJ678,

I mentioned in the first post there are "a few users who really do benefit but I would wager they are a small majority compared to the users who don't" . . . from what you are saying it would seem you fit into one of these specialized niches. I like folding@home myself and try to contribute to the cause by folding for at least one or two months every year, my contribution is probably quite small compared to yourself or any other folding specialist but every little helps . . .



I admire people that donate their time and money to helping scientific research but it is not my personal primary reason for building and owning a computer and I would *assume* the same for a great majority of other OcUK forum users . . .

I would also add that while your motivations for being a folding@home zealot may be genuine and noble there is always the possibility you *maybe* are using this as Justification? . . . I would have thought someone who is truely passionate about folding enough to buy top end folding kit would also be very vocal about the subject and try to recruit as many people into the folding scene as possible yet I have never heard you speak about PPD before and I have never seen a post from you in the OcUK Distributed Computing Projects subforum . . . this does not mean you are any less a committed folder as you may contribute to another team and don't want to ruffle feathers and you may just feel satisfied that you are doing your bit without bangin on about it every other post! . . . I do wonder though Jon . . is there any chance you have become a folder to justify having £££ expensive kit or did you buy the expensive kit to become a serious folder? . . . are you running multiple nVidia graphics cards for really serious PPD? . . . is folding the be-all-and-end-all of modern computing to you? . . . and is the hardware advice you give to others influenced by this? . . . please take these as genuine questions and I hope no offence is caused, I know lots of people in real life and I know lots of people in the online community but not many of them have even heard of folding@home let alone run it?

Aside from folding and other scientific uses I can see the strength of Nehalem . . . it really is a formula 1 car when used in the right context but I question it's value and positioning in the High-Street!

If Intel® Made Cars . . . the school run could be a lot more interesting albeit a lot more costly £££

 

[twist3d0n3]

i'd happily buy one of them for a second rig/home server - not a bad price at all for core components

gonna have 2 spare 4870's when i get my 5970 sorted

TEMPTING

 

[lemzip]

i'd happily buy one of them for a second rig/home server - not a bad price at all for core components

gonna have 2 spare 4870's when i get my 5970 sorted

TEMPTING

yep and it will run very well, can confirm. With the 4870's it will be a uber budget rig.

 

[Happy]

Did you buy the expensive kit to continue to be a serious folder? . . . are you running multiple nVidia graphics cards for really serious PPD? . . . is folding the be-all-and-end-all of modern computing to you?

Check, check and check Well when it's on anyway

Good argument Wayne, I hadn't realised how much bang for your buck AMD offered these days. I have an AMD 6000X2 that's woefully slow and hot compared to it's C2D counterparts (when it was released) and as such have not really taken a good look at their offerings since.

 

[1kiwi]

I went intel over 2.5 years ago (after a very long break from desktop computers), because at the time the Q6600 was simply the best overclocking quad core around. It also had allot support from other forum members.

It wasn't expensive compared to the QX models, but provided me with a 1.2Ghz overclock (to 3.6 - air) and a substantial improvement in the 2 games I played (crysis & cod4).

I then brought a second hand cherry picked QX for 300 to overclock past 3.6Ghz, not because of any real need but because I'm an enthusiast.

My point is, these days very little applications really push a top end CPU and thus I'm not really sure you can justify most people's decisions to buy top end gear. Remember, we as enthusiasts make up a tiny percentage of the overall market.

I do however think that price/performance argument is relative for the 90% or so people who buy processes based on the standard clock speed.

If AMD released a quad core chip that consistently overclocked better than a 920 D0 (happy to be proven wrong here) then I'm sure people would buy it. I love AMD as much as everyone but until they start making cutting edge processors I'm not going to buy one.

 

[BIGBC]

I have 2 rigs:
i7 920 D0 @ 3.8GHz, 6GB DDR3 1595MHz, 9800GX2 . . .
PII 550 unlocked to X4 B50, 4GB DDR3 1600MHz, 5770 . . .

The PII rig is seriously overspec for what I use it for (secondary gaming, LAN box, HTPC, downloads) whereas the 920 pretty much fullfills my task beautifully atm (CAD modeling and simulation, rendering, primary gaming and general work rig).

I could probably turn the overclock down and take a marginal hit on run times for the simulations and rendering but why would I?

There is always a premium to be payed for the performance hardware - and I honestly think its worth it. Ive also always preffered Intel systems, something just feels much nicer when running them.

After some of the heated discussions that have gone on here recently I tried using my PII rig as my primary for a day and it just wasnt upto it, I would happily pay 4 times the price to get the performance increase that I do, fortunately it only cost about double.

Now all that I have said has really supported you, as you have said to Jon - maybe we are in the few. When it comes to gaming I have monitored my 920 and it is always throttled down a considerable amount, it just doesnt consider the load that great. MW2 averages 2.6GHz @ 60% load. However I have switched the GPUs out between my two rigs to compare, and the Intel always feels better. Not just to me.

 

[Duke]

Big.Wayne I have followed your posts on here quite a bit and you certainly help a lot of people but I'm not sure where this sudden AMD fan boy bit has come from? Every post is about AMD. Got a new job?

 

[Big.Wayne]

Check, check and check Well when it's on anyway

Hey Happy!

I know you are a keen folder having read many of your posts, I am interested to know a little more though . . . Would you consider yourself a competitive folder first and a doer of good deeds second or the other way round . . .

What I am keen to know is do you personally get the same *high* from PPD as say a competitive bencher chasing the 3DMark world record and is the extra expenditure justified because of this? i.e is that one of the things that gives you a kick . . parp parp etc

I've always folded on the side and have never thought of designing and building a computer based around a lust for PPD, having said that I have choosen a nVidia graphics card in the past over an ATI card because I found the nVidia card was just so much better with the GPGPU stuff but that was a secondary decision, the primary reason was to game and in that respect I am happy with either an nVidia or ATI card but the nVidia card just edged it for its better folding capability . . .

Thanks for your feedback, it's always interesting to hear peoples thoughts!

I hadn't realised how much bang for your buck AMD offered these days

Well it sounds like you got the right hardware for the tasks you run but take my word on it that the newer AMD kit is really nice . . . I bought one of their budget Athlon II X3's a few months ago and I'm impressed, really nice product at an incredible price, this is in fact the cheapest processor I have ever bought in my life and I was not expecting too much . . . however my expectations were not only met they were exceeded . . . coming from a 4GHz Dual Core Wolfdale I have not noticed my PC suddenly lagging up, I'm not left wanting in anyway and ended up with about £80 more in my pocket after moving from LGA775 to AM2+

Just a humble triple core @ 3.6GHz air cooled costing less than 25% of the asking price of the cheapest Intel® Core™ i7 . . . terrible value I tell you!

 

[zo1d]

You've really got me thinking, I'm considering an upgrade as I have the opportunity to rebuild a PC for someone using my current board (Gigabyte 965 DS3P), cpu (E6600), and ram (4GB OCZ) but hadn't even really considered going AMD. Thing is I know very little about the AMD lineup of current products, could someone point me in the right direction to get information on how they perform, overclock, power consumption etc (including the motherboard chipsets) compared to Intel.

I was going to go for an i5 upgrade but maybe an AMD Phenom II chip maybe the tricore or quadcore could be a viable alternative, my system is mainly used for gaming 50%, office & web browsing 30%, running VMWorkstations for application package developement 20%...

Many thanks,

 

[Big.Wayne]

If AMD released a quad core chip that consistently overclocked better than a 920 D0 (happy to be proven wrong here) then I'm sure people would buy it

Hello beh*,

thanks for the feedback!

couple of questions . . . . would you say your primary decision on the hardware you purchase is based on how well they overclock? and who or what are you relying on to give you this information? . . . I assume you are not hand testing all the hardware yourself so are you taking advice from people on these forums or recommendations made from web review sites? (or a combination of both?)

Are you running a specialist set of software/tasks or are you perhaps a competive bencher of some sort? . . . . If I was to send in a team of ninjas to swap out your Intel System Core for an AMD system Core while you slept would you notice the *downgrade* from the way you use a computer and the things you do? . . . if you would can you give me an example, hopefully something that isn't a benchmark of course

I love AMD as much as everyone but until they start making cutting edge processors I'm not going to buy one.

I am under the impression that the latest AMD chips are cutting edge? . . .at least that's my personal perception, admittedly not as fast in some tasks as the latest Intel kit but the AMD stuff is certainly fast enough to blaze through most demanding workloads and then some . . . all this for a very reasonable price! . . . .we should be all over it in these forums as that's what we do I thought? . . . that is take a piece of coal and make it into a Diamond, not take a Diamond and make it into a better Diamond?

Each to their own of course but I hope to see even the most diehard power user picking up a little AMD box to evaluate/dip their tow in . . . sitting side by side with their 100% more expensive hardware I expect most will be suprised at how well the little pocket rocket keeps up!

 

[twist3d0n3]

yep and it will run very well, can confirm. With the 4870's it will be a uber budget rig.

unfortunately i've got a e8400 and q9450 sitting doing nothing at the mo, so 775 server and 3rd rig has to be done really