-
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.
4p
- Thread starter Big.Wayne
- Start date
- Status
Off topic: I wonder how an i3 @ 4.6Ghz would compare to my QX @ 4.2?
Mmmm
I imagine that it would depend on the workload (single/multithreaded).
That was the whole thing. The original post was to show that you can get TWO decent AMD machines for the cost of one Intel machine.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 798
- Location
- Dover, Kent
I have been an AMD fanboy for a very long time, but only recently turned to Intel and got a Q9550. I am a gamer but also a Practical Digital Media student who does a lot of work on Premiere, After Effects and making very large documents in Photoshop. So have I made the right choice with my processor? Or should I have really bought an AMD and watercooled it with the money left?
You're missing a fan.
My intel basket is two of everything too.
Sorry, you're right. The image wasn't displaying properly for me.
I haven't actually seen a comparison of Core i3 to Athlon II X4, would be interesting...
Hello easyrider, how are you? . . . good I hope?
Well I hoped my point was abundantly obvious but I clearly didn't put enough enough into my opening post so I'm sorry for that!
What I was hoping to achieve is to show some forum members what terrific value can be had by choosing AMD Athlon II X4 instead of an Intel® Core™ i7, of course we have many different types of enthusiasts in this great community of ours so the AMD Athlon II series will not fit everyone needs, as JonJ678 and Happy have succinctly replied there are a few scenarios where Core™ i7 clearly proves it's worth . . . albeit at a large price premium
This post was very much aimed at people who *perhaps* were thinking of splurging on a full blown Intel® Core™ i7 system and I was simply offering up the AMD Athlon II X4 as an alternative for their consideration . .
Your suggestion of Intel® Core™ i3 is a good alternative although that is not the main focus of discussion, one step at a time, lets deal with Intel® Core™ i7 first then a new thread can be made to disseminate the pros and cons of the new Core™ i3 . . .
I'm sorry you feel that way and I perhaps wonder what I could do so you find my posts more pleasing? . . . I am a hardware enthusiast just like everyone else and enjoy making posts and discussing hardware, I've recently switched over from LGA775 to socket AM2+/AM3 so my three year long run of making posts about LGA775 has sadly come to a close.Ram AMD home as much as you like. But its getting boring. Intel offer great bang for buck...Its just that you are wearing AMD Blinkers my friend.
Regarding the "wearing AMD Blinkers" comment, in fairness I would say I have been wearing LGA775 blinkers which have just been removed and I can now take in the full hardware vista and I am seeing lots of great alternatives.
Hopefully you are able to join us soon playing with the new hardware . . . are you any nearer to placing an order yet? . . . have you decided which platform/chip is suitable for your personal needs/budget yet?
Do you think the Athlon II X4 offers a good alternative to the Intel® Core™ i7
I like cheaper, especially when the cheaper option offers such great performance, as always though if you pay more you get more, keep spending the money £££ and the performance just gets better and better but it's always been that way right. If Intel® were offering better performance *and* a better price then I dare say I would be using Intel® right now!There is a reason AMD are cheaper...They have to be in order to compete in the Market...Its not rocket science. It really is that simple.
The Athlon II chips and AMD platform is really great and I think offers a very cost effective solution for the power user. For those people who prefere to buy hardware to Mame & Destroy other hardware I dare say the Athlon II series if not the right pick . . . but for people with limited budgets who want a good multipurpose platform I believe the Athlon II is just the ticket!
I have an i7 as my main system, usage consists of gaming, encoding, watching hi-def films. My current second rig is an amd s939 setup (actually was very expensive when first purchased, £240.00 for 4000 cpu). However that system is practically on its last legs. Im considering replacing the core components with another amd setup, the prices are very good at present.
Hello Mr Pie!
I do think the i3 offers a solution that some will find pleasing but the danger comes from people not realising how good the AMD stuff is because for one reason or another some other forum members will always *only* talk about the most powerful hardware and make the cheaper options sound slow, laggy, incapable etc
I believe the rhetoric some people are using is misleading and doesn't do the AMD products any justice at all, all this talk of "Destroying, Grinding into dust, Ripping apart" is funny don't you think? . . . it sounds like the sort of thing my 7 year old godson uses when playing with his Power-Rangers or Ben-Ten toys!
I understand some people in this forum really must have the most powerful hardware but I think its fair to say some of us need the most powerful hardware we can get for the money and I can see no good reason why people shouldn't have an AMD rig in their pick list. It would be quite self defeating for us to only recommended the Intel kit as in the worst case scenario *if* Intel were to become the only supplier of processors we would all be well and truely ******
In order to get Intel where we want them we have to get behind AMD, people are still getting great performance and saving money £££ doing this but in the long run I would hope it would promote better pricing and more competition which equals a better deal for all of us!
Seems the amd 620 is better at rendering and the intel 530 is better at games.
http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/...i-x4-620-2-6ghz-performance-benchmarks-68833/
http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/...i-x4-620-2-6ghz-performance-benchmarks-68833/
I'm good mate, You?
Well I hoped my point was abundantly obvious but I clearly didn't put enough enough into my opening post so I'm sorry for that!
I'm not sure its a relevant comparison though really. The i7 is top end.
If you are going to compare intel with AMD you should compare both top end intel and top end AMD? No?
Phenom II against i7 not
Athlon II against i7
This is AMD's top end chip is it not? Why choose midrange AMD and compare to top end i7? Of course one is going to have a premium price tag...
AMD Phenom II X4 Quad Core 965 Black Edition 3.40GHz (Socket AM3) - Retail
£143.98 inc VAT
But ones mid range and the other top end.
Is the Phenom II X4 Quad Core 965 Black Edition 3.40GHz (Socket AM3) -at
£143.98 inc VAT good value?
To me this is pricey when you can get an i5 chip for the same money and have a faster PC..
intel mobo's are around the same price as AMD
I think people want the fastest PC for their money,,And if its intel then thry buy that.
Why buy mid range if you have the budget for i7?
i7 does not belong in a discussion when compared to mid range AMD's offereings in Athlon II
There are alternatives but you only currently see the beauty in AMD when i3 looks great fun and offers great perfromance for the same outlay as Athlon II
Hopefully you are able to join us soon playing with the new hardware . . . are you any nearer to placing an order yet? . . . have you decided which platform/chip is suitable for your personal needs/budget yet?
Very soon this coming pay day..I have seen some i7 920's got for 115 quid used so I might buy one of them.
No its a hell of a lot slower
I like cheaper, especially when the cheaper option offers such great performance, as always though if you pay more you get more, keep spending the money £££ and the performance just gets better and better but it's always been that way right. If Intel® were offering better performance *and* a better price then I dare say I would be using Intel® right now!
You're a gamer no? Then i3 is faster than athlon II in games for the same price.
The Athlon II chips and AMD platform is really great and I think offers a very cost effective solution for the power user. For those people who prefere to buy hardware to Mame & Destroy other hardware I dare say the Athlon II series if not the right pick . . . but for people with limited budgets who want a good multipurpose platform I believe the Athlon II is just the ticket!
Is i3 not just a good solution for the same budget?
Last edited:
Hello JeffyB,
could I kindy ask you to concentrate on the topic of discussion please!
Intel® Core™ i7 vs AMD® Athlon™ II
If you have any performance comparisons of the above two processors please feel free to link them up and together as a group we can disseminate the information and analyse the Bang-For-Buck/Price/Performance Ratio
Indeed the Intel® Core™ i7 is top end and is a great target for comparison with the 100% cheaper Athlon II X4 i.e we can analyse exactly what the huge price premium offers the variety of users who may be contemplating the i7 route . . .
No I don't believe so, the comparison between Intel's Flagship platform and AMD's midrange platform serves a purpose which is to highlight the diminishing returns some *may* experience depending on usage . . . i.e. if one spends 100% extra then one should expect a very substantial advantage no?
Please feel free to make a thread discussing whatever you wish however I have made this thread to highlight the Price/Performance Ratio specifically between a costly Intel flagship platform and an affordable AMD platform. I am not comparing Phenom II, Core i3/i5 . . . I am comparing Athlon II and Core i7
I agree . . . however there are two *variables* in your statement
- What is their budget (money)
- What tasks are they gonna be doing (fastest)
Why buy i7 if you can slash the budget in half by buying mid range?
Please remember that not everyone is like yourself, some of us just want a very fast PC and don't care to spend more money than is needed. If you are a competitive bencher/folder or simply have a really serious daily workload there is good reason to spend extra money but trust me the Athlon II is no slouch and for the money it is extremely hard to beat
I believe it does hence why I made this thread . . . they are both bits of hardware and therefore they can both be compared? . . . the fact that one is 100% more expensive than the other only makes it easier to illustrate the concept of diminishing returns that a lot of people may or may not encounter . . . because lets face it, if your paying a 100% extra for something you kinda expect a really, really big advantage right?
Last edited:
Hello JeffyB,
could I kindy ask you to concentrate on the topic of discussion please!
Intel® Core™ i7 vs AMD® Athlon™ II
If you have any performance comparisons of the above two processors please feel free to link them up and together as a group we can disseminate the information and analyse the Bang-For-Buck/Price/Performance Ratio
I was merely following where many had taken the thread and offered a link to a more comparable CPU to the 620. Here's a 920 and 620 comparrison. The performance index shows the 620 offers on average 70% of the performance of the i7 920 for half the cost. It's a good gain for the extra cost and not near the diminishing returns for a lot of budgets. In some tests the i7 is over twice as fast, justifying it's price for many users in time saved.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...compare,1380.html?prod[2617]=on&prod[2781]=on
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 947
I quite like your arguement between the two.
For example, a gamer without an endless cash supply, may stretch to your i7, but would either expect to keep their rig for say 3-4 years, or get a mid-high end card like the 5770/5850. By getting the AMD rig mentioned for example, rather than the i7, then the saved dosh could
A) be used to upgrade the G card to at least say a 5870,
or
B) Have a rig in the average>high end pc bracket the now, and then upgrade in say a year/two using the saved cash. At which point, you could sell your gear thats only say a year old, and use that with your saved dosh toget a better system than buying the i7 now, and keeping for 3-5 years.
Both options would give you the ability of a better graphics card, or a better average system, with a higher return on resale, as you are only keeping your rig for say 1-2 years.
The question is, would you really see a difference in games at the moment with the athlon rig - I dont think much if anything at all tbh.
I think what would be a good to follow this through, would be to discuss systems to fit different budgets/longer term upgrade paths etc.
I.e for raw performance or unlimited budget is likely going to be intel, but a gaming rig all in for <1k imo is possibly still likely to be amd.
It all really depends on your use, budget, how often you wish/tend to upgrade etc.
For example, a gamer without an endless cash supply, may stretch to your i7, but would either expect to keep their rig for say 3-4 years, or get a mid-high end card like the 5770/5850. By getting the AMD rig mentioned for example, rather than the i7, then the saved dosh could
A) be used to upgrade the G card to at least say a 5870,
or
B) Have a rig in the average>high end pc bracket the now, and then upgrade in say a year/two using the saved cash. At which point, you could sell your gear thats only say a year old, and use that with your saved dosh toget a better system than buying the i7 now, and keeping for 3-5 years.
Both options would give you the ability of a better graphics card, or a better average system, with a higher return on resale, as you are only keeping your rig for say 1-2 years.
The question is, would you really see a difference in games at the moment with the athlon rig - I dont think much if anything at all tbh.
I think what would be a good to follow this through, would be to discuss systems to fit different budgets/longer term upgrade paths etc.
I.e for raw performance or unlimited budget is likely going to be intel, but a gaming rig all in for <1k imo is possibly still likely to be amd.
It all really depends on your use, budget, how often you wish/tend to upgrade etc.
i like them both!
intel and AMD do the job great, all depends on the persons budget!
ive had a mix of the to, and all been great for me , currently have a Intel Q6600 but built a few systems around the cheapest AMD X2 processor, and they have been flawless!
intel and AMD do the job great, all depends on the persons budget!
ive had a mix of the to, and all been great for me , currently have a Intel Q6600 but built a few systems around the cheapest AMD X2 processor, and they have been flawless!
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 5,060
- Location
- In the ether
Interesting thread. My view is that CPU performance has been exceeding the requirements for average users for years, in fact it probably peaked at the 1Ghz P3, which is demonstrated by the recent popularity of low powered netbooks.
To be totally honest, the only things powering CPU size growth in recent years is gaming and scientific usage.
To be totally honest, the only things powering CPU size growth in recent years is gaming and scientific usage.
And encoding?
- Status