• 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.

AMD Phenom II x6 cores vs Intel® Core™ i7 980X Extreme Edition Processor

-fedexer- said:
the £500 odd difference is ouchy.
Click to expand...

Well let me put to you as Intel sees it, they have the fastest CPU on the planet have AMD got anything that comes near to it? No, hence why Intel can charge a huge premium and if people or companies weren’t prepared to pay that much then they would drop the price by as is the way in life exclusivity is rare commodity and what do rare things cost? £££.
 
The Intel 6 cores are made on the 32nm process which makes them more expensive to manufacture, whereas all the other high-end chips are still on the old 45nm.
 
-fedexer- said:
Hmm i think i might try downgrading then... i could always pick up the 980X later when it comes down in price.

I wonder what sort of prices i can look at if i downgrade somewhat, maybe get it around the £1k mark.. instead of >£2k
Click to expand...

The 980x isn't really worth it just for it's unlocked multiplier as it's performance doesn't justify its just price compared to non-extreme editions. You're better off getting a 930 and overclocking it. You can overclock a 930 to 4-4.5ghz which is phenomenal.
 
Sounds to me like the OP would be just fine with a cheap x6 or i7 rig around the 800budget and just has too much money to spend and thinks he'll get triple the performance for paying triple price.

2 480s wont run game any faster than 1 480, 200fps isnt any more playable than 50-60fps. Total waste of money. Those setups are made for multi monitor, not for a 1680x1050 gaming.
 
PhoenixUK said:
Sounds to me like the OP would be just fine with a cheap x6 or i7 rig around the 800budget and just has too much money to spend and thinks he'll get triple the performance for paying triple price.

2 480s wont run game any faster than 1 480, 200fps isnt any more playable than 50-60fps. Total waste of money. Those setups are made for multi monitor, not for a 1680x1050 gaming.
Click to expand...

This. If you want 6-core, go AMD. If you want quad, go i7. One 480 will do the job, as would a 5870. Job done.
 
I have a 980X(@4.2) in a prebuilt system form Overclockers http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-143-OE Not cheap, in know, but even coming from a QX9650 (i like going Extreme:)) the 980 seems as fast to the QX9650, as the 9650 did to my single core Athlon FX-55 (another high-end cpu when it came out).

In crysis for example, i get more frames on a GTX480 (sli disabled for this test), than i did for a ATI 5970 in my older system, with a MINIMUM frame rate almost high as the AVERAGE on my ATI card. Its has to do with other components though, of course, slower ddr2 ram, StrikerII formual mobo, so-so har drive.. Its the "complete package" that will give you a overall boost rather than just a processor.
 
Last edited:
click


980X vs i7 920 = 6fps diff, and that's only due to the clock speed difference, both can be OCed to same lvl on air/water so they're actually the same in gaming clock for clock.

Phenom IIs arent much far behind, just few fps less and even old dual cores (555BE / E8400 ) are within 15% difference.

So well, looks like any of the difference you have noticed is due to everything that you've changed apart from that overpriced CPU ; ).
 
You cant compare 1 gaming result, with the actual power of the CPU. If you look at the link you gave, the fastest place went to a dual core hyperthreading i5 670.

Clock for clock the i7 still beats everything in raw numbercrunching, and both intel and AMD offer hex core processors, but only worth considering if you know you can make use of so many cores.

For gaming most games struggle to make use of more than 2 cores (with Ati) and 3 cores (with Nvidia).. It seems that Nvidia's drivers actually put a bigger amount of work on multicore cpu's than ATi's.
 
glen8 said:
The only people who buy the extreme editions of processors are people with money to burn

Nobody NEEDS them as the cheaper versions can usually overclock giving a similar performance. Granted the extreme can overclock further but I doubt in the real world (ie, applications and games) you NEED an extreme edition.
Click to expand...

Historically you have a point, the 975 only made sense over the 920 if you were running significantly below ambient temperatures. In this case however you're incorrect. A 32nm six core chip cannot be reasonably compared to a 45nm quad core. The 980X is one of the few extreme edition chips that can justify its price tag; a dual cpu board with two quad cores costs significantly more than a single hex core chip.
 
the amd six cores seem to get the performance of in and around 920/860 i7s while the 980x processor just eats anything alive tbh its just a overpriced gimic as nothing really needs that kind of power or 6 cores atm....
 
Corasik said:
You cant compare 1 gaming result, with the actual power of the CPU. If you look at the link you gave, the fastest place went to a dual core hyperthreading i5 670.

Clock for clock the i7 still beats everything in raw numbercrunching, and both intel and AMD offer hex core processors, but only worth considering if you know you can make use of so many cores.

For gaming most games struggle to make use of more than 2 cores (with Ati) and 3 cores (with Nvidia).. It seems that Nvidia's drivers actually put a bigger amount of work on multicore cpu's than ATi's.
Click to expand...

I know that, I was just referring to the guy above who was saying that upgrading from Q9650 to 980X gave him better FPS in crysis ; ). Which it doesn't.
 
PhoenixUK said:
click


980X vs i7 920 = 6fps diff, and that's only due to the clock speed difference, both can be OCed to same lvl on air/water so they're actually the same in gaming clock for clock.

Phenom IIs arent much far behind, just few fps less and even old dual cores (555BE / E8400 ) are within 15% difference.

So well, looks like any of the difference you have noticed is due to everything that you've changed apart from that overpriced CPU ; ).
Click to expand...

You don't buy a 980x for mainly gaming, it's best in multi threaded applications like rendering and transcoding

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/39 27058 vs 16211
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/28 48.8 vs 27
 
Antx777 said:
I have a 980X(@4.2) in a prebuilt system form Overclockers http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-143-OE Not cheap, in know, but even coming from a QX9650 (i like going Extreme:)) the 980 seems as fast to the QX9650, as the 9650 did to my single core Athlon FX-55 (another high-end cpu when it came out).

In crysis for example, i get more frames on a GTX480 (sli disabled for this test), than i did for a ATI 5970 in my older system, with a MINIMUM frame rate almost high as the AVERAGE on my ATI card. Its has to do with other components though, of course, slower ddr2 ram, StrikerII formual mobo, so-so har drive.. Its the "complete package" that will give you a overall boost rather than just a processor.
Click to expand...

and why dont you read that ? he's just sayin if you want the best you have to pay the best but all in all its an alrounded system which will give the most performance not a extreme edition cpu not a Asus ares or Mars GPU its a balance off good high end componants (and besides hes proberly just talking overall just using crysis as an example)
 
Last edited:
well wouldnt that just make unlocked cpu's useless ? as the only reason you get a cpu with an unlocked multi is to overclock ?
 
gareth170 said:
well they could know if the cores or other parts the cpu are slightly burnt. or something
Click to expand...

Proving how that was done though is almost impossible.

A cpu is more likely to suffer damage by someone not seating the heatsink properly and or forgetting to hook the fan up ...if you did that with the stock cooler you could very well damage the cpu.

It isn't so much cranking up the clock-speed that does any damage it's excess voltage that really kills cpus (which people raise to stabilise cpus at higher than stock clock-speeds of course, however how much you need for a given number varies from chip to chip) so don't go beyond a certain point ...this point will be fairly well known by the community and you should be fine, it's when people start really jacking that voltage up to just try and get the cpu stable and whatever speed they are hell bent on reaching that problems occur. And even then excessive voltage will tend to do it's damage over a period of time not straight away ...unless you go absolutely berserk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom