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

[Big.Wayne]

Hello OcUk Forums,

I am looking for some help in analysing the performance difference between these two different AMD®/Intel® platforms and trying to understand the Pro's and Con's of each a bit better!

I've got some builds coming up soon that pretty much need to do everything and last two or three years before needing an overhaul and have come up with the following specs . . .


Beastly-Box Summer 2010 Requirements:

• Full HD (1920x1080) FPS/RTS subsystem (will take GPU request to other subforum)
• Multi-GPU capable motherboard (using single card but option is required)
• Encoding/Re-Encoding & Rendering Duties
• DDR3-1600 Memory with upgrade potential
• SATA 6Gb/s/USB 3.0
• Additional CPU cooling for quiet operation alongside a decent day-to-day overclock
• Reasonable Power Consumption
• As much Bang-for-Buck as possible!
• Purchased *new* from OcUK
• Not waiting for Sandybridge/Bulldozer

The specs above have been carefully considered and selected for their technology, quality and price . . . there are slightly more affordable options for the memory and motherboard on both Intel® and AMD® systems but TBH the saving from downgrading either platform are very small and do not address the reasonably large price premium . . . using the specs above I am faced with having to justify an additional £139.78 - £157.41 for the Intel® Core™ i7 systems and have so far not been able to uncover some really "compelling" performance benefits for the Intel® premium . . .

I did ask some questions in another thread hoping someone could give me an insight into the performance differences between these two platforms but have thus so far come up with no meaningful answer . . . in the benchmarks I have seen so far the Intel® Core™ i7 seems to perform a bit better in gaming but I'm not sure if the games would be noticeably slower using the AMD® Phenom™ II X6? . . .

On the Multimedia-production side of things it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, certainly not enough performance coming from the Core™ i7 that I've seen yet to convince me (and the clients) that the premium is worth paying? . . . if the price difference was a bit closer I think the selection process would be easier but as it stands tech-for-tech I need help coming up with some solid "justification" . . . well beyond the old "Intel® Inside" branding blag!

In case anyone suggests that a cheaper build is possible by "downgrading" the components listed above I've already looked into that, by choosing slower ram and less well technology featured motherboards the price difference becomes £124.05 - £147.55 which I personally feel makes it a moot point i.e downgrading the specs saves £10-£15 from *both* builds and in the best case scenario leaves me still to "justify" at minimum a £124.05 price difference and removes the ability of both systems to overclock (worse cooler) and less technology (no SATA 6Gb/s/USB 3.0 option) . . . I think for the really slight saving it makes sense to go with one of the specs posted above and get maximum technology for £10-£15 extra on either platform . . . seem reasonable enough?

I've found the following benchmark data at Anandtech which compares a much more expensive Intel® and AMD® processor but they are both running at the same speed . . . I'm not considering buying either of these two chips but for clock-for-clock comparison it kinda gives a feel for how both an Intel® Core™ i7 920/930 compares to a AMD® Phenom™ II X6 1055T . . . the thinking here is that 3.2GHz vs 3.2GHz is going to have the same "relative" performance as a 2.8GHz/2.8GHz . . . I did make a thread to question the validity of that assumption here but not had any confirmation yet, I'm kinda assuming still that an extreme edition processor isn't any slower than a regular Core™ i7

Clock-for-Clock "Relative" Comparison only!

Simulated AMD® Phenom™ II X6 1055T 2.8GHz vs Intel® Core™ i7 920/930

Simulated AMD® Phenom™ II X6 1055T 2.8GHz vs Intel® Core™ i7 920/930

As you can see, the "Average" performance advantage of the Intel® Core™ i7 works out a 4.9% . . . that little teeny blue tip represents the "Average" extra performance the large Intel® premium brings . . . . based on that alone I would have no problem scratching the Intel® system and going with the AMD® kit as based on a average set of results it seems to offer tremendous bang-for-buck ££ . . . However basing a decision on an overall average of one set of data is really not giving the Core™ i7 chance to demonstrate its worth ££ . . . . still working from the same set of data I decided to peak a bit closer to see if appraising each set of test results individually would paint a different picture . . .

Simulated AMD® Phenom™ II X6 1055T 2.8GHz vs Intel® Core™ i7 920/930

Hmmm? . . . well I can see a bit more blue bar . . . Far Cry 2 looks promising for Intel® . . . Fallout 3 and Left 4 dead sees the AMD® chip matching the more costly ££ Core™ i7 for FPS . . . nice one AMD® . . . on the multimedia authoring side of things the Intel® edges out in front again? . . . at least in this set of data . . . the question is though, if given a finite amount of money does that extra performance "justify" the large price premium? . . . bang-for-buck or obvious diminishing returns?

I think I would need to spend more time pawing through performance data before I felt comfortable making a decision, as always bench results vary from website review to website review but I would need to see something special coming from the Core™ i7 system in order to spend the extra . . . If the builds were AMD® the "saving" could be put towards a really nice SSD which should impress . . . . however if I can see some solid results where the Intel® really does something special then the money is there!

Another consideration that needs to be made is on the Overclocking side of things, seems like a good idea to squeeze a reasonably good processor frequency from either system although as they will be running solidly 5 days a week I don't see the need to be pushing either systems to the brink . . . . Am I right in thinking the majority of people on these forum do not run their systems at the highest possible overclock? . . . there was a poll done at the beginning of the year which seemed to indicate most non-benchmarkers are now content to find a happy medium between speed and power-consumption so I'm fairly safe to assume these chips are whizz-bang enough with a "balanced" overclock to chomp through anything?

I've specc'ed up a half-decent cooler which can be used with either systems, I don't think either system will need a massive clock to happily make mince-meat out of the duties required . . . if the power consumption is reasonable and stability is good then perhaps there is scope to eeek a bit more out but these are offsite systems which I don't want crashing or glitching etc . . . my opinion at the moment that if push comes to shove then the Intel® system would likely overclock a bit further but as these are not benchmarking machines I don't think I will be needing 4GHz clocks just yet!

I'd be really grateful to get any help sifting through the various sets of data spread out across the interweb to help highlight the Pro's and Con's of each system . . . I'm sure there is some good "Justification" out there to help anyone in the same position reconcile the price difference but so far I haven't found anything really compelling where the Core™ i7 system just screams to be bought . . .

Please may I request that no alteration is made to the "considered" O.P System-Spec and that we try to conduct a friendly and informative on-topic discussion . . . if you feel like anyone is over-stepping the mark and breaching forum protocol please don't respond directly and instead use the RTM function

. . . Fire Wizard has expressed an interest in this topic himself so let us forum denizens work out how to co-operate better on the task in hand and hopefully no one will get toasted!

[Technical Focus Of This Thread]

• Does either system in this O.P have any advantages/disadvantages that are not obvious from the performance data?
  
• Do both systems in this O.P scale up equally in performance when overclocked
  
• Do both systems in this O.P scale up equally in power consumption when overclocked? (will be running approx 40 hours a week)
  
• Can any performance advantage of the premium system in this O.P be "Justified"? . . . if so please explain how in RealWorld terms
  

Thanks in advance for any useful feedback, contributions, fact-hunting etc . . .

 

[Combat squirrel]

An excellent and well researched thread. Given your information and needs Id go for the AMD system given the similar performance and then get an awesome heatsink and squeeze 4.1ghz or so out of it,6 cores at that speed = faster pc for less money.

 

[james.miller]

Well, Kudos for starting the debate Wayne. There's a lot of questions there that perhaps people wont want to answer ( ). But before we all jump in can i just ask why you aren't willing to change the considered system specs? doing so means cheaper (and equally well performing) components can't be used?

 

[gareth170]

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.

 

[wannabedamned]

The 4.9% in the bottom right hand corner of the initial post, What is that supposed to be a figure for? As if you do the maths, its not a mean or an average for the test? What is it? I've done the maths, And the average for the whole test is 10%

 

[Trunks9486]

Based on your criteria and the average man buying PC the AMD makes sense.

However, I see no mention of power usage. I am not sure at stock but i was under the impression that i7s increase the power use less steeply compared to the Phenoms. No back up to that though cause i can't be bothered to look for it.

At the end of the day it depends on priorities. Some people see the extra spending as spending over total spending for the whole PC. And then the extra may not be that much, especially for those who only change PCs once in a long while.

Both are excellent, and i don't hesitate to recommend both.

 

[Eclectic]

The one thing that gets me, as a gamer a QuadCore has only recently really been worth it.

So how long before 6 cores are worth it?

For me it would be the i7 - and it was (currently building one), but I had much deliberation between 965be and i7930. Then a decent deal arrived in my inbox on a 920 and it won. So I guess it sill came down to money.

 

[mmj_uk]

Just to clairify those 3.2ghz tests were done with Turbocore etc disabled right?

If not and it was simply stock settings then the 1090T would have had a 266mhz advantage over the i7 965 right? 3.33ghz v 3.6ghz? that would just reinforce my opinion that a cheaper AMD setup would be better for people not planning on overclocking but that the i7 would be worth the extra if they are.

 

[Mr Krugga]

You can knock off £50 of the price if you don't mind not having USB3 or Sata 6Gb/s (which I personally wouldn't as you can always buy an extension card if necessary). Gigabyte UD5 would be a great choice of board then.

And some benches, Phenom II 1055T vs Core i7 860:

There is the price difference though but you get what you pay for IMO.

BTW, your benchmarks from Anandtech are somehow incomplete. They don't show all the tests and you must know that Core i7 920 (and any other model with higher multiplier) gains great performance boosts with speed. You're comparing Core i7 920 2.66Ghz with Phenom II 1055T 2.8GHz with Turbo plus not all the benches are there.

 

[Troezar]

The fact that there is actually a lot of debate between these platforms tells me one thing, there probably isn't a lot of real world difference. For gaming all that really matters is can you get the minimum frame rates at the resolution and settings you require. GPU's are more important in this respect given modern CPU's at the higher end are all pretty good.

As for encoding etc. is time money to you? If not get an extra cup of tea while you're waiting

I've tried to persuade myself that I can justify the extra expense but it looks like the gap is too small for my needs i.e. gaming, web, office and small amount of photo work. AMD should fit the bill, most likely a quad...

 

[gareth170]

The fact that there is actually a lot of debate between these platforms tells me one thing, there probably isn't a lot of real world difference. For gaming all that really matters is can you get the minimum frame rates at the resolution and settings you require. GPU's are more important in this respect given modern CPU's at the higher end are all pretty good.

As for encoding etc. is time money to you? If not get an extra cup of tea while you're waiting

I've tried to persuade myself that I can justify the extra expense but it looks like the gap is too small for my needs i.e. gaming, web, office and small amount of photo work. AMD should fit the bill, most likely a quad...

everything u just said is 100% right.....

 

[xtremedetailz]

I have been looking at them both and i have decided to go the i7 route, just need to get myself a nice cheap i7 920 or i7 930....

 

[Big.Wayne]

go for the AMD system given the similar performance and then get an awesome heatsink and squeeze 4.1ghz or so out of it,6 cores at that speed = faster pc for less money.

Hello Combat squirrel,

as mentioned in the O.P I'm thinking a "balanced" overclock will yeild the best value for money from either system . . . . extra performance is welcomed but the systems are not going to be used for benchmarking and I think if I go for maximum overclock then perhaps I will miss the "sweetspot" in terms of power-consumption . . . at 40 hours a week and about 50 weeks a year there could be a substantial cost ££ difference in power bills which maybe don't "justify" the uBerness of a monster overclock!

Still I'm not ruling anything out at this early stage . . . and from the huge amount of data about Intel® Core™ i7 overclocking on these forums I don't have much doubt that a 4GHz clock is achievable although as already mentioned if the power consumption flies through the roof then I'm not sure running a max clock max good long term sense?

On the AMD® Phenom™ II X6 side of things I have not much knowledge of how they clock or what their "sweetspot" is likey to be? . . . I do know the chip has a 14x CPU multi (14x200=2800) so as I guesstimate I am thinking anything up to about 3.7GHz (14x266) will be achievable using the hardware listed in the O.P . . . not sure how the power consumption scales on the newer AMD® Phenom™ II X6 clocks and indeed what their max stable overclock is likey to be . . . if you have any information on this I would be most grateful if you could link it up! . . . cheers!

 

[Big.Wayne]

can i just ask why you aren't willing to change the considered system specs? doing so means cheaper (and equally well performing) components can't be used?

Hello Mr Miller,

well if there was a max cap on the budget I guess it would make sense to explore the cheaper route . . however there isn't a max cap . . . I'm looking to basically find the sweetspot here in terms of price-to-performance and not necessarily bring the budget down to the smallest amount possible . . . I'm prepared to spend the required amount of money to get the right amount of performance and not slash the budget so much as to "hamstring" the system!

As mentioned in the O.P no matter what downspeccing I do to either AMD® or Intel® system there is still a large price premium to be "justified" on the Intel® Core™ i7 build . . .

In case anyone suggests that a cheaper build is possible by "downgrading" the components listed above I've already looked into that, by choosing slower ram and less well technology featured motherboards the price difference becomes £124.05 - £147.55 which I personally feel makes it a moot point

 

[Big.Wayne]

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

Hey gareth170,

I wish I could build these systems for free ££ but unless your prepared to peel a few dozen £50 notes of your money tree and send them my way I see no other way to complete this project without spending? . . hehe!

The money is there but I'm a bit old in the tooth when it comes to spending beyond a certain point . . . as it stands if the Intel® Core™ i7 build can have it's advantages and price premium "Justified" then I'm prepared to pay the money . . . I'm one of those people that will buy in bulk as in world outside of computer hardware I generally get more value-for-money the more money I spend ££ i.e I would buy a Litre bottle of coke costing £1.20 instead one of those midget 330ml bottles costing 0.75p . . . I spend more I get more "value"

If during the course of this thread I come across some information or data that demonstrates that spending more on the Intel® system really does bring so much more it terms of "Value" then I'm prepared to splurge!

 

[Big.Wayne]

The 4.9% in the bottom right hand corner of the initial post, What is that supposed to be a figure for? As if you do the maths, its not a mean or an average for the test? What is it? I've done the maths, And the average for the whole test is 10%

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?

 

[Big.Wayne]

I see no mention of power usage

Hello Trunks9486,

yeah I haven't had time to do any "meaningful" research into that side of things yet . . . if you offering to assist in collecting data then I gratefully accept your kind offer!

My opinion at the moment is that from the two O.P systems the AMD® Phenom™ II X6 is the more power-efficient platform at least while running at stock? . . . I have no idea if this story changes once overclocking and added vCore is brought into the scenario . . .

 

[Big.Wayne]

Just to clairify those 3.2ghz tests were done with Turbocore etc disabled right?

Hello mmj_uk,

that's a good question and one I don't know the answer too . . . if you happen to come across any useful info or benchmark results and configuration on your travels please feel free to post it up here thanks!

 

[Big.Wayne]

You can knock off £50 of the price if you don't mind not having USB3 or Sata 6Gb/s

Hello Mr Krugga,

thanks for the feedback . . . as the systems are to be a long term investment I'd prefere to have the latest tech if the price difference is small . . . I'm not daft enough thought to pay an extra £50 for these features though as in truth I'm not sure how much "Value" they will yeild? . . . out of the two I guess the USB3.0 may prove handy sooner as the systems will have some large 32GB/64GB Thumbs drives plugged in for data transfers . . . having stood there waiting for large video files to transfer I'm hoping the new tech will speed this up considerably!

Intel® Core™ i7 860 build £530.40

Thanks for posting some screenies up, I appreciate your efforts to show me another angle . . . what I am seeing in a LGA1156 Intel® Core™ i7 build system that costs £10 less if taking the SATA 6Gb/s/USB 3.0 option than its LGA1366 brother which while a saving none the less you would seem to be compromising the technology?

• Lose 2GB of Ram
• Lose Triple Channel
• Lose PCI-E 16x/16

as debatable as any of the above actually are I think I'm prepared to yeild an extra £10 budget to have them anyway on the LGA1366 option? . . . not too shabby for £10 right?

If going down the non SATA 6Gb/s/USB 3.0 path and comparing the AM3/LGA1366 non SATA 6Gb/s/USB 3.0 options I am still faced with having to "Justify" £115 extra expense ££ vs. the AM3 option! . . . although your suggestion would be £22.00 cheaper than the LGA1366 option but again I take a Tech-hit and lose the possible benefits from less ram, no tri-channel and downgraded PCI-E 8x/8x . . for a £22.00 "relative" saving . . . .



If there is something I have missed with the three "Considered" non SATA 6Gb/s/USB 3.0 options please let me know . . . I don't see it myself and unless there is something really compelling about a LGA1156 Intel® Core™ i7 system I think for the sake of frying my brain comparing two complex systems in the O.P I stick with LGA1366 vs. AM3 thanks!

And some benches, Phenom II 1055T vs Core i7 860
your benchmarks from Anandtech are somehow incomplete

Thanks for the info . . . Indeed I only chose all the gaming results and bunch of "higher-is-better" Multi-Core results that I feel were optimised for both platforms . . . there is also the fact that I lack the skill to compile a humgus mismatch of data from multiple systems and therefore felt a bit of pruning was in order in order that my brain may survive the reasearch process!

 

[easyrider]

Intel Core i7 920 D0 Stepping (SLBEJ) 2.66GHz (Nehalem) (Socket LGA1366) - OEM £205.61
(£174.99) £205.61
(£174.99)
Asus P6T Deluxe OC Palm Edition Intel X58 (Socket 1366) DDR3 Motherboard Asus P6T Deluxe OC Palm Edition Intel X58 (Socket 1366) DDR3 Motherboard £140.99
(£119.99) £140.99
(£119.99)
OCZ Gold 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 PC3-10666C9 Low-Voltage Triple Channel (OCZ3G1333LV6GK) OCZ Gold 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 PC3-10666C9 Low-Voltage Triple Channel (OCZ3G1333LV6GK) £99.86
(£84.99) £99.86
(£84.99)
Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro Rev 2 CPU Cooler (Socket 939 / AM2 / AM3 / 775 / 1156 / 1366) Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro Rev 2 CPU Cooler (Socket 939 / AM2 / AM3 / 775 / 1156 / 1366) £16.99
(£14.46) £16.99
(£14.46)
Sub Total : £394.43

£463.46


Not sure what people don't get

i7 is cheaper than you think!

Oh and its faster