Intel i5 v AMD range

golwg · 4 Jan 2010 at 22:45

Will the Intel i5 750 beat all the AMD CPU's in performance / speed etc? Especially against an AMD Phenom II X3 Tri Core 720?

I know AMD are cheaper but what about the performance side of things? Is the i5 750 a faster CPU than say the Phenom II 720?

Martini1991 · 4 Jan 2010 at 22:46

Not really fair to compare a 150 pound chip to a sub 100.

pieman109 · 4 Jan 2010 at 23:06

As said previously you cant really compare them as they do have differences, quad-core as opposed to tri-core, etc. Where the amd chips score is on price. if you price up a PhenomII system with an I5, the I5 is gonna be more expensive, even if using DDR3 in both rigs.
Of course the I5 is gonna be quicker, depending what its gonna be used for, encoding, rendering, etc but gaming or the usual pc stuff ppl do, I doubt very much you'd notice any difference personally.

PakJai · 4 Jan 2010 at 23:06

If you want a fair comparison, then you should be looking at the Phenom II 965. It has comparible performance to the i5 750.

'Wes · 4 Jan 2010 at 23:10

AMD are fine, you would be suprised.

Nocky24 · 4 Jan 2010 at 23:25

It depends entirely on what you're going to be using it for. A PII X3 720 will be absolutely fine in games right now (a nice lil overclock will help a bit as well). If you go the AM3 route you're also 'futureproofing' yourself for a 6 core in the future if you need it. Going i5 is great if you plan to keep the main components of your system for a long time and need the better performance now (for say rendering, encoding,etc), but for upgradability you're going to be limited.

Rroff · 4 Jan 2010 at 23:31

If your going to spend that amount of money the i5 wins hands down...

However you don't have to spend that amount of money to get really good performance... sticking with intel at lower prices is much harder to get competitive CPUs against AMDs range - and while theres nothing wrong with the LGA775 CPUs (especially if your thinking about upgrading a current LGA775 platform) I wouldn't get one if I was buying a whole new platform now.

golwg · 4 Jan 2010 at 23:32

So what 'if' the AMD 720 unlocks to a quad. Would it be better than the i5?

easyrider · 4 Jan 2010 at 23:33

If its for gaming then the new i3 cpu's look fantastic for the money.

In WOW for example

"The i5 661 does well here, but the most bang for your buck comes from the i3s which even outperform the Phenom II X4 965. If you want an affordable gaming CPU, the Core i3 is where it's at."

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/clarkdalelaunch_010310105346/21130.png

Rroff · 4 Jan 2010 at 23:33

golwg said:
So what 'if' the AMD 720 unlocks to a quad. What it be better than the i5?

not for performance, tho it would have great value for money.

golwg · 4 Jan 2010 at 23:55

So, overall, the i5, without looking at cost, is the better / faster CPU?

Big.Wayne · 5 Jan 2010 at 01:40

easyrider said:
If its for gaming then the new i3 cpu's look fantastic for the money

I think one needs to know a U.K selling price before commenting on value-for-money! :confused:

I know both the AMD Athlon II X2 250 and AMD Athlon II X3 435 sell very cheaply so lets wait and see . . . .

Note to Dons: Please do not delete image, it's not hotlinked

Rroff · 5 Jan 2010 at 02:58

Hate the way most of those graphs make the Q6600 look slow and old - when infact clock for clock it will match or beat many of those CPUs except the high end i7 cores.

AMG · 5 Jan 2010 at 03:14

they don't take into account the max over clock they can achieve, I think the 955 and the Q6600 would be about equal for some reason, means that AMD don't do that well as intel in normal use, do well as a gamers CPU

Big.Wayne · 5 Jan 2010 at 03:16

Rroff said:
Hate the way most of those graphs make the Q6600 look slow and old

It's a selling tactic called "perceived obsolescence" Rroff . . .

Only you know what is fast/fast enough but somehow a multi-million dollar *spin* campaign attempts to make you view your veteran shiny thing as an undesirable antique!

'Wes · 5 Jan 2010 at 08:26

Tbh, you're looking at 3ghz for any CPU you get now, and having either 3 or 4 cores, so it doesn't matter what you get as long as it's either a tri/quad core.

dan7777 · 5 Jan 2010 at 08:41

i5 or i7 is the way to go.....

SMAndy · 5 Jan 2010 at 08:42

I've had a PII X3 720 for quite a while now, and been gaming on it... I've overclocked it to 3.5Ghz perfectly stable, and I've had zero problems, and zero slowdown/system lag. It's not just the cpu you need to be thinking about, it's the rest of your system too. As long as your cpu is at least triple core, and at least 3GHz, then your limiting factor will be the graphics card. - GTX260 + 8800GT PhsyX (2 x8 PCIe slots)

Btw, the games I play, and at the settings i have, to give some indication of the power of that CPU...

Borderlands: 1680x1050 8x AF, 4xAA.
Dragon Age: Same settings
Fallout 3: 12xAF, 2xAA (doesn't seem to like lots of AA here, so i upped the AF instead)
Guild Wars: 8xAA (thankyou nVidia control panel)

Guild Wars has an FPS monitor... Occasionally i get a 2fps drop, but when its sat at 60FPS for the rest of the time, 58 is nothing to worry about.

Honestly, the only real time you're going to notice a difference is with synthetic benchmarks or encoding jobs, where the Intel stuff excels.

Martini1991 · 5 Jan 2010 at 08:51

Tweaking a Phenom II's NB will make it faster clock for clock than a Core 2.

Alex R · 5 Jan 2010 at 09:03

easyrider said:
If its for gaming then the new i3 cpu's look fantastic for the money.

In WOW for example

"The i5 661 does well here, but the most bang for your buck comes from the i3s which even outperform the Phenom II X4 965. If you want an affordable gaming CPU, the Core i3 is where it's at."
Not sure about this, but isn't it the case that if your monitor has a max of 60 Hz you will never see anything above 60 fps?

Whatever, unless you do anything remotely serious on your pc an AMD chip will be fine. More to the point it will allow you to invest the £s you save on things that will directly impact gaming for example - gfx cards.