• 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.

Intel i5 v AMD range

I suggest you read it again. Without your AMD glasses on.

Just looked at your sig.

It all figures.


Are you claiming to know me?

Do you know anything about my pc history?

I will re-post what I said earlier and see if you answer it this time.







I am probably just going to annoy people by saying this but I do mean it in nicest way.

When I was putting my spec together a lot of people were saying to go down the Intel route as some benchmark said it was faster, even though it would cost more.
The problem is that I don’t sit at home running benchmarks so why would I want to know about them?
Not only that, no one could justify spending extra on the Intel when I’m not going to overclock it.
So, can you tell me how long it takes me to convert my copy of "The Shawshank Redemption" from MKV to AVI, because I would like to know if we would really see a difference when you are at home and I am at home and the two computers are not next to each other.

What I am trying to say is that I don’t mind sitting down for an extra few seconds waiting for it to finish because I know I spent less money on my system and that is worth the extra 2-3 mins a year that it will take me to do what I need it to.
 
I ordered an AMD P2 965 yesterday. I have gone from pentium's in the 1990's, AMD chips in between the pentium's. More recently I have been with the core 2 duo 6300 and Q6600.

As my most intensive task is gaming I have gone for the amd 965 and kept £200 in my back pocket.

Even If I was a mega photoshopper or home video renderer I still would have gone amd and saved a wedge of cash!

i5 seems a dead socket to me, i7 is to pricey and socket 775 is also dead.

AM3 has life in it for the next few years.

Easyrider I don't get your point, I also bought a sempron 140 for £20 for my hTPC, it plays blu-ray and other HD flawlessly. I could have waited for i3 and got a super overclock, but it would have been hotter, more noise, more energy wasted. Why do you need to overclock when you get enough performance on standard settings?

If you think i3 is brilliant then buy it!!! Why buy a chip knowing that you will need to overclock it to get the performance you need? I learnt the hardway with the 6300, I should have just bought an E6600 at the time, that way I wouldn't have needed to beast the cpu so much to get enough fps :p
 
Last edited:
Agreed i3 / i5 / 775 are dead sockets..

i7 are excellent if you render / do video work etc..

If you just game and have a 775 then I wouldn't bother to upgrade you will notice limited if any difference.. if you are on an older socket then AM3 makes an attractive proposition at the moment...

Far to many people on this forum trying to 'justify' there pointless i7 purchase.. for 99% of people the i7 offers no increase in day-to-day performance and has a significant extra cost attached to it
 
Easyrider I don't get your point, I also bought a sempron 140 for £20 for my hTPC, it plays blu-ray and other HD flawlessly. I could have waited for i3 and got a super overclock, but it would have been hotter, more noise, more energy wasted. Why do you need to overclock when you get enough performance on standard settings?

I never suggested that one should overclock a HTPC.

Just like I have underclocked my WHS

However I want to have my Music studio PC running as fast as possible.

Whats so hard to grasp?


Why buy a chip knowing that you will need to overclock it to get the performance you need?


Because that is what overclocking is about,Buying a cheaper part and running it faster than stock in order to get the best performance.

Thats overclocking



I learnt the hardway with the 6300, I should have just bought an E6600 at the time, that way I wouldn't have needed to beast the cpu so much to get enough fps :p

I ran my 6400 @ 3.8ghz 24/7 but yet my 6600 would not do these clocks.

So in essence the cheaper cpu was faster for me.

I really don't understand the point you are making tbh.
 
Last edited:
Far to many people on this forum trying to 'justify' there pointless i7 purchase.. for 99% of people the i7 offers no increase in day-to-day performance and has a significant extra cost attached to it

Far to many people trying to justify their (BTW) AMD purchase TBH:rolleyes: :p
 
Last edited:
Handbags at dawn?

Still, strange that people are questioning the practice of overclocking on http://forums.overclockers.co.uk ... :confused::D:D

Surely it is all down to personal choice, depth of pocket and utility? If you like the idea of a cheaper chip buy an AMD, if you are looking for a slightly faster (whatever that means) one get an Intel, for the moment.

Anywho, no point in an i3, or equivalent AMD, over my q6600 is there?
 
Its beating a stock Q6600.

And beating is relative, one evaluates increase in performance for all tasks that he is interested in vs. the cost of changing the platform.
 
Its beating a stock Q6600.

And beating is relative, one evaluates increase in performance for all tasks that he is interested in vs. the cost of changing the platform.
Yep. Mine is at 3.6 for the while. I know at the back of my mind that there is no earthly reason to "upgrade" right now. How many games use two cores let alone four? But I got vouchers at Xmas and I can't make up my mind on what to do with them now. This thread has just convinced me that there isn't a chip worth changing my whole PC for, either in terms of £s or performance.
 
Well to be honest the only chip that could convince anyone is the i7 920. The thing is that back when it first launched and got reviewed i didnt really feel that it offered enough of an advantage to all workloads. Sure it overclocks better and is slightly better clock for clock but in reality thats not something that most users, including me will pay the price of admission for.

Hopefully something wll come up that will make me want to change my PC, right now the thing thats been eating at me are the SSDs!
 
Well to be honest the only chip that could convince anyone is the i7 920. The thing is that back when it first launched and got reviewed i didnt really feel that it offered enough of an advantage to all workloads. Sure it overclocks better and is slightly better clock for clock but in reality thats not something that most users, including me will pay the price of admission for.

Hopefully something wll come up that will make me want to change my PC, right now the thing thats been eating at me are the SSDs!
Yep. Now SSDs really do make a massive difference to your PC experience! Got one, a lowly Kingston, put W7 on it and it flies. Boots in 21 seconds tops, loads in games are really quick as well.
 
Off Topic:

strange that people are questioning the practice of overclocking
Hey Alex,

My point is that back in the day overclocking was more relevant, at least it seemed that way as the gains you got became noticable in a lot of day to day useage ... we all felt clever as we bought cheap chips and clocked them up to equal or run faster than the flagship processors, it was a nice *fuzzy* feeling as we all thought we were getting the extra performance for free . .

The simple fact is that an overclocked processor costs more money to run than a stock clocked chip which is something I personally didn't realise for years (seems daft in hindsight!) however there are still plenty of scenarios where it makes perfect sense to overclock and depending on your usage patterns the extra power usage may not be that great at all . . . although for a machine running 24/7 it will be very noticable . . .

People who overclock for benching and competitive benching is perfectly valid, it's a fun hobby and is basically "Mine is faster than yours!" :p . . .I like to bench myself as its a great way to monitor tiny tiny improvements you have made that wouldn't necessarily be noticable to the human eye/senses but serves a purpose to confirm tha adjustments you have made in the BIOS are doing the system a slight bit of good . . . lots of tiny adjustments eventually becomes noticable if you string enough of them together . . .

Overclocking for overclocking's sake is that benchmarks aside, ePeen aside, what important purpose does it serve if you cannot notice it apart from an electricty bill that noticably becomes more expensive :confused:

I still personally like to find the max the chip will run, the overclocking process holds interest in the same way a puzzle game is interesting, but after the puzzle is solved . . . after the benching is done . . .after the ePeen is inflated what happens next . . . .well what normally happens is people settle on a much less agressive overclock for their day to day usage and get on with the real stuff which is to actually enjoy the computer, play games, record music, edit photo's etc etc

Does someone sit their gaming thinking about their 4GHz? . . probably not . . .would they notice if the chip was at 3.5GHz instead? . . probably not?

My point is basically this: overclocking/tweaking should be a one small part of the *total* computer experience . . not the be-all-and-end-all . . I know from personal experience how easy it is to slip into obsession, to spend more money than is needed chasing, chasing this thing that is constantly elusive when actually everything I actually needed was right there in front of me . . .

Overclock/Tweak to get *optimal* performance . . . beyond this *optimal* point there is little reason for people to continue running an excessive overclock outside of benching! . . . it's just gonna cost more £££ :cool:

If anybody has been overclocking for 5/10/15 years they will relate to what I am saying, if a newblood overclocker finds what I am saying strange I understand . . . . anyone who tries to make you feel inferior because their system is 500MHz faster than yours is not really a useful member of our community as already discussed outside of benchmarks it really is just a number for most people ;)

Anywho, no point in an i3, or equivalent AMD, over my q6600 is there?
Not really unless you are bored with your LGA775 *puzzle* :D
 
Far to many people trying to justify their (BTW) AMD purchase TBH:rolleyes: :p

Although I think I am one of the minority on this forum that have owned and overclocked both AM3 and i7 rigs.. I sold my i7 rig as my AM3 rig performed better with my dual 4870x2's

i7 are great CPU don't get me wrong.. but you will see NO difference if all you do is surf / game between an i7 and an i5 or an AM3 CPU or a 775 CPU.. so why on earth spend ££££ more?

The only reason you need to buy i7 is if you need it for rendering / video editing / etc.. where clearly its the better CPU..
 
Last edited:
I sold my i7 rig as my AM3 rig performed better with my dual 4870x2's
I am suprised at that myself?

Although if your extra sure that's true I wonder what the AMD implementation offers to enhance performance that the Intel®LGA1366 is lacking?

Did you have the Intel®Core i7 as an earlier adopter and maybe it was an early BIOS hash or something?

Or maybe there is a little more to the AMD *Ice-Dragon* platform than we first thought? :)
 
Although I think I am one of the minority on this forum that have owned and overclocked both AM3 and i7 rigs.. I sold my i7 rig as my AM3 rig performed better with my dual 4870x2's

i7 are great CPU don't get me wrong.. but you will see NO difference if all you do is surf / game between an i7 and an i5 or an AM3 CPU or a 775 CPU.. so why on earth spend ££££ more?

The only reason you need to buy i7 is if you need it for rendering / video editing / etc.. where clearly its the better CPU..

What AM3 CPU etc do you have now.

I also believe that in real day use, nobody will be able to tell the difference between a 3 or 4 GHz cpu. Its in benchmarking that they really shine.
 
Do you edit video on your underclocked E5200 HTPC easy or your laptop?

I figure it must be your HTPC as a laptop with 800x600 res must be a bit stinky for working with a timeline and preview :D

I would have thought you would be using an Intel® Core™ i7 for that sorta thing? :confused:
 
Do you edit video on your underclocked E5200 HTPC easy or your laptop?


I don't have a HTPC

I figure it must be your HTPC as a laptop with 800x600 res must be a bit stinky for working with a timeline and preview :D

I don't have a HTPC

I would have thought you would be using an Intel® Core™ i7 for that sorta thing? :confused:

I don't have a HTPC
 
Back
Top Bottom