Intel v AMD

[winter zombie]

i love my ivy

 

[Bezzaboy1234]

Im at 4.5Ghz now can easily do 4.6Ghz derp. Also FYI I know what Im on about as a lot of the people your talking about Ive been talking to. And IB is > SB to those who are pre SB and are buying new...

My SB 2500k is clocked at 4.6GHZ with the stock Intel CPU cooler, If I had an AC cooler I suspect it'd go even higher..

I think you would have been better off with the 2600/700K i7 I recon if it was clocked high it would outperform, But thats just my opinion..

IB is a leap from what you had before I bet =P

 

[Ollie1132]

It is. And SB would only out do my IB at about 5.1Ghz since I could have 4.8Ghz on my IB which is 5Ghz~ on SB so in all truth it makes no difference if I had gone one or the other. Id probably be running SB at 5.1Ghz and getting the same heat as my IB at 4.8Ghz if that makes sense.

 

[Emphacy]

That's a little harsh. I'm by no means "technologically ignorant".

By this I wasn't referring to you. I mean the kind of people who aren't in our era of technology such as our parents and grandparents that aren't aware of the differences so they buy laptops and systems with AMD CPU's.

Notice the second part of my statement where I said "or people who want a low power budget system" which is what you've gone for - It's not a bad thing and nor did I say it was.

Don't worry about it Agnostic, this forum is full of Intel snobs who look down on people who buy a processor to do more than bench/play BF3 or bench using BF3.
And obviously having the latest Intel CPU is more important than performance too eh Ollie?

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick personally. The reason people here are so 'defensive' of Intel V AMD is for your benefit, to help you get the best performance for your money which is quite clearly why Intel are a far superior choice in many cases.

 

[Krono5]

Id probably be running SB at 5.1Ghz

You'd almost certainly not get 5.1Ghz on a SB with air. People seem to think SB is always an instant 5Ghz and forget all the people that can't get passed 4.4Ghz which is ever more common with the newest batches of chips. Most of the people in the SB 5Ghz club had to push their provessor to the limit just to get stable enough for 1 run of super-pi.

since its only a super pi I can join However i'll b going back to 1.35v and 4.5ghz for the time being. 1.42v wouldn't get me to 5.0 and even thats too high for my liking. This was literally a 1 minute bump up test and back down.

5.0ghz @ 1.45v

Thats pretty much the average person in that thread and no one in their right mind would run 1.45v through a SB without a decent custom loop.

My SB 2500k is clocked at 4.6GHZ with the stock Intel CPU cooler, If I had an AC cooler I suspect it'd go even higher..

Somehow I duobt this very much unless it's going to hit 90c under IBT. Most SB chips would be lucky to hit 4.2-4.3Ghz on a stock cooler with remotely reasonable temps with 4.4Ghz being golden chip territory.

 

[Ollie1132]

You'd almost certainly not get 5.1Ghz on a SB with air. People seem to think SB is always an instant 5Ghz and forget all the people that can't get passed 4.4Ghz which is ever more common with the newest batches of chips. Most of the people in the SB 5Ghz club had to push their provessor to the limit just to get stable enough for 1 run of super-pi.

Well that just pushes the fact more that I should've went IB over SB. Not that my day to day clock would be 4.8Ghz but still.

 

[aln]

By this I wasn't referring to you. I mean the kind of people who aren't in our era of technology such as our parents and grandparents that aren't aware of the differences so they buy laptops and systems with AMD CPU's.

So you think trinity and llano are bad buys for laptops then? ;o

 

[humbug]

+1
Well put.
I'm still looking at throwing an 8120 rig together for £££s less than a 2500k system, and it will perform about as well unless all you do is spend all day benchmarking.

Like said above, this CPU isn't going to bottleneck things and it's cheaper and performs better at multithreaded tasks than hyperthreading (which i5 doesn't have) by all accounts.

Yeah, FX-8150 for £130 vs i5 3570K for £180

What do most do with them?
Play DX11 games on a mid to high end GPU's, spam Facebook, watch YouTube, edit family photos re-encode the odd movie.

Are they going to notice the difference? only in there wallet.

If you do a lot of heavy IPC work or love the game of benching one-upmanship get the Intel, for every day use,- save yourself a lot of money, there is no difference.

 

[Krono5]

there is no difference.

Yes there is. a 3570k smashes an 8150 at pretty much everything bar a few very specialized tasks. If it's for gaming then there's absolutely no reason to go AMD apart from blind fanboyism.

 

[humbug]

Yes there is. a 3570k smashes an 8150 at pretty much everything bar a few very specialized tasks. If it's for gaming then there's absolutely no reason to go AMD apart from blind fanboyism.

You quoted one sentence from my post and then took it completely out of context.

I will repeat what i said, If your interest is benching or a lot of heavy IPC work Intel is best.

For normal everyday use there is no sense in paying £50 extra. there are a morsel of people With GTX 680's / 7970's on AMD rigs maxing games like BF3 no problem.

You are exactly the sort to advise a P4 over an Athlon back in day knowing the Athlon was in every way the better CPU.

 

[FoxEye]

+1
Well put.
I'm still looking at throwing an 8120 rig together for £££s less than a 2500k system, and it will perform about as well unless all you do is spend all day benchmarking.

Last time I checked, Intel had a better CPU than AMD at every price point

There was (and probably still is) no reason to go with AMD. If you want to save money, get a cheaper Intel chip, because it's going to beat that AMD chip in most everything.

 

[humbug]

It would help if Intel had a 4 core SB / IB CPU for around £130, the cheapest i could find was the 2.8Ghz i5 2300 for £143, and that's not an unlocked CPU.

 

[Agnostic]

By this I wasn't referring to you. I mean the kind of people who aren't in our era of technology such as our parents and grandparents that aren't aware of the differences so they buy laptops and systems with AMD CPU's.

Notice the second part of my statement where I said "or people who want a low power budget system" which is what you've gone for - It's not a bad thing and nor did I say it was.



I think you've got the wrong end of the stick personally. The reason people here are so 'defensive' of Intel V AMD is for your benefit, to help you get the best performance for your money which is quite clearly why Intel are a far superior choice in many cases.

Okay. My reply was a bit instantaneous in the fact that it looked like a generic insult. I didn't read it thoroughly enough at the time to acknowledge what you put. I just jumped at the thought and decided I'd reply. No worries, then.

 

[Krono5]

You quoted one sentence from my post and then took it completely out of context.

I will repeat what i said, If your interest is benching or a lot of heavy IPC work Intel is best.

For normal everyday use there is no sense in paying £50 extra. there are a morsel of people With GTX 680's / 7970's on AMD rigs maxing games like BF3 no problem.

You are exactly the sort to advise a P4 over an Athlon back in day knowing the Athlon was in every way the better CPU.

Everyone knows Athlon > P4.

You have no clue what you are talking about so I suggest you stop giving people bad advice because you can't get over the fact this is no longer 1999, NATO are no longer bombing Yugoslavia and AMD can't hold a candle to Intel at any price point for desktop solutions.

Benchmarks:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/6
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-3770k-i5-3570k_6.html#sect0
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

It destroys the 8150 in everything, infact even an I3 2100 will easily beat a £130 8120 and just nudge out the 8150 thats twice the price:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-3.html

Considering the performance difference that an extra £50's worth of GPU gets you then it's definately worth it to spend £170 on a 3570k over anything under that price point with the exception of a 2500k. Even if you don't a £90 I3 will outyperform every single AMD CPU on the market, you'd have to be a complete fool to buy AMD for a gaming build or most other things.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It destroys the 8150 in everything, infact even an I3 2100 will easily beat a £130 8120 and just nudge out the 8150 thats twice the price:

I have a Core i3 2100 myself and only a fanboi themselves would think it was faster than an FX8120 or a Phenom II X6 at everything. I suggested my mate get a Phenom II X6 1045T for around £100 over a Core i3 2100 since he was running VMs and doing stuff under Linux which ran better on it. I use my system mostly for running games,and some image editing so the Core i3 2100 was better suited for what I did.

Different people have different uses and different budgets for their computer.

The problem is down to flip-flop where people have to only recommend only an Intel CPU or an AMD CPU due to personal bias.

 

[Ollie1132]

I have a Core i3 2100 myself and only a fanboi themselves would think it was faster than an FX8120 or a Phenom II X6 at everything. I suggested my mate get a Phenom II X6 1045T for around £100 over a Core i3 2100 since he was running VMs and doing stuff under Linux which ran better on it.

Different people have different uses and different budgets for their computer.
The problem is down to flip-flop where people have to only recommend only Intel CPU or an AMD CPU due to personal bias.

Actually most of us try to be unbias the fact is 90%+ of people that want specs can afford i5's and above. So why would we want to suggest AMD in a circumstance when it's unneeded? It's rare someone with a really low budget needs a machine that requires heavy threading CPU's. It happens occassionally albeit.

 

[humbug]

Everyone knows Athlon > P4.

You have no clue what you are talking about so I suggest you stop giving people bad advice because you can't get over the fact this is no longer 1999, NATO are no longer bombing Yugoslavia and AMD can't hold a candle to Intel at any price point for desktop solutions.

Benchmarks:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/6
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-3770k-i5-3570k_6.html#sect0
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

It destroys the 8150 in everything, infact even an I3 2100 will easily beat a £130 8120 and just nudge out the 8150 thats twice the price:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-3.html

Considering the performance difference that an extra £50's worth of GPU gets you then it's definately worth it to spend £170 on a 3570k over anything under that price point with the exception of a 2500k. Even if you don't a £90 I3 will outyperform every single AMD CPU on the market, you'd have to be a complete fool to buy AMD for a gaming build or most other things.

I looked at your links, there testing mostly low threaded CPU Physx dependant games at lower resolution. a game running 1 or 2 threads will advantage higher IPC core CPU's. so an i3 even tho it only has 2 cores will do better, once more cores come in to play the i3 will fail.

Those benches are a bit useless unless your still using a CRT monitor and playing older generation games.

Its called CPU scaling, lower resolution off loads the work from the GPU onto the CPU, the higher the res the more the GPU comes into play and the more the CPU's compute core is sitting idle, unless its depends heavily on nVidias Physix, which is rear and becoming even more so.

One of your links shows (for example) Dirt3, @ 1600 x 900 or what ever it was...

Here is an example of that scaling where it meets the 2500K at higher (more relevant) res, in fact you can see that scaling in action all the way through those game benches, including some where the FX-8150 BEATS the 2500K once the res is high, higher frequency rendering is what seems to suit Bulldozer better.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/9.html

Here is an example where in one game the FX-8150 BEATS A 2600K

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...rocessor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-f1-2011.html

And another one....

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...-core-i7-2600k-review-total-war-shogun-2.html

Its not as straight forward as digging up a few half backed benches!

 

[Ollie1132]

Max of 5FPS' more for something that's meant to be high end over a mid range CPU. Not really great is it?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Actually most of us try to be unbias the fact is 90%+ of people that want specs can afford i5's and above. So why would we want to suggest AMD in a circumstance when it's unneeded? It's rare someone with a really low budget needs a machine that requires heavy threading CPU's. It happens occassionally albeit.

In the case of my mate it was an obvious choice,so the whole you should never ever buy an AMD CPU mantra just funny.

I know plenty of people myself who have Core i5 and Core i7 rigs who ended buying something like a Llano CPU for HTPC use or even a Llano based laptop. Does it make them ill informed or did they actually decide it suited what they did better??

Yes,I recommend Core i5 CPUs for the vast majority of gaming builds if the budget allows,just like a Core i3 2100 is a good choice for under £100.

However,despite my own personal decision,I also do understand different people might benefit from something else,even if it is a CPU or GPU I would never buy myself.

Hence,I feel no need to denigrate other people's choices,uses and budgets just because they differ from my own.

I never start at the biased viewpoint. I look at exactly what someone is using their computer for and then look at what is available and then make a recommendation. I always make sure I keep up to date with the latest reviews to see if the competitive position changes,ie, does updated software improve the position and is the price more competitive now.

 

[Ollie1132]

In the case of my mate it was an obvious choice,so the whole you should never ever buy an AMD CPU mantra just funny.

I know plenty of people myself who have Core i5 and Core i7 rigs who ended buying something like a Llano CPU for HTPC use or even a Llano based laptop. Does it make them ill informed or did they actually decide it suited what they did better??

Yes,I recommend Core i5 CPUs for the vast majority of gaming builds if the budget allows,just like a Core i3 2100 is a good choice for under £100.

However,despite my own personal decision,I also do understand different people might benefit from something else,even if it is a CPU or GPU I would never buy myself.

Hence,I feel no need to denigrate other people's choices and budgets just because they differ from my own.

I never start at the biased viewpoint. I look at exactly what someone is using their computer for and then look at what is available and then make a recommendation. I always make sure I keep up to date with the latest reviews to see if the competitive position changes,ie, does updated software improve the position and is the price more competitive now.

Indeed. AMD are meant to be better for HTPC but for laptops I think the new IB mobile processors will probably out do the Llano processors but I guess we will find out soon enough.