new rig AMD or Intel?

Big.Wayne said:
Hey Marine-RX179,

Thanks for posting up some links! . . . I was hoping to see a straight comparison between a Deneb-Quad and a Thuban-Hex clocked at the same speed so the only difference would have been the amount of L3-Cache available to each core . . . I only posted up a Thuban spec in post #9 as it was a viable gaming solution within budget and some RTS gamers may find it yeilds a better result?

As it stands in the links you posted the Deneb has a 6.25% clock speed advantage so it's hard to say what an extra 50% L3-Cache per core brings to the table for Deneb while gaming . . . I feeling the difference is so small we shouldn't ever mention it again! :p

As I said already I think the Deneb Quad makes sense but I'm confident there are heaps of OcUK forum users that would be happy to pay the extra £31.58 for a Thuban-Hex . . . Horses for courses really . . . Personally I'm always gonna take the most affordable option myself! :cool:

marinerx179supportingev.jpg
Click to expand...
Actually did you read the 5970 and GTX480 Crysis results at the tom's hardware? The 1090T was having strange problem that bottlenecking them like crazy.

That aside, I don't see the need of grabbing a X6 for gaming, as it cost £30-£40 more than a X4...and by the time that games start to commonly uses 5th and 6th cores, there would be CPU with newer faster architecture out already. So you are paying extra £30-£40 extra up front for two extra cores that may or may not benefit you for gaming at all in the future. If using it for video encoding at well besides gaming, then the X6 would make sense. Also, a X4 at 4.0GHz would pretty much be able to keep up with a single 5970 or CF5850, so unless your graphic cards is going beyond that, the 2 extra cores would still just sit there and not helping.
 
Last edited:
Troezar said:
the i7 will last more gpu upgrades than the AMD option meaning it will take longer before the cpu becomes the bottleneck?
Click to expand...
I'd like to see a nice performance analysis of that myself Troezar, athough I can't really understand why people think so far ahead and are prepared to pay a £150 premium for something that does them no good right now, today . . . the present! :p

All this nit-picking over the smallest details leads to Analysis-Paralysis and gives people a headache! ;) . . . . interesting to see the once mighty Intel® Core™ i7 @ 4.0GHz getting occasionally beaten by a much more affordable AMD® solution! :cool:

amdphenomiibetterchoice.jpg


CPU Scaling With The Radeon HD 5970 - Phenom II X4 Scaling
Legion Hardware - Kylie Perrin - 25th November 2009


Monster ninja said:
later on in the year when i get some money of my folks getting a full water cooling set up with 2 5850s, 2 5870s or 1 5870 or a 5970
Click to expand...
Hey Monster ninja,

I missed that bit of your post! :p

I think I've said everything you needed to know . . . if your really considering Crossfired HD 5870s (£620+) then I fear anything I have to say further will fall on deaf ears! ;)

Thanks for reading anyway, good luck with the build whichever way you go!

Peace! :cool:
 
Last edited:
!!!

Big.Wayne said:
I'd like to see a nice performance analysis of that myself Troezar, athough I can't really understand why people think so far ahead and are prepared to pay a £150 premium for something that does them no good right now, today . . . the present! :p

All this nit-picking over the smallest details leads to Analysis-Paralysis and gives people a headache! ;) . . . . interesting to see the once mighty Intel® Core™ i7 @ 4.0GHz getting occasionally beaten by a much more affordable AMD® solution! :cool:

Snip.

CPU Scaling With The Radeon HD 5970 - Phenom II X4 Scaling
Legion Hardware - Kylie Perrin - 25th November 2009


Hey Monster ninja,

I missed that bit of your post! :p

I think I've said everything you needed to know . . . if your really considering Crossfired HD 5870s (£620+) then I fear anything I have to say further will fall on deaf ears! ;)

Thanks for reading anyway, good luck with the build whichever way you go!

Peace! :cool:
Click to expand...

cheers mate great help it may just save me 100 quid! but now i am even more confused! i5/i7 or phenom??!!
 
I have the same problem. Been looking at pretty much the exact same parts. Every time I manage to stop the urges to go i7 but then something reminds me. And after the 920 disappeared off OcUK for a while it has got me thinking. I guess it will come down to whether or not it is still on here when I get the money together.
 
Big.Wayne said:
I'd like to see a nice performance analysis of that myself Troezar, athough I can't really understand why people think so far ahead and are prepared to pay a £150 premium for something that does them no good right now, today . . . the present! :p

All this nit-picking over the smallest details leads to Analysis-Paralysis and gives people a headache! ;) . . . . interesting to see the once mighty Intel® Core™ i7 @ 4.0GHz getting occasionally beaten by a much more affordable AMD® solution! :cool:
Click to expand...
Big.Wayne, I don't think 3fps faster on average at 2560x1600 at some games make Phenom II X4 4.0GHz superior to i7 920 4.0GHz for:
1) majority of the people would be not be gaming as high solution as 2560x1600...you points might have been more relevant/valid if you were actually showing 1920x1200 comparison results
2) minimum frame rate. While Phenom II X4 might have 1-3fps higher average, for all we know i7 920 may deliver higher minimum frame rate...which in my opinion is more important than average frame rate...as the difference in terms of actualy game play smoothness for between 49 and 52, 46 and 47, 83 and 86 average is almost non-existing. And average frame rate is not the most consistent value, as when benchmarking, the average frame rate results could vary by 1fps margin even on the same PC.

Also, it is really simple maths to work out i7 920 at 4.0GHz has overall more processing power by quite a bit over the Phenom II X4 at 4.0GHz and last longer for graphic card upgrades. I just gonna quote myself from another topic:
"Although Phenom II X4 955 at stock speed 3.2GHz is quite a bit slower than a i7 920 at stock speed 2.66GHz (even Phenom II 965BE at 3.4GHz is a bit slower than i7 920 at 2.66GHz), but let's pretend they are the same speed for the moment. Phenom II X4 955BE overclock from 3.2GHz to 4.0GHz is 25% overclock, whereas the i7 920 2.66GHz overclock to 4.0GHz is 50% overclock. What this mean is a Phenom II X4 955BE at 4.0GHz (25% overclock) would be a bit slower than a i7 920 at 3.33GHz (25% overclock).

A Phenom II X4 955BE at 4GHz would just fast enough to keep up with a 5970 or CF5850, beyond that the CPU would start to bottleneck. Whereas for i7 920 overclocked to 4.0-4.2GHz would be fast enough to crossfiring a 5970 with a 5850/5870 (may be with a slight bottleneck). But for most people that planning on using a single 5850 or 5870 for a long time and not planning on upgrading to a graphic card faster than a 5970 anytime soon, a Phenom II X4 955BE at 4.0GHz would be more than enough and cheaper than going Intel."

Also, at 2560x1600 the GPU bound for frame would be much lower than than the GPU bound of 1920x1200(or 1080), while the CPU might not bottleneck a card at 2560x1600, it might not be the case at lower resolution. For example:
1920x1200 GPU bound at average 100fps
2560x1600 GPU bound at average 45fps (+/- 1~2fps benchmarking variable)
CPU 1 bottleneck at average 80fps
CPU 2 bottleneck at average 110fps

So while the both CPU would not bottleneck the card at 2560x1600, at 1920x1200 CPU 1 will not go beyond 80fps, but CPU 2 will go as high as average 110fps on the same card. Which is why I said using 2560x1600 results is not really relevent to anyone except those that actually game at that high res.
 
Last edited:
Agreed Big Wayne. Personally I'm looking for a rig that will last for 4-5yrs with no more than a gpu upgrade so a little more now may save me some later. This will be the second pc and I'll wait until Bulldozer is out to build a main rig as personally I prefer AMD/ATI.
 
I through AMD PII chips can go over what i7 can?


althrough intel is stronger clock for clock
 
kalvindeane said:
They show the amd processor clocked at 4ghz which is hard to achieve without considerable cooling, most i7 920/930 will reach 4ghz easily, some will go slightly higher too !
Click to expand...

i freind of mine has a oc on a phenom 920 in a am2 socket mobo with a very stable oc of 4ghz with the stock cooler!

cpu-zphenomII9204GHz.png
 
Last edited:
Phenom II vs Core i7: Gaming Value Comparison

"Popular opinion in our experience has been that people have tended to believe that an overclocked Core i7 simply thrashes a Phenom II. The facts, though, do not support such claims" - Jake Mete - Pureoverclock Wed, 12 August, 2009

phenomiivscorei7.jpg


"When overclocking, we decided to keep things "reasonable", with clocks that would approximate what is easily achievable with an air cooler. We know higher speeds are possible but that's not the thrust of this article. As a result, the overclock settings were kept proportionately similar, with the Phenom II being moderately clocked up to 3.8GHz and the Core i7 clocked to 3.4GHz. This represents almost a 20% increase for the Phenom and a 30% increase for the i7. The reason these are not kept the same is for proportionality and fairness: the Phenom has a higher clock speed to begin with, so we actually gave it less of an overclock to attempt to balance the setups. We could have pushed the Phenom to 4.0GHz to approximate equal overclock ratios but we don't think that would have been fair as a result. Again, this should also address any cries that the AMD setup is cheaper and may disproportionately skew any results. So in effect, we've stacked the deck slightly against AMD for the overclockingtests."
 
Marine-RX179 said:
A Phenom II X4 955BE at 4GHz would just fast enough to keep up with a 5970 or CF5850, beyond that the CPU would start to bottleneck. Whereas for i7 920 overclocked to 4.0-4.2GHz would be fast enough to crossfiring a 5970 with a 5850/5870 (may be with a slight bottleneck).
Click to expand...

I agree with many of your points, but this needs further examination. I haven't seen any evidence that current high end CPUs are holding back graphic cards at high graphic settings at all - anyone with such a setup runs the cards at settings which ensure they are graphics bound, not CPU bound/ As you can see from BigWayne's Phenom 965 pics, changing the processor from 2.0Ghz to 4.0Ghz often has very little effect.
An i7 will be capable of faster performance (probably), but it's not the same thing as the Phenom being bottlenecked - they'll scale appropriately when you add in CF.
 
AMD setups do just as well in multi GPU setups as I7, even having higher min frame rates, which is more important than highest. as the game will appear smoother.

now I think tomshardware have proven that
 
lol its always fun reading the intel v's amd arguments. Its pretty simple - If you think 2 FPS is worth spending the extra £100 on a Core i7 system then go ahead.

If you are however sensible and use your head, one can easily conclude that an AMd 955 or 965 will suffice - save your monies for the best GPU you can afford if all your interested in is gaming.
 
zoomee said:
lol its always fun reading the intel v's amd arguments. Its pretty simple - If you think 2 FPS is worth spending the extra £100 on a Core i7 system then go ahead.

If you are however sensible and use your head, one can easily conclude that an AMd 955 or 965 will suffice - save your monies for the best GPU you can afford if all your interested in is gaming.
Click to expand...

Agreed which is valid for today but will the two systems stack up the same in 1yr 2yrs or more with a new gen gpu slotted?;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom