AMD vs Intel

W

webhostreview

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Location
Johannesburg
Has AMD come up with something to beat the I7 processor yet? I love AMD and really hope they do not let me down this time.

Otherwise I am going to have to go with Intel since it just loves it's multitasking unlike AMD :mad:
 
On a like-for-like basis at the high end no AMD can't really compete with Intel. On a value for money basis, maybe slightly lower powered, AMD has some really great offerings. The triple-cores are awesome for gaming. Their motherboards are legendary for compatibility and price. The 955be/965be phenom 2's can go into an old AM2 board and give near i7 performance.
 
AMD are great cpu's and I always promote them for OIE work - Office, Internet and E-mail. But if you want gaming, go for i7 (for now).

Just a shame I don't have a choice in cpu's for my Macbook unless I go Hackintosh!
 
chris2.0 said:
AMD are great cpu's and I always promote them for OIE work - Office, Internet and E-mail. But if you want gaming, go for i7 (for now).

Just a shame I don't have a choice in cpu's for my Macbook unless I go Hackintosh!
Click to expand...

Yup... But I guess Intel is now ahead of the race.

AMD was ahead and the first company to reach 1GHz if IIRC
 
Clock speed isn't everything. AMD was ahead of the tech race, then Intel got their game on around 2006 and just crushed them.
 
AMD is only maybe going to become competative in the performance department in 2011 according to their roadmaps. But AMD is great for low to mid and even mid-high for the price, especially if you already have an AMD motherboard
 
If said this before, and will say it again;

No-one on this forum will utilise 100% of an i7 cpu.
The AMD processor is every bit as good as an Intel.

Hardware is only as good as the application utilising it.
FWIW, less than 2% of application for Windows, are multi-threaded for more than 2 cores.
Unless you are rendering massive scenes frame by frame, then it really doesn't matter.

You are wasting your money on parts that you will never fully utilise.

If you think Futuremark is 'utilising' - you have no grip on reality.

Play it smart.
Get what you can afford.
 
pop.con said:
No one? I beg to differ because I know I would. Sure not all the time... but I would and could use some power...

First let me overcharge a client :p
Click to expand...

What you planning to use it for?

Power is relative..

And no, you would not be able to use 100% (I mean ALL). Unless you doing physics modelling of a nuclear explosion..
 
iDenTiTy said:
The AMD processor is every bit as good as an Intel.
Click to expand...

Care to qualify that statement? Because as it stands it is blatantly false.

For example:
Multi-GPU scaling
Memory bandwidth
Gaming performance
CPU algorithm benchmarks
Video encoding

All of the above shows the AMD processors lagging behind (save for the Multi-GPU scaling article, which only shows the true potential of the Core i7 CPU when used with multiple GPUs). You could even point out the technologies that the Intel Core i7 CPUs have, such as HyperThreading and triple channel memory, which could make them seen as superior from an engineer's viewpoint. Perhaps "The AMD processor is every bit as good as an Intel if the application cannot benefit from increased CPU power as it is bottlenecked by something else or can only use one thread" or "At similar price points the difference between CPUs is not that great" (even though the Phenom 965 is precariously close to the Intel Core i7 920's price point) would be more accurate.

I do, however, agree with your "buy what you can afford" statement, as price/performance is very important. That is where the AMD CPUs really come into play.

EDIT: Oh, and my Core i7 920 @ 4GHz runs at 100% utilization (that is, all 8 threads at 100% usage) about 20 hours a day when I run Folding@Home. So you might want to revise the statement that no-one will use 100% of a Core i7 CPU :p

I just don't think "Don't buy it because it is too powerful" is a good argument, as you will, eventually, be able to use that increased CPU power (as Resident Evil 5 shows). The trend is clear. However, from a price/performance perspective you can get close to the current performance offered by more powerful CPUs (or sometimes get higher performance, as the Phenoms are exceptional at AES encryption) for cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Identity you get +1000 , you took the words out of my mouth . If you are playing games an Amd 955 loses like 5 frames to a 920 . All these performace benchies mean nada unless your doing things like 3d modelling etc

Basically you wont ever use the power of i7 as a average user . However if you do 3d modelling etc you wouldnt even ask this question .
 
The_Techie said:
Care to qualify that statement? Because as it stands it is blatantly false.

For example:
Multi-GPU scaling
Memory bandwidth
Gaming performance
CPU algorithm benchmarks
Video encoding

All of the above shows the AMD processors lagging behind (save for the Multi-GPU scaling article, which only shows the true potential of the Core i7 CPU when used with multiple GPUs). You could even point out the technologies that the Intel Core i7 CPUs have, such as HyperThreading and triple channel memory, which could make them seen as superior from an engineer's viewpoint. Perhaps "The AMD processor is every bit as good as an Intel if the application cannot benefit from increased CPU power as it is bottlenecked by something else or can only use one thread" or "At similar price points the difference between CPUs is not that great" (even though the Phenom 965 is precariously close to the Intel Core i7 920's price point) would be more accurate.

I do, however, agree with your "buy what you can afford" statement, as price/performance is very important. That is where the AMD CPUs really come into play.

EDIT: Oh, and my Core i7 920 @ 4GHz runs at 100% utilization (that is, all 8 threads at 100% usage) about 20 hours a day when I run Folding@Home. So you might want to revise the statement that no-one will use 100% of a Core i7 CPU :p

I just don't think "Don't buy it because it is too powerful" is a good argument, as you will, eventually, be able to use that increased CPU power (as Resident Evil 5 shows). The trend is clear. However, from a price/performance perspective you can get close to the current performance offered by more powerful CPUs (or sometimes get higher performance, as the Phenoms are exceptional at AES encryption) for cheaper.
Click to expand...

Perhaps my statements were too open to interpretation.
You Techie, are obviously one that does use slightly less than 100% of it's true potential.

I would like to see those benchmarks done on a linux box, since Windowzs has much processing overhead (to name a few).

My argument still stands.

If you are not going to be reducing sets of numbers through the Folding@Home project, then why purchase a cpu costing ~R3k only to say "Yes, I only get 10fps more than, but my eyes are indeed advanced implants that allow my brain to process images at faster than 30 frames per second"?

Yes, you may justify your purchase by running some very cool applications (no one is arguing that fact), but can you tell me what percentage of home users do what you do, all day, every day?

And don't even tell me that a monstrously poorly coded application like Crysis justifies the purchase.

Perhaps (upon reflection), the argument boils down to reward.

One would be more rewarded by running Folding@Home on a cpu, than by running Crysis on the same cpu - since these titles are polarised wrt development standards.

Crysis is a good example when the focus in not on efficiency, but on visual fidelity.
Similarly, F@H is a good example of efficiency, not visual fidelity.

Since many of the benchmarks used are in many ways, not isolating one component from the next, it could be said that one is not testing the performance of the cpu specifically, but it's operation in a system as a whole.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, since this debate asks one to balance technicalities with preference, with the two aformentioned factors almost incompatible.

So I will only say this;

You bought the i7 because you had, in mind, the want to run F@H etc. 24/7. Yes, in that case the purchase may indeed be justified.
I bought a Core2 because I don't do much, other than the occasional game, music and videos.
I now own a PhenomII, because of partly personal preference, and financial restrictions. The financial restriction far outweighed the personal preference ( :( )

Remember, all of the above is only my interpretation of the argument AMD vs. Intel.

In fact, one could argue it is the same as BMW vs. Mercedes, or Porsche vs. Ferrari vs. Lamborghini.
:)
 
iDenTiTy said:
If said this before, and will say it again;

No-one on this forum will utilise 100% of an i7 cpu.
Click to expand...

iDenTiTy said:
Perhaps my statements were too open to interpretation.
You Techie, are obviously one that does use slightly less than 100% of it's true potential.
Click to expand...

Granted, I am not maxing out the memory bandwidth, however in terms of pure processing power I am most certainly using as much as it has to offer. Or are you using the term "true potential" to include concepts such as memory bandwidth and QPI? If that is the case it is only a matter of time before an application which does require more than the "true potential" of the Core i7 is released :p

iDenTiTy said:
I would like to see those benchmarks done on a linux box, since Windowzs has much processing overhead (to name a few).

My argument still stands.

If you are not going to be reducing sets of numbers through the Folding@Home project, then why purchase a cpu costing ~R3k only to say "Yes, I only get 10fps more than, but my eyes are indeed advanced implants that allow my brain to process images at faster than 30 frames per second"?

Yes, you may justify your purchase by running some very cool applications (no one is arguing that fact), but can you tell me what percentage of home users do what you do, all day, every day?

And don't even tell me that a monstrously poorly coded application like Crysis justifies the purchase.

Perhaps (upon reflection), the argument boils down to reward.

One would be more rewarded by running Folding@Home on a cpu, than by running Crysis on the same cpu - since these titles are polarised wrt development standards.

Crysis is a good example when the focus in not on efficiency, but on visual fidelity.
Similarly, F@H is a good example of efficiency, not visual fidelity.

Since many of the benchmarks used are in many ways, not isolating one component from the next, it could be said that one is not testing the performance of the cpu specifically, but it's operation in a system as a whole.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, since this debate asks one to balance technicalities with preference, with the two aformentioned factors almost incompatible.

So I will only say this;

You bought the i7 because you had, in mind, the want to run F@H etc. 24/7. Yes, in that case the purchase may indeed be justified.
I bought a Core2 because I don't do much, other than the occasional game, music and videos.
I now own a PhenomII, because of partly personal preference, and financial restrictions. The financial restriction far outweighed the personal preference ( :( )

Remember, all of the above is only my interpretation of the argument AMD vs. Intel.

In fact, one could argue it is the same as BMW vs. Mercedes, or Porsche vs. Ferrari vs. Lamborghini.
:)
Click to expand...

I didn't buy the Core i7 920 for the sole purpose of running Folding@Home, I was only giving you an indication of an everyday application that one can run to, effectively, max out a Core i7.

More than that, you basically restated the latter part of my previous post :)

As for the 30FPS thing, could we not go into that again? It's been well established that 30FPS is not the maximum amount of FPS that the human eye can see (400FPS at last count, some experiment with pilots I believe) and LCDs are capable of displaying much more than 60FPS :p 30FPS does indeed appear "smooth" (I believe 24FPS and up appear smooth) but the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS is visible to a mere mortal such as myself.

For me, it is very clear:
The Intel Core architecture is superior and, as such, you will get superior performance at a premium.
The AMD Phenom architecture is slightly inferior, however it is the price/performance king at the moment.
You buy what you need and what you can afford. Preference only comes into play if you can get similar performance from each camp for your budget, other than that it is pretty clear-cut. I, for example, will not buy an inferior product just because I prefer the brand. However, many people will.

To summarize (this thread will not lead to constructive debate I feel):
The AMD vs Intel argument is pointless (as is Mac vs PC, Windows vs Linux, etc) and redundant. You should get the best product available for your budget. Fortunately, we have fanboys from each camp continuing this debate and providing endless hours of entertainment.

/me returns to watching quietly from the shadows :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X