Clarification about different CPUs

[JokerXIX]

I apologize in advance for the sister post in the Intel CPU section. I want opinions from both sides of the aisle. I wish there was a universal CPU one for me to post this in.

I'm at an impasse building my new desktop, mainly because I can't look at anything until I know which CPU socket I'm using. Just want clarification about two processors.

On one hand theres the AMD Phenom II X4. It has:

• 4 cores
• 3.5GHz
• L1 = 4 x 128KB
• L2 = 4 x 512KB
• L3 = 6MB
• Hypertransport = 4000MHz

On the other hand theres the Intel Core i7. It has:

• 4 cores
• 3.4GHz
• L1 = not listed
• L2 = 4 x 256KB
• L3 = 8MB
• FSB = not listed

Now, I don't know much about CPUs, but I don't see how Intel can justify the extra $100 based off this information.

I want this desktop to be upgradeable, so whichever motherboard I decide on should have a socket that won't become outdated in a couple of years. Also, I plan on being able to remotely control a programming environment that is on this desktop. I plan on developing programs, so the CPU has to work with that.

 

[stealthy123]

lol, there is a universal cpu area, it's in between the two.

if you are building now, then the new 1155 socket for intel is the only one with a foreseeable update path.

am3 is not going to see new stuff, and neither are the other intel sockets.

Currently, if you have to build, 1155 is the only prudent socket choice. When AMD releases am3+ in a couple months, then it is a prudent choice on the AMD side.

 

[Tsumi]

Clock for clock, Intel's core i7 cpu's are faster than the Phenom II. Meaning, in a single-threaded application (where only one core is used), a 3.4 ghz i7 will be faster than a 3.4 ghz Phenom II. That's why Intel can justify the higher price. Additionally, core i7 has hyperthreading, which gives it a slight advantage in heavily threaded applications. The i7 also uses much less power than the Phenom II, because its built on the 32nm process vs the 45nm process on the Phenom II.

On the other hand, that particular i7 cannot be overclocked, whereas the Phenom II can. If you want to overclock, then you have to upgrade to the K version, which costs $20-30 more I think.

Concerning upgradeable, it's exactly as stealthy123 said. However, given Intel's track record, it is likely that future designs will not work with LGA 1155, since Intel is not too concerned about backwards compatibility. However, Intel might stick with the 1155 socket for a long time (like they did with LGA775), or they might get rid of it within a year or two (LGA 1156). AMD usually tries to make things backwards compatible, but current AM3 motherboards will not be compatible with future bulldozer cpu's. You'll have to wait for AM3+ to come out. However, AM3+ motherboards will be compatible with current AM3 cpu's. So at this point, not really a lot of choices regarding future upgrades, although sandy bridge would be your best bet.

 

[flexcore]

Socket 1155 is the newest on the block, therefor it has the best chance of getting new cpus for upgrade. The only problem, I think any way, is the only new chips they will bring to market will be speed bumps, not more cores or features. I think we'll have to wait for IB for that and I am willing to bet that we'll have to buy a new MB for it. I know this is from FUD, but rumors are out already if you look at his site.

I personally do not like to be one of the very first with new platforms. There have been a lot of issues with MB for SB. I'm sure BD will have the same problems. Intels x58 is still their top of the line, you may want to look there. It has been out a while and has all the bugs ironed out. Or even a Phenom II x6. These will hold you over till the end of the year when all new platforms are out and bugs fixed.

 

[JokerXIX]

Thanks for the responses. Future upgrade-ability is one of my main concerns, which kinda seems to be a problem for Intel.

 

[drescherjm]

Thanks for the responses. Future upgrade-ability is one of my main concerns, which kinda seems to be a problem for Intel.

No that is a problem for AMD. AM3 is a dead end socket while 1155 is a brand new socket.

AM3 CPUs will be compatible with the next socket but current motherboards will not work with the new bulldozer chips. Bulldozer will use a new AM3+ socket.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

No that is a problem for AMD. AM3 is a dead end socket while 1155 is a brand new socket.

AM3 CPUs will be compatible with the next socket but current motherboards will not work with the new bulldozer chips. Bulldozer will use a new AM3+ socket.

its a problem for both sides, just because intel released lga-1155 doesnt mean all of a sudden they are no longer the problem. lga-1366 is dead after 3 years, lga-1156 is dead after 2 and a half years. and lga-1155 isnt even the high end its considered the mid range and nothing high end is coming from intel until Q4 of this year. so you can say intel partially fixed that with the 1155 socket.

and unlike intel where all 1156 and 1366 are now useless processors AMD's AM3 processors will still work in the am3+ boards like you said. and hell you can find am3 boards for sub 70 bucks and probably resell them when am3+ comes out for the same price you payed since there will still be a large market for am3 as all the slackers start upgrading from am2/am2+ due to ddr3 prices dropping.

 

[drescherjm]

Buying a mid end AM3 processor only to move it to an AM3+ board in the future is not really an upgrade path. It does not make a lot of sense to me.

 

[stealthy123]

well you can buy everything for an am3 build, and everything but the motherboard could migrate to am3+. Then when you are ready for bulldozer you can pick one up.

It's not too bad an option.

 

[drescherjm]

It's not a good option either. I mean there would be very little real benefit to buy an AM3 board and CPU now and then get an AM3+ board soon after they become available (paying the early adopter tax) only to upgrade to a bulldozer a few months later.

 

[paperwastage]

well, its like anything for computers... buy only when you have to buy, or when you get a really cheap price(like good deals)

otherwise, new tech is always coming around the corner

 

[DrDoU]

Go i7.1155 mb/cpu.These things scream.That mb should last a while.

 

[teletran8]

I'm at an impasse building my new desktop, mainly because I can't look at anything until I know which CPU socket I'm using. Just want clarification about two processors.

On one hand theres the AMD Phenom II X4. It has:

• 4 cores
• 3.5GHz
• L1 = 4 x 128KB
• L2 = 4 x 512KB
• L3 = 6MB
• Hypertransport = 4000MHz

On the other hand theres the Intel Core i7. It has:

• 4 cores
• 3.4GHz
• L1 = not listed
• L2 = 4 x 256KB
• L3 = 8MB
• FSB = not listed

Now, I don't know much about CPUs, but I don't see how Intel can justify the extra $100 based off this information.

I want this desktop to be upgradeable, so whichever motherboard I decide on should have a socket that won't become outdated in a couple of years. Also, I plan on being able to remotely control a programming environment that is on this desktop. I plan on developing programs, so the CPU has to work with that.

I see Sandy Bridge platform as a THREE CPU SERIES. (and that's it!)

The 2500k, 2600k CPU series and the 990X Hex Core (Later this quarter) for us system builders/enthusiasts. The rest of that line up will be Non-K Cpu's for HP, Compaq, ACER, DELL etc. companies. Which [H] readers won't want because they have ZERO OC options.

I personally think we've all seen what the Sandy Bridge HIGH END is, and where it's heading. It's only been about a month and that Platform busted its wad so to speak. But at this moment in time it is undoubtedly the fastest 2 CPU's for the money @ their price points (2500k, 2600k) (and soon to be released 990X @ the above 1000.00 USD range most likely).

Now if you don't want to spend 224.99 on a Quad Core CPU (2500k), and another extra 29.99 on a cheapo heat sink *alone* (Which ends up costing 254.98 for a CPU + heat-sink* (that does its job)*
just so you can keep it OC and in the 60's-70+ degrees...which I think is garbage...I run my CPU's in the 50's at most. I prefer 30-40.

If you were to go for the 2600K for 329.99 with a cheap 212 for 29.99 you have now spent 359.98 for your CPU in your new build. But it will be faster than any AMD on the market RIGHT NOW. ESPECIALLY IN CANNED BENCHMARKS!!
Bad thing is... YOU still need a MOBO and RAM!!
Steak Dinner for Intel!
Ramen Noodles for you!

I decided to pass up on those CPU's, and wait for Bulldozer specifically, and if that doesn't stack up to SB well. I will wait for an IB cpu in the price range of the 2500K.

What I did to hold me over until BD and IB are released/benched. Was to buy this AM3 setup for less than the price of a single 2500k. And the cool thing is if BD is good I can reuse everything but the mobo I purchased.

Motherboard with USB 3.0/SATA 6 GBs and Crossfire. 89.99
Quad Core CPU (you have to unlock it with a motherboard like the one I bought) 88.99
DDR3 Memory 1333 4GB 39.99
TOTAL 218.97 which is still cheaper than a 2500K CPU alone! (224.99)

Computers are expensive when you buy everything @ once. I like the way AMD does it where your left to choose 1-2 parts at a time to your liking/budget and AMDs new CPU's can be upgraded for long periods. With Intel you spend alot (and get the *now* performance* but down the line are invariably left with no options to overpriced options you would have to fail 3rd grade math @ to think they are an option. On a DEAD platform to top it all off! So with Intel you will always sell it all, or give it all away, and move on to the next fast Intel thing. Which is really a waste of money. AMD is always the best price to performance since the 1990'S!!!!, but they have been lacking in the high end for awile which is to bad for fanboys.

BUT they make up for it by pricing/overall performance. My CPU will get anywhere from 25% or at most 50% less performance than a 2500k OC'd, but look at the cost it's 3 TIMES the cost just for the CPU. The memory and MOBO for the INTEL P67 is also more costly. Really I lose 25 % speed in real world use and 50% rarely in canned benchmarks. I also saved 66% USD. So you take your pick, I'm very happy with mine.

3x-4x the price for only 25% real world performance gains just doesn't make sense to me. I stay with AMD.

What a Frickin rant.