AMD is in the game, its people like you who don't believe it. Who really gives a shit about a few hundred imaginary benchmark points or whatever the hell the difference is between Intel Quads and AMD Quads. Ill tell you who. About 5% of the population who actually do things that benefit from tiny increases. Not grandma playing solitaire or bob playing his FPS.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Phenom 940 vs Core i7 Benchies!
- Thread starter Boostage
- Start date
- Status
AMD is in the game, its people like you who don't believe it. Who really gives a shit about a few hundred imaginary benchmark points or whatever the hell the difference is between Intel Quads and AMD Quads. Ill tell you who. About 5% of the population who actually do things that benefit from tiny increases. Not grandma playing solitaire or bob playing his FPS.
Be that as it may, performance leadership has mattered. When AMD had it, they made money; when they don't they lose money.
The irony is that these people don't give a shit whether they have Intel or AMD in their system either. In fact, most of them probably don't even know who AMD is.
It's not the 5% that matters, it's the other 95% that AMD needs to win over.
I agree, most folks don't go around overclocking there pc's a few hundred mhz just to get a few hundred more point's or fps on benchmarks. All most care about is how much you get for the money. And right now you just can not beat an e8400 based system for the lowest cost vs the most performance with the most efficient use of power. I just upgraded my pc a few weeks ago with a new board, e8400, xigmatek cpu cooler and 4gb of ram for like 335 at newegg. This was my first intel cpu since I started building my own computers back in the late 90's. And this is the only time intel is beating amd in the price/performance category that I can tell. I hope amd comes out with something good so the compatition get tighter.
I'm not a hard core overclocker. I just overclock to the point where I can get the most performance at default voltages to save power and heat. for example I am running my e8400 now at 3.6 with a 450 fsb at only 1.20v vcore. Sure I could get 3.8 and even 4 ghz but all thats gonne give me is a few fps in the games that I play which are mostly gpu limited anyways, even with the 260 core 216 that I have, Also I would have to bump up the vcore to the 1.36 range with is gonna create more heat and use more power for very little benefit.
I'm not a hard core overclocker. I just overclock to the point where I can get the most performance at default voltages to save power and heat. for example I am running my e8400 now at 3.6 with a 450 fsb at only 1.20v vcore. Sure I could get 3.8 and even 4 ghz but all thats gonne give me is a few fps in the games that I play which are mostly gpu limited anyways, even with the 260 core 216 that I have, Also I would have to bump up the vcore to the 1.36 range with is gonna create more heat and use more power for very little benefit.
I'd like to know how that's relevant seeing as the 920 and 940 are the exact same chip with different preprogrammed BCLK. The 920 is $290USD.
There's a discussion of this very type going on in a few forums, but what I've gotten out of it is that the Phenom IIs are strong overclockers that produce very little heat. I mean like 30C @ 4.0ghz 1.5v with dinky aftermarket coolers much smaller/less efficient than a TRUE. Core for Core the Phenom IIs will match the performance of the current i7 processors in number crunching, but the i7s strength is multi-threading. For gaming currently this means jack except your Phenom II will be just as good as an i7 for gaming (to a degree), but when it comes to other applications or new games that support multiple threads the Phenoms will lack.. Which is more future proof? Does it matter? Will you buy a pc every year?
Experiencing the i7 is nice, and the Phenom IIs will just drive the price of the i7 down by a good margin. I hope you're all ready for another upset like ATi vs. nVidia price war. Intel can sell these procs at much less for the high end chips and they most likely will to compete/drive sales.
Sources:
Phenom II Discussion:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=78013
http://www.cpu-central.com/wwwboard/msg80.asp?id=80723
i7 info:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1090182&postcount=27
I would think that the Core i7 940 is significantly faster than the Phenom II, with its larger cache, triple-channel memory controller, HyperThreading, and all-around more advanced core logic (it's more advanced than the Core2, which was already faster than the Phenom, and Intel made more/bigger changes to the core logic than AMD did this time around).
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Core i7 920 is faster than the Phenom II 940 aswell.
In which case Intel has the price/performance advantage (at least for the CPU).
@Scali- You're not getting what I'm trying to say. The 920 and the 940 are the same chip, no performance difference.
@empoy- I hope you don't take what I said as dissing AMD. Core for core the Phenom IIs and the i7 will perform exactly the same, but the dual threads puts the i7 ahead in SOME applications.
I was saying that you were comparing a Phenom II 940 with a Core i7 940, while despite the fact that AMD uses the same numbers as Intel, the performance is not the same.
Not sure which 920 and 940 you're talking about though... Then again, it doesn't matter... Both AMD and Intel have one architecture, binned at different clockspeeds, resulting in different prices.
ok... the i7 920 and i7 940 are exactly the same. They both have the same max multiplier of x21 (with turbo), but the difference is that the BCLK value is higher before you put the chip in your PC. When you put the chip into your PC you may go into your bios and change the BCLK to whatever value you'd like. A 920 will become a 940 just by changing the BCLK and buying a 940 does not insure you a higher max BCLK.
You might turn around and say "I just said that!" but I doubt you knew about the BCLK and multipliers or you wouldn't argue with me.
You might turn around and say "I just said that!" but I doubt you knew about the BCLK and multipliers or you wouldn't argue with me.
Um dude, did you notice that AA, and full AF were used? That translates into, the games being more GPU dependent, not to mention a lot of those games in that list are already fairly GPU dependent. Along with that there is no reputable source; no other links or numbers. And also being posted by some that only has two post with in the same thread. At least my, "Kool Aid" is consistent ... and performs really well. I am in the process of building an i7 rig.
I think you don't understand what I'm arguing about.
I'm saying that people compare Phenoms and Core i7 prices while the performance level isn't the same.
I'm saying that you can't compare the Phenoms to Core i7s with the same model number because they don't perform the same... I'm saying that most probably the slowest Core i7 is even faster than the fastest Phenom.
Ofcourse we'll have to wait for official benchmarks to know EXACTLY how they relate to eachother, but so far the preliminary benchmarks show that Shanghai/Deneb will perform more or less the same as Penryn at the same clockspeed, with Nehalem out of reach (so not equal like you claim).
In other words, if the Core i7 920 is $290, while the Phenom II 940 is $275, but the 920 is more than 6% faster (which it probably is), the i7 920 has the best price/performance ratio. That's my point.
alg7_munif
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 5,862
i7 940 is $500+ right?
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,125
why are you guys arguing over something so silly, who cares about model #s, its
performance / $! obviously phenom 2 platforms are going to run alot cheaper then Core i7 till the boards come down in price, but when the official launch takes place we'll see if the performance of the P2 is increased enough over regular Phenoms to bring the performance/$ up a notch
performance / $! obviously phenom 2 platforms are going to run alot cheaper then Core i7 till the boards come down in price, but when the official launch takes place we'll see if the performance of the P2 is increased enough over regular Phenoms to bring the performance/$ up a notch
visionviper
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,222
Not necessarily. And just because a CPU is faster than another doesn't always mean its more advanced because implementation also comes into play. And Intel making more changes to the Core2 architecture could be taken as a sign that there was more things wrong than with AMDs Phenom.
All I am saying is that we just have to wait and see. Just because Intel was faster last gen and AMD/Intel are both using new versions of last gen's architectures doesn't mean Intel will be a clear performance winner this time 'round.
It takes more than that though.
There's not just Core i7, but also Core 2. So far AMD has had trouble beating Q6600. Intel is going to drop prices on Core2 even further as Core i7 redefines performance/$.
So AMD doesn't just need to compete with yesterday's performance/$, they have to make a big step to remain competitive now that Intel redefines what performance/$ is (and if the current i7 920 isn't cheap enough, remember that these are the performance line, and a mainstream P55-based line is also planned... so even if AMD can be competitive with the current Core2 and Core i7, that won't be enough in the long run).
Erm right... Core2 beats Phenom on IPC despite not having an IMC and not having a native quadcore design, but still you think there was more wrong with the core architecture?
The things that were 'wrong' are exactly the things that Nehalem changed (IMC, quickpath, native quadcore design).
But they also made some improvements to the execution core. However, that execution core was already better than AMD's.
Outamyhead
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,263
That is not necessarily true either, Intel could have made those changes because the dual core design wasn't an option for the i7 to work (and two dual cores glued together is such a half arsed way of doing things), that's almost the same as saying AMD went with the AMD 64 design because there was something wrong with the Athlon XP's?
I think it is more commonly known as "advancements in technology"?
I won't take a synthetic benchmark as proof, especially when no one can find the source of them (so it brings their validity into question). I'll wait and see what happens when real life situations are thrown at it, like gaming, MP3 ripping/decoding, all the normal stuff during a working/play day.
ClariorHincHonos
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,972
I just recently bought an AM2+ motherboard in preparation for the 45nm AMD quads. Reason for this is it seems I should be able to hit somewhere around 3GHz without issue and add 2 more cores for future use. Is my 5000BE at 3.1GHz slow? Hardly. Just wanted the easiest path for upgrade, and this seemed like it.
However, in reference to the Intel side, I feel the 775 transition will be quicker than most think, and Intel is also going to have two sockets at once with the new hardware. So the whole AMD socket change argument goes out the window now, because Intel, in my opinion, is doing some funny things with their sockets at the moment.
I work in a data center, and about a year ago we transitioned to 65nm Core2 based Xeons. Well, that worked ok for about 9 months, then our vendor couldn't find any more, which forced a switch to 45nm, which required a new motherboard (3000AH vs 3200HLC) Tick tock in action right there. My view is that tick tock will be hurting the consumers and businesses, because they simply aren't going to support the older tech for too long, as they need the space and resources (Fab's etc) for the new tech of the time.
However, in reference to the Intel side, I feel the 775 transition will be quicker than most think, and Intel is also going to have two sockets at once with the new hardware. So the whole AMD socket change argument goes out the window now, because Intel, in my opinion, is doing some funny things with their sockets at the moment.
I work in a data center, and about a year ago we transitioned to 65nm Core2 based Xeons. Well, that worked ok for about 9 months, then our vendor couldn't find any more, which forced a switch to 45nm, which required a new motherboard (3000AH vs 3200HLC) Tick tock in action right there. My view is that tick tock will be hurting the consumers and businesses, because they simply aren't going to support the older tech for too long, as they need the space and resources (Fab's etc) for the new tech of the time.
Simmonz
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,506
I am not surprised they are close. CPUs very rarely matter in resolutions above 1280*1024 with AA turned on and the game maxed out.
Yup, by the looks of it there will be dual-channel mainstream sockets, triple-channel high-end sockets (the X58 platform that is out now), and then sockets that support integrated graphics.
I think that depends mostly on your motherboard vendor.
I am an early Core2 adopter, and I bought an Asus P5B Deluxe board at the launch of the Core2 Duo (I believe the board was actually on the market already, for S775 Pentiums).
That very very early Core2 board still supports every S775 CPU out today, except for the few 1600 FSB Extreme models (then again, mine isn't even an enthusiast board in the first place, never aimed at Extreme CPUs).
So apparently Asus puts in the effort to support older products just fine, which also proves that it's not Intel itself that is the problem. Many of the older boards can run the newer 45 nm processors just fine, the chipset is not the limitation.
bazookaworm
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 192
I hope Phenom II will be competitive, would be a cheap upgrade for an AM2 system.
Two sockets - LGA1366 for Nehalem, LGA1160 for Lynnfield (mainstream) / Havendale (integrated CPU/GPU). Three would be a nightmare for sure!
As for the pictures - more than likely they're BS, but I'd wager Phenom II will come in right around there performance wise. Still a bit behind Penryn clock-for-clock, but not enough to be concerned about. With Core 2 Quad prices still pretty high (what's a Q9550 these days, $300+?), the competition could bring those down a bit.
Personally, I don't see why AMD's pushing so hard for DDR3 & AM3 socket, DDR2 (cheap!) + good overclocking headroom could make for an attractive platform, particularly if drop-in compatible with current AM2+ boards.
How exactly will Intel solve the integrated GPU problem though?
If there's one socket where some boards support the GPU and some don't (don't have any DVI or whatever connector at the very least), then it will be very confusing.
I suppose OEMs demanded it (or are going to demand it any day now). It's much cheaper for them to use the same memory for all platforms.
We saw the same with DDR2 a few years ago. As soon as big OEMs like Dell and HP start selling systems with DDR2, prices drop incredibly fast, because of the huge for DDR2 it created. In no time even cheap Celeron systems were fitted with DDR2, and DDR2 became cheaper than DDR.
I expect the exact same to happen with DDR3. For Core i7 there is no choice, and for Core2 there are various DDR3-based chipsets, so they can go all DDR3 there. They will want to use DDR3 on AMD systems aswell, and phase out DDR2 as quickly as possible, to keep costs down.
visionviper
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,222
Erm right... Core2 beats Phenom on IPC despite not having an IMC and not having a native quadcore design, but still you think there was more wrong with the core architecture?
The things that were 'wrong' are exactly the things that Nehalem changed (IMC, quickpath, native quadcore design).
But they also made some improvements to the execution core. However, that execution core was already better than AMD's.
What I am saying is both companies are trying to provide for the fastest they can give for the least amount of money (AMD especially because they have been losing market share) and Intel has made more changes to their architecture than AMD has made to their architecture. In my eyes this shows me AMD is much more comfortable with their architecture than Intel is with theirs.
This is why I think we shouldn't be so quick to automatically think Intel is going to win this time around. I'm not saying Intel can't be on top or anything like that. I'm really just saying I expect it to be very close this time.
Cpu's cant work without Ram and a Motheboard, the Core I7 cant be better price/performance. at least not within the next 8 months. The thing with the Denebs, is they work on $80 Boards and $45 ram.
I think you're missing the obvious:
1) Intel has a much larger team of engineers (in fact, they have multiple teams), and a much larger budget for R&D, so Intel can afford to change more about the CPU.
2) Intel is one step ahead. AMD is currently moving to a 45 nm process, not a time where you want to change too much about your core architecture, because you have to make sure the new process works first.
Intel has already introduced their 45 nm process last year, and it's very reliable now (their 'tick'). This time it's all about the architectural changes (the 'tock'). AMD had their last architectural change when they introduced the original Barcelona/Phenom.
I doubt that AMD is more comfortable than Intel, considering the performance gap. AMD is forced to sell their newest, most high-end quadcores at bargain-basement prices, and is losing both marketshare and profit quickly.
Intel has never lost, except for that one time with Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64.
Other than that, AMD has never even been close, and I don't expect them to be close this time. The original Phenom was rather underwhelming, and a die-shrink can only do so much.
With Core2 vs Phenom, AMD still had some technological advantages over Intel, such as the integrated memory controller. While AMD didn't perform better in all areas, it at least kept them in the race to a certain extent (especially in the server market).
This time around however, it's Intel that has things like HyperThreading and triple channel memory, and AMD doesn't have anything that Intel doesn't have anymore.
I think we're going to see an absolute massacre in the server market now that Intel can actually get loads of bandwidth to their execution cores.
And they will perform like Core2s which also work on $80 boards and $45 ram, so I don't see your point.
Core i7 is a bridge too far for AMD. Core i7 920 is especially dangerous, since it performs about as well as a QX9770 while only costing a fraction. It can easily compensate for the motherboard and ram cost.
AMD probably won't be able to match the performance in the first place, so cost doesn't even enter the equation when talking about Core i7. If it's faster, it can be more expensive and still have better performance/$.
Besides, DDR3 prices are already dropping quite rapidly, who knows what it will look like when Deneb is available.
bicycle_wreck
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,202
Try to keep up. You said the core i7 would be the better performance/price. I just explained why it cant be (price of ram and mobo+ cost of the chip) you just helped me illustrate why it cant be by bringing up the core 2's. I didn't say there are no other good deals other than a Deneb, I simply stated that the core i7 is not the best price/performance. not anytime soon that is. stop being argumentative and think for a second.
Put the Deneb in the same performance/price class as the penryn right now. the core I7 does NOT beat the penryn in price/performance right now. a very small percentage of people can justify upgrading from Penryns
I have just a Kentsfield, and I just priced out my equivalent system (just board,cpu and 8gb Ram) in a i7 920 and it was $899.00 before shipping
Now I know Scali just argues for the sake of arguing... I mean he argued with me to agree with me, but you're acting like you'd buy 8gb of ram for a AMD system. A i7 920, motherboard, and performance ram in a 3gb pack is about $690. With all 8 threads an i7 will smoke any Phenom II, and will have much more memory bandwidth. Is that good? YES! It depends on the application though.
Now wait a second... I'm not trying to say anything bad about the upcoming Phenom IIs. In fact I've been trying to clear up that without hyperthreading the Phenom IIs perform exactly the same as the i7 processors. Why? Because their cores are just as powerful core for core as each other. This doesn't mean 6% faster Scali, this means they would be neck and neck at the same speeds with the same thread count in any program. Deal with it!
Huh? look at my sig then look at this http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=riw9qr&s=4
Explain to me how 3gigs works for me, when I max out 8 gigs daily?
Edit: statement retracted. I am not getting into this.
Good idea... Though I do love when people load up their PCs with lots of memory when they don't even do anything intensive.
6.42GB in use crew checkin' in, and I'm workin' light tonight.
Yeah I am having a light night tonight myself
I think you're missing something.
Performance/price consists of two things:
1) Price
2) Performance
You were comparing purely on price alone. If you do that, compare to Core2, which is in the same price range.
I was pointing out that Core i7 performs better, hence it is allowed to cost more (which follows automatically from the simple performance/price equation). Core i7 920 delivers the performance of the QX9770 at a fraction of the cost (and there is currently no AMD alternative that delivers this performance), hence Core i7 is better performance/price than Core2 at that level. Not just the CPU alone, but even if you factor in motherboard and memory costs.
But they aren't. Core i7 is more powerful. I don't see how you could think otherwise, with the benchmarks already released.
Also, HT doesn't necessarily make Core i7 faster.
Look at this for example:
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=529
Firstly, you'll see that the Core i7 is actually faster when HT is disabled.
Secondly you'll see that the Core i7 at 2.66 GHz beats the Shanghai at 2.7 GHz.
In fact, taking the most favourable numbers for Shanghai, we see it's 38.4 vs 35.5, meaning Core i7 actually has an 8% lead, so more than the 6% required.
Which proves that Core i7's cores are more powerful, at least for this kind of workload.
We will be seeing more of this as more benchmarks trickle in, I'm sure (in fact, this is not even such a good case for Nehalem, looking at how well the Penryn-based Xeon still keeps up. We've seen bigger performance differences in benchmarks between Nehalem and Penryn in many desktop benchmarks. Its real power lies elsewhere).
- Status