![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Will AMD ever be competitive with Intel in performance?
- Thread starter maximus87
- Start date
We don't know how AMD 6 core processor will perform. It is most likely a 6 core phenom2 which still wouldn't hold a candle on i7 even if it does get released. At best it might tie 4physical and 4 logical cores of i7 860. Never mind sandy bridge should be coming soon for the socket 1156 crowd. Oh believe when I say most people don't 3d model or image process. The mass do not work with these type of applications. Majority use computers for internet, videos, games, music, download contents, office, etc... I'm not saying there aren't people who don't do these things. Not at all but think realistically how the mass interact with their computers.
Did you look at the links? Do look again. There are plenty of quad optimized games in those benchmarks.
BigMacAttack
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,563
Just to clarify - my comment about 3dmodels and image processing was directed at this quote (above) from you. It concerned the comment "most people here" on this forum. In the broad spectrum you are correct - in terms of this forum you may or may not be correct. Never assume before drawing conclusions.
Now, in relation to the 6 core AMD cpu coming out soon, I will be keeping the architecture I have and upgrading the cpu only - I have no need, nor desire, to replace my mobo and cpu. While it may not be bleeding edge in comparison to the i7 it will still suite my needs quite well enough - and many other AMD users as well, I'm sure. For the price it should be more than capable.
I won't argue the fact that for the masses the i3 is a fine cpu choice - more than most users will probably utilize. It does have a great rating for power consumption and performs very well. But for the [H]ard crowd (like us) I would rather have more power available (read "cores") in order to do more work. Maybe one day I can afford to pop for an i7 and do my work even faster. For now the Phenom II 945 Deneb (95W) at 3.225ghz (a mild oc) is doing the job nicely for the $340 I paid for it, the DDR3 Crucial Ballistix ram (3ghz kit) and the Asus mobo. I was tempted by the X3's due to the price and the possibility to unlock the 4th core but decided to just go for the real thing instead. I did not even consider a dual core cpu. For the masses they may be ok but in reality their days are numbered when 4 core options are now available at $100 - $120 (Athlon 2 X4's) and Phenom II's at $130.00 - $179.99 at Newegg. Then there are the hexa core cpu's on the horizon to consider as well. If the i3 were a quad core Intel would be sitting very pretty indeed.
Last edited:
This [H]ardware site is dedicated on overclocking and gaming. So most people in this forum use 3d Modeling and image processing? You might want to check your sources. You have to realize the few people like yourself are the exceptions. My comment wasn't directed towards you specifically. The fact that my comment doesn't describe your situation and you having a phenom system already is why you had griped. i3 is indeed a better alternative than the Athlon x4 for the mass with lower power consumption, better gaming performance, more sure upgrade path already available. AMD hex better be really fast and cheaper than $200 to be competitive with i7 860 as phenom just can't compete with i7 architecturally. For $180 you could easily get a i5 750 which cream any of the phenom. BTW performance isn't everything as I've learned from 20 years of computing. AMD chipsets just can't compete with Intel.
BigMacAttack
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,563
To each his own I suppose. You are obviously an Intel fan and happy to be so. That is fine and good. But Intel isn't the only solution thank goodness. As even Kyle has shown, the differences in real world applications aren't all that drastic. And if "performance isn't everything" then why are you so ready to crow about Intel's superior performance? I'll tell you what - you go have a nice time with your Intel chipsets and cpu's and I'll do the same with my AMD parts and we'll both be happy. Fair 'nuff?
Oh I've used bunch of AMD systems in the past when AMD did take the crown from intel few little times they did. Their CPU is good enough but their 3rd party chipset suppliers or themselves can't make a decent chipset. Not to mention i3 is already available for the mass and just as good as x4 with lower power consumption with a clear upgrade path. I just can't recommend x4 at this time other than few nitch markets. I'm a fan of stability, price/performance, upgrade path. In that order. Who ever gets me that gets my vote. Not because I'm a Intel fan.
Again, the usage models folks are using to justify top performance such as 3D modelling, image processing and playing Crysis at full quality are minority uses.
Take the whole of the folks in the world using a computer and I bet less than 10% actually do that to any degree. For the other 90% anything cheap off the shelf will do just as well. So they will go for the cheapest option.
Cheap and cheerful is the way forward. We've reached a plateau performance wise for most applications that people use. I dont count 'enthusiasts' in that as they are the exception to the rule, but a very small exception all the same.
Take the whole of the folks in the world using a computer and I bet less than 10% actually do that to any degree. For the other 90% anything cheap off the shelf will do just as well. So they will go for the cheapest option.
Cheap and cheerful is the way forward. We've reached a plateau performance wise for most applications that people use. I dont count 'enthusiasts' in that as they are the exception to the rule, but a very small exception all the same.
BigMacAttack
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,563
I've not had any troubles chipset-wise but I have heard of others who have. And I agree that AMD's own chipsets were far from on par with Intel's early on. I can't say how the acquisition of ATI has panned out so far. I know AMD wanted to make a go of improving their chipset situation as part of acquiring ATI.
But as to third party vendors I've had good luck there. I have a system I built back in June of '04 still in use as a business machine (CAD station mainly) that has an Asus K8V (VIA chipset) mobo in it which is home to a skt 754 3400+ Venice and I've never had a problem with it. When I 1st got it I ordered a 3400+ Clawhammer and then a 3700+ Clawhammer but couldn't get them to oc very far. I always thought it was the VIA chipset but after I put the 3400+ Venice in there I could take the thing up past 2.7 ghz (2.4 is stock) with all the voltage I wanted to give it. Needless to say I was quite surprised. Its solid as a rock and continues to soldier on.
I then tried an Asus K8N4-e Deluxe with the nForce4 chipset. I couldn't get the voltage past 1.55v in the bios no matter where I set the voltage and came to discover that Asus put a voltage limit on the board. When I got tired of being limited I got an Abit NV8 with the same chipset and it was one of the best mobo's I ever owned. Some folks had problems with the nForce4's chipset fan suddenly quitting but I ran mine for 4 years without a problem. I upgraded that system to the one in my sig. The Abit oc'd like a fiend . I've also got an ECS nf4 board in this system with another 3400+ Venice and its rock solid as well. I have really enjoyed the nf4 setups and continue to use them because they are solid, fun and fast enough for the present (and for some legacy gaming).
I guess perhaps its just the luck of the draw. I've not had a problem with any chipset issues and have been well satisfied with the products.
Last edited:
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,871
I guess high rez gaming doesn't count. Only the most popular application of about 99% of the buyers out there. Truth be told the PII scales very well in gaming, where the i7 flat-lines at most everything above stock (Why an i7 above a 920 is a pure rip-off for gamers!). When we are talking about high end media applications, the i7 rules, no question. But how many consumers are in that bracket? Especially when a 4-core PII is not exactly slow. But clocked to 4GHz, the PII is every bit the contender for games. In fact, if AMD could break the MHz race and get the PII over 4GHz, it would rule the roost, at least in gaming. The largest market!
Check out this Legion article. Notice how the i7 trumps the PII at stock. Then notice how the PII scales very well, beating the i7 many times when both are clocked to 4GHz. Whats happening there? Factor in the cost difference and it is clear when the $$ differential is to be spent on GFX/Monitors, the PII is a far smarter choice for a bleeding edge gamer on a budget.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=869&p=22
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=869&p=19
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=869&p=17
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=869&p=18
Last edited:
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,871
you my friend are a perfect example of one who tries to speak as if they know something
After viewing your posting history, I wouldn't go there girl friend. Please add something to the conversation, or stay low in the peanut gallery. Peace.
I'm not going to educate you on what I learned the past few day. Perhaps you should follow my posts and learn. I have both, I know. Just because your AMD can keep up with these games that are GPU dependent doesn't mean I7's are a rip off. If you want something more that can game, you pay the price. Simple as that. It's all about what is in your wallet and what you want to do. Obviously you mentioned what you are about, not enough to go about it as if it is a fact.
Get one and try it. Then come back
There is a need for games and then there is a need for games and "work"... pic your pleasure, for me I do both!
Get one and try it. Then come back
There is a need for games and then there is a need for games and "work"... pic your pleasure, for me I do both!
wildzcardz
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 374
Well I started off with a P4 2.6ghz, then moved to AMD 940 and was really impressed with that chip, now moving to an I7 920 becuase the overclocking potential are way better compared to an PII overclock.. just seems that the AMDs take more voltage and harder to stabilize up past 3.8 for most people.
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,871
English please.
First off, I specifically stated "high rez gaming", sorry for your lack of reading comprehension.
Second of all, if they were GPU dependent, how do you explain the PII passing the i7 when both at higher clocks?
If it was GPU limited, they would both be in a stagnant dead-heat. Not the case is it.
First off, I specifically stated "high rez gaming", sorry for your lack of reading comprehension.
Second of all, if they were GPU dependent, how do you explain the PII passing the i7 when both at higher clocks?
If it was GPU limited, they would both be in a stagnant dead-heat. Not the case is it.
The point here is that hardware can do what it can do. Don't be mad when you try to compare it to do something another brand can do better. These are not listed as Gamer CPUs, which could lead to a valid debate.
Barttle do?
Barttle do?
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,871
Really? Because when i want to drive off road, I might want to buy a 4x4. So when we compare OCP'ed CPU's we should just ignore that a moderately O'clocked PII is everything a i7 is, but way cheaper when gaming is concerned? Just a reminder, the single largest app for enthusiast PC's is GAMING!
Your not going to sucker me into a i7 vs. PII 3d render debate. I have already stated that it is a lop sided battle for the i7, so stop trying to play it that way. You know the debate if you followed the links. So, stop trying to twist the argument, and say something relevant. Please?
The subject of this thread is " Will AMD ever be competitive with Intel in performance? "..
So what is it? You already contradicted yourself and are trying to push out of my debate. Re-read you own posts. For that, that is my argument. I'm lost and out of interest already.
So what is it? You already contradicted yourself and are trying to push out of my debate. Re-read you own posts. For that, that is my argument. I'm lost and out of interest already.
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,871
" Originally Posted by kirbyrj View Post
Similar performance? Come on...even the most die hard AMD fan isn't going to admit that. AMD has nothing performance wise to compete with an i7 at 4Ghz. I'll give you that it has better performance relative to its price point in some areas, but the high end isn't one of them.
Actually, this kind of reminds me of the old Northwood/Barton days. Intel had stuff all over the spectrum, but the best AMD had was a $200 CPU."
That is the quote I first responded to. A PII vs. a i7 at 4 GHz. I have shown you links that compare 3d gaming performance and scaling between the two architectures. You seem hell bent on not saying anything relative to this discussion. I haven't contradicted myself once. You haven't addressed the argument once. If you do not respond with anything intelligent, I will simply block your comments.
Similar performance? Come on...even the most die hard AMD fan isn't going to admit that. AMD has nothing performance wise to compete with an i7 at 4Ghz. I'll give you that it has better performance relative to its price point in some areas, but the high end isn't one of them.
Actually, this kind of reminds me of the old Northwood/Barton days. Intel had stuff all over the spectrum, but the best AMD had was a $200 CPU."
That is the quote I first responded to. A PII vs. a i7 at 4 GHz. I have shown you links that compare 3d gaming performance and scaling between the two architectures. You seem hell bent on not saying anything relative to this discussion. I haven't contradicted myself once. You haven't addressed the argument once. If you do not respond with anything intelligent, I will simply block your comments.
This is HardOCP, not HardGAMER. This is not in the gaming forum
Code:
Just a reminder, the single largest app for enthusiast PC's is GAMING!See above, irrelevant. Take a look around these forums.
..
hmm ok, as if that fits the picture. Your card vs nevermind... I give up already. What ever floats your boat.
As you said, if you want over all performance (gpu aside!), you pay to play, and is all I was wanting to say. I'm a gamer and I dont feel that my I7 is a rip-off when I do my every day tasks at the end of the day.
All of this is garbage IMO. How exactly does AMD chipsets not compete with intel? And the i5-750 is 200 dollars, the phII X4 955 C3 is 160, the 965 is 10-15 more, both are cheaper than the i5-750 (and their mobos are also cheaper), they have better upgrade paths, and comparable performance. Especially post overclock as any C3 955/965 will easily do 4ghz+.
Saying intel is clearly better for gaming right now is just pure opinion as the best amd and intel cpu's all bench very similarly in games.
You actually believe AMD is similar in games? Care to back that up?
A $99 i3 530 can keep up with phenom 925 in games.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/01/04/intel-core-i5-661-core-i3-530-cpu-review/9
Seems pretty comparable in performance... between i3 and Athlon II X4. You said it yourself that i3-530 keeps up in games so you seem to be aware of the similar performance. Out of curiosity, since when was the i3-530 only $99 if there's not a sale/rebate involved? Most common price I see is $130ish....
I would say that on the low end, AMD trumps Intel in performance purely because of pricing limitations on Intel's chips. In the midrange Intel has a slight advantage/disadvantage depending on the application. High end is Intel hands down for better or worse (I hope AMD can become more competitive in that area in the future, if only to drive prices down and innovation up).
Seems pretty comparable in performance... between i3 and Athlon II X4. You said it yourself that i3-530 keeps up in games so you seem to be aware of the similar performance. Out of curiosity, since when was the i3-530 only $99 if there's not a sale/rebate involved? Most common price I see is $130ish....
I would say that on the low end, AMD trumps Intel in performance purely because of pricing limitations on Intel's chips. In the midrange Intel has a slight advantage/disadvantage depending on the application. High end is Intel hands down for better or worse (I hope AMD can become more competitive in that area in the future, if only to drive prices down and innovation up).
Look at the sales for the i7 line compared to everything else. I remember seeing around 70% of intel's sales were LGA775 on hard ocp earlier. The day of needing more CPU power for anyone below the enthusiast are over. It's not a good market to enter and it's not really worth it other than the halo effect (the same thing happens with graphics cards).
I wouldn't be surprised if AMD was never competitive with Intel in the enthusiast market again. Not because they're not capable, but because it's a dying market and it's becoming less and less worth it to enter it. We're heading towards a world of CPUs being efficient over powerful.
I wouldn't be surprised if AMD was never competitive with Intel in the enthusiast market again. Not because they're not capable, but because it's a dying market and it's becoming less and less worth it to enter it. We're heading towards a world of CPUs being efficient over powerful.
Did you look at the benchmark you linked to?
i3 @ stock is roughly 20% faster than stock athlon 2 x4 635.
When you overclock the clarkdale to 4ghz it's fast as 4ghz phenom 2.
i3 is $99 at microcenter. That's there regular price since i3 released.
flippin_waffles
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 178
Thought you might be interested in this....er not.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=244788
did you miss this?
Most major us cities has a Microcenter. I consider that most people do you?
Sure, after all the other 35 states don't really matter. Clearly the majority of the US population lives in the 15 states that there are Microcenters in
But sarcasm aside, I stand by my view that AMD performance is pretty comparable to Intel at the low end of the price bracket.
You have to admit there's nothing but farm and parking lots in most of those 35 states.
If you are a gamer the choice is obvious. i3 does quite well that consume less power with an i7 upgrade path if you ever need more processing power. overclocked vs overclocked you are seeing the top end phenom 2 having a hard time beating an overclocked i3.
If you are a gamer the choice is obvious. i3 does quite well that consume less power with an i7 upgrade path if you ever need more processing power. overclocked vs overclocked you are seeing the top end phenom 2 having a hard time beating an overclocked i3.
BigMacAttack
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,563
Well, I hate to break it to you we don't have one here in Orlando, FL, which is a decent sized market. Nor are there ANY Microcenter stores in Florida at all. With Jax, Orlando, Tampa/Clearwater/Bradenton/St. Pete, Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, etc, etc, etc. I would hardly state that we are surrounded by "farmland and parking lots" (well, maybe parking lots )
Oh and BTW I checked their online selection of cpu's to see what they had to offer. Only 4 cpu's:
Intel Q8200 OEM $119.99
Intel Celeron OEM E1500 $39.99
Intel Celeron 450 OEM $29.99
AMD Phenom II X2 555 BE 99.99
That's it. I was really hoping for far, far more.
If their in store inventory is more complete I would love to see some of them open up down here. We only have CompUSA which isn't too bad (nee Tigerdirect) but for selection and price I'll stick with Newegg, ZZf and sometimes mWave.
)Oh and BTW I checked their online selection of cpu's to see what they had to offer. Only 4 cpu's:
Intel Q8200 OEM $119.99
Intel Celeron OEM E1500 $39.99
Intel Celeron 450 OEM $29.99
AMD Phenom II X2 555 BE 99.99
That's it. I was really hoping for far, far more.
If their in store inventory is more complete I would love to see some of them open up down here. We only have CompUSA which isn't too bad (nee Tigerdirect) but for selection and price I'll stick with Newegg, ZZf and sometimes mWave.
You have to admit there's nothing but farm and parking lots in most of those 35 states.
If you are a gamer the choice is obvious. i3 does quite well that consume less power with an i7 upgrade path if you ever need more processing power. overclocked vs overclocked you are seeing the top end phenom 2 having a hard time beating an overclocked i3.
is your i7 upgrade path the i7 860 ???? wheres the 6-core i7 for socket 1156 ???
btw- nice job initiating a flame war and getting very close to the 50 posts needed for FS/FT
BigMacAttack
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,563
or swamps
You've got that right! Not as bad as Louisiana but close enough.
LostInRehab
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 430
I see a few people think that bulldozer will put amd on top again but I think they forget that intels sandybridge will come out at the same time so unless intel messes up again like they did with netburst I doubt even bulldozer will take the crown.
If an i3 is competitive x4 with only 2 cores and 2 logical cores what makes you think AMD hex is going to beat an i7 with 4 cores and 4 logical cores? For AMD to stay competitive with i7 8x0 they probably need 8 cores and better be cheap as I7 860 is only $199 at microcenter.
So I give you proof that i3 is just as good as x4 with better gaming performance it's a flame war? Oh dear. You just can't seem to handle the truth too well. You are in denial with you x2.
....flame war because you made your point on page one...it is now page 6.......
i never said AMD Hex core will beat an i7.....kinda obvious it wont since the Deneb cores have trouble keeping up in certain tasks.......
i never denied that the i3 is a good chip, im just saying that a true quad(no HT) performs better, in tasks that use more cores than 2.....the HT is good, but not as good as an actual core......the i3 is better core for core, but it doesnt have 4
i never said AMD Hex core will beat an i7.....kinda obvious it wont since the Deneb cores have trouble keeping up in certain tasks.......
i never denied that the i3 is a good chip, im just saying that a true quad(no HT) performs better, in tasks that use more cores than 2.....the HT is good, but not as good as an actual core......the i3 is better core for core, but it doesnt have 4
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,871
Sorry for the eMule P2P link, I was doing a few things at once. Links are now corrected.
I didn't even post until page 4. It is you who started posting since page 1 how your phenom is so great.
You were the one trolling.
In denial about your phenom 2 are you?
yeah whatever. You were asking for 6 core i7 when a 4core i7 with hyperthreading will most likely beat phenom 2 x6. Think logically not your pride about your computer you have in your sig.