At stock speed, in real life situation : 955 vs i5

[ShawnD1]

Most people are extremely CPU centric in their buying decisions, putting their money on expensive cpus just to run their browsers and family photos through picasa, a total waste of money imho and a sad state of the modern computer industry.

That's because the CPU is the single most important part of the computer. A computer with a shitty keyboard or slow hard drive will suck, but it will still work. Browsing the web on a computer with a slow CPU is impossible; it literally doesn't work. I tried to watch a blip.tv video on my Celeron 520 laptop a few weeks ago and it froze the browser. I restarted the computer and it took about 5 minutes before the CPU usage dropped below 80%. That computer can't play downloaded .flv videos and it can't play DVDs. All of this stuff is CPU-limited.

I typed this on a Phenom 9600 quad core. I have 5 Google Chrome tabs open with flash and everything and it's still super fast

 

[Cattykit]

Do you ever not speak in cliche's?

:awe:

 

[CurseTheSky]

That's because the CPU is the single most important part of the computer. A computer with a shitty keyboard or slow hard drive will suck, but it will still work. Browsing the web on a computer with a slow CPU is impossible; it literally doesn't work. I tried to watch a blip.tv video on my Celeron 520 laptop a few weeks ago and it froze the browser. I restarted the computer and it took about 5 minutes before the CPU usage dropped below 80%. That computer can't play downloaded .flv videos and it can't play DVDs. All of this stuff is CPU-limited.

I typed this on a Phenom 9600 quad core. I have 5 Google Chrome tabs open with flash and everything and it's still super fast

The CPU isn't the problem in that case. It's most likely a software problem, or a lack of memory. An Atom netbook is still horribly slow by my standards, but not so slow that it's unusable.

I'd bet if you did a fresh reformat / reinstall / download latest updates and install a virus scanner, you'd notice a significant improvement. If not, look at how much total memory it has; if it's less than 1GB, upgrade.

 

[Fox5]

The CPU isn't the problem in that case. It's most likely a software problem, or a lack of memory. An Atom netbook is still horribly slow by my standards, but not so slow that it's unusable.

I'd bet if you did a fresh reformat / reinstall / download latest updates and install a virus scanner, you'd notice a significant improvement. If not, look at how much total memory it has; if it's less than 1GB, upgrade.

Especially given that web browsing is a mostly single threaded experience, and the Phenom 9600 is a very poor single threaded performer, probably even compared to the Celeron.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Ask yourself this: have you EVER upgraded just the CPU in any of your machines?

I haven't. Not because it wasn't possible, but because it was never cost effective.

Oh, but it is cost-effective, when you take the software side into consideration. Not having to re-install your OS and all of your apps, is important to some people.

Edit: Even moreso with this "product activation" BS. Throw in a new mobo, and the software thinks it's a new computer system, and you have to re-buy your software!

 

[ShawnD1]

The CPU isn't the problem in that case. It's most likely a software problem, or a lack of memory. An Atom netbook is still horribly slow by my standards, but not so slow that it's unusable.

I'd bet if you did a fresh reformat / reinstall / download latest updates and install a virus scanner, you'd notice a significant improvement. If not, look at how much total memory it has; if it's less than 1GB, upgrade.

Firefox with 1 tab open watching a low resolution video on youtube consumes ~90% CPU. The sound cuts out and it skips frames. The Celeron 520 (1.6GHz) is a piece of shit processor that can't even run firefox. IE, Opera, and Google Chrome are just as slow, so it's not a Firefox issue. What's funny about this is how Anand's benchmarks show that a 1.6GHz Celeron is more than twice as fast as an Atom. link. Almost makes me think that sales people trying to say those Atom laptops can browse the web should all be fired.

Watching the same video on a stock E6600 looks like this:

 

[ShawnD1]

Especially given that web browsing is a mostly single threaded experience, and the Phenom 9600 is a very poor single threaded performer, probably even compared to the Celeron.

I feel that I should respond to this as well. I played the same video on the Phenom to see how it compares:

Remember the scale of these. The celeron is a single core so the number shown is what it really takes. The E6600 is a dual core so multiply by 2. Phenom is a quad so multiply by 4.
1.6GHz Celeron 520 = 87% per core, totally unwatchable
2.4GHz Core 2 E6600 = 18% per core, works great
2.3GHz Phenom 9600 = 48% per core, works great

 

[StrangerGuy]

That's because the CPU is the single most important part of the computer. A computer with a shitty keyboard or slow hard drive will suck, but it will still work. Browsing the web on a computer with a slow CPU is impossible; it literally doesn't work. I tried to watch a blip.tv video on my Celeron 520 laptop a few weeks ago and it froze the browser. I restarted the computer and it took about 5 minutes before the CPU usage dropped below 80%. That computer can't play downloaded .flv videos and it can't play DVDs. All of this stuff is CPU-limited.

I typed this on a Phenom 9600 quad core. I have 5 Google Chrome tabs open with flash and everything and it's still super fast

My nearly 8 year old P4 2.2GHz with GF4 MX460 watches Youtube vids (up to 720p) without problems...So it's too much a stretch to say a Conroe-based Celly 520 can't even do web browsing.

 

[Stefan Payne]

Let's be honest here, if you want AMD then get AMD. If you want what is currently the best, then get Intel. 1156 is a brand new socket so it will have plenty of upgrades and you won't spend much more than on an AMD system.

I disagree.

Intel isn't "the best" it's just a little faster but has some disadvantages such as no real PCIe 2.0 Lanes besides the ones in the CPU, just 16 Lanes, no possibility for 2x 16 Lanes and no decent IGP (and no possibility for nVidia to make one).
The AMD is a little cheaper...

The buttom line: no one has a real advantage, both are pretty much equal, so if something runs like crap it runs like crap on both so it doesn't really matter what you coose.

Anandtech sayd that the i5 felt "smoother" / "snappier" than the 965

Anandtech says you can't play games with an IGP...

I played Spellforce 1 on my ECS A780GM-A on 1600x1200 with FSAA...

 

[Fox5]

I disagree.

Intel isn't "the best" it's just a little faster but has some disadvantages such as no real PCIe 2.0 Lanes besides the ones in the CPU, just 16 Lanes, no possibility for 2x 16 Lanes and no decent IGP (and no possibility for nVidia to make one).
The AMD is a little cheaper...

The buttom line: no one has a real advantage, both are pretty much equal, so if something runs like crap it runs like crap on both so it doesn't really matter what you coose.


Anandtech says you can't play games with an IGP...

I played Spellforce 1 on my ECS A780GM-A on 1600x1200 with FSAA...

Well, competition sets the prices, so yes, the only real way there's going to be a measurable advantage between the two (at equal prices) would be if overclocking was included. Both PII and i5 max out around 4Ghz (+ or -), but the i5 performs noticeably better at the same clock speed.

 

[Stefan Payne]

1. We don't talk at same clock speed, we talk about the same price.
2. I don't like overclocking, so both my 955BE and my i5/750 are not overclocked.
3. it seems that Intel CPUs tend to degrade when overclocked (ie does now 3,5GHz and more, in 6months to a year it's not capable for that anymore)
4. is there still the problem of burned LGA1156 sockets in the room.
Without overclocking they should should be fine, even at 24/7 @ Linpack (with a decent cooler).
5. the LGA1156 Plattform is lowest cost crap...
You have an integrated PCIe Controller in the CPU, wich has 16 lanes and a crappy interface to the SB, wich seems to be 2GB/sec (I think it's just 1GB/sec, Intel adds up- and downstream).

The performance may be a little better but on the other hand you have a bucket of disadvantages over an AM3 Plattform.

The P55 doesn't have PCie Lanes with full 2.0 speed (5Gt/sec), the connecton to the CPU is crap 'cause it's way too slow...

 

[Markfw]

1. We don't talk at same clock speed, we talk about the same price.
2. I don't like overclocking, so both my 955BE and my i5/750 are not overclocked.
3. it seems that Intel CPUs tend to degrade when overclocked (ie does now 3,5GHz and more, in 6months to a year it's not capable for that anymore)
4. is there still the problem of burned LGA1156 sockets in the room.
Without overclocking they should should be fine, even at 24/7 @ Linpack (with a decent cooler).
5. the LGA1156 Plattform is lowest cost crap...
You have an integrated PCIe Controller in the CPU, wich has 16 lanes and a crappy interface to the SB, wich seems to be 2GB/sec (I think it's just 1GB/sec, Intel adds up- and downstream).

The performance may be a little better but on the other hand you have a bucket of disadvantages over an AM3 Plattform.

The P55 doesn't have PCie Lanes with full 2.0 speed (5Gt/sec), the connecton to the CPU is crap 'cause it's way too slow...

Saying you don't like overclocking on a overclocking forum will get you a lot of arguments, and rightfully so. Thats like going into a middle eastern country and saying I don't like muslims, or going to china, and saying I don't like chinese....

But I do agree to compare at the same prices is valid, except overclocked at that price....

 

[mav451]

AMD chips degrade as well, so claiming they don't is pretty ridiculous.

In my experience with my own builds and builds I've helped with, my experience spans the 800Tbird, 1600+, 2100+, 2500+ XP-M 2600+, and Opteron 146. I can tell you the last 4 chips all degraded in one form or another. My 146 in the later stages took more to hit 3Ghz than it did when I first got it. Am I shocked? No, that's just the way it is. Ditto to my XP-M hitting 2.6Ghz anywhere close to the low voltage it required when I first started OCing. Doesn't mean it still couldn't hit my desired OCs, just that it took a small bump in voltage.

Now you don't see people proclaiming that AMD chips suck because they degrade do you? That's just nonsense.

 

[Hey Zeus]

Saying you don't like overclocking on a overclocking forum will get you a lot of arguments, and rightfully so. Thats like going into a middle eastern country and saying I don't like muslims, or going to china, and saying I don't like chinese....

But I do agree to compare at the same prices is valid, except overclocked at that price....

Mmm Panda Express

 

[cbn]

Oh, but it is cost-effective, when you take the software side into consideration. Not having to re-install your OS and all of your apps, is important to some people.

Edit: Even moreso with this "product activation" BS. Throw in a new mobo, and the software thinks it's a new computer system, and you have to re-buy your software!

Yep, that is true.

Good point.

 

[Stefan Payne]

Oh, but it is cost-effective, when you take the software side into consideration. Not having to re-install your OS and all of your apps, is important to some people.

Who reinstalls WIndows when he changes the board?!
OK, you need to reactivate it, but that's about it, the rest isn't that tragic...

@Markfw900
Well, that's not true, and if you'll go to an arabic country you'd better not say anything about the president of that country or Allah...
Well I have a problem when better OC is an argument for something or against it.

First no one can guarantee that it really works and there are no (long term) sideeffects or stability issues, than no one can guarantee how far you can get.
And OC mostly deactivates the energy saving mechanism of the CPUs, so you'll waste a lot of energy (and heat) to get a little more performance...

That said I do overclock sometimes and I like the OC Pros like Shamino or the guys at the awardfabrik in Germany.
For me OC is a sport, not for every day usage.

 

[Hey Zeus]

Only way i Install a new OS is with a new build

 

[grimpr]

That's because the CPU is the single most important part of the computer. A computer with a shitty keyboard or slow hard drive will suck, but it will still work. Browsing the web on a computer with a slow CPU is impossible; it literally doesn't work. I tried to watch a blip.tv video on my Celeron 520 laptop a few weeks ago and it froze the browser. I restarted the computer and it took about 5 minutes before the CPU usage dropped below 80%. That computer can't play downloaded .flv videos and it can't play DVDs. All of this stuff is CPU-limited.

I typed this on a Phenom 9600 quad core. I have 5 Google Chrome tabs open with flash and everything and it's still super fast

Agreed, but your example resides at the extreme side of the fence.

You can bet that all this talk and mindset will change in 2010 and onward with the release of the still shitty Adobe Flash 10.2 w/ GPU Acceleration and Internet Explore 9/Firefox 3.7 that draw on the GPU.

Internet Explorer 9 To Get GPU Rendering, CSS3, HTML5 Support.
http://www.techspot.com/news/37012-microsoft-reveals-first-internet-explorer-9-details.html

Mozilla Firefox, Direct2D - Hardware Rendering a Browser.
http://www.basschouten.com/blog1.php/2009/11/22/direct2d-hardware-rendering-a-browser

Couple all of this with the next wave of consumer video/photo editing apps that use the modern GPUs through DirectCompute/CUDA/OpenCL, the continuous push to the mainstream of fast SSD drives and you'll come to realize the changing of the mindset that WILL happen sooner or later, we're only at the beginning.

 

[Ranulf]

Hmm, so for pretty much a pure gaming system (minor vid encoding and basic usage), is there a chip thats preferable? I'm likely to run it at stock speed with a 5850, 6gb ddr3 ram.

 

[CraigRT]

Hmm, so for pretty much a pure gaming system (minor vid encoding and basic usage), is there a chip thats preferable? I'm likely to run it at stock speed with a 5850, 6gb ddr3 ram.

Yep, the fastest one possible..

The AMD chips are pretty decent in terms of gaming performance overall, but the i7 is still the overall performance leader.

If cost is not as much of an issue, i7 (any of them!)

 

[Eddie313]

Intel's spec sheet



That's how much Microcenter pays for them. If they're selling for $150, they're taking about a $50 loss on each one. It's nice they're able to do this, and I really hope they can stay in business. Newegg's price right now is $195, so basically Newegg is selling it at cost.

I know people who work there they do not take a loss....

 

[konakona]

VirtualLarry, agreed on the mobo/cpu pairing bit, I always end up selling/giving away mobo/cpu together, or keeping them till they crap out. The only time I have bought one separate from the other was when my P35 mobo died.

As for the reactivation though, I am not aware of any other companies doing this other than MS with windows. If you call them up, they will reactivate it for you no questions asked. I have done this several times (with legit copies of course).