Core I3 @ 4.8Ghz Vs X4 965 @ 3.8Ghz

[soccerballtux]

That doesn't mean they don't exist, or that enthusiasts don't use their computers for those applications.



Well it doesn't really matter what you recommend anyway, I just want to see if you have ever recommended an Intel chip when AMD was not competitive on price/performance.

?

I will recommend Intel, as I did with the laptop, when the time comes. AMD just isn't competitive in power consumption in the mobile sector.

By the way, AMD's L3 cache structure makes them the most price-competitive performer for server workloads.

 

[zsdersw]

I will recommend Intel, as I did with the laptop, when the time comes.

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[AzN]

you bring up a good point. I didnt realize until about a year ago that many settings start putting huge stress on the cpu and not just the graphics. a lot of time when I pointing out that a cpu might be too slow I get the typical "well you can turn up the settings if the cpu is the bottleneck". thats turning out to be a load of crap because turning up the settings effects the whole computer and not just the graphics card. really a very fast dual core is the minimum for todays games and something like an i5/i7 quad is needed if you are going to get the most out of your games especially with very high end gpu setups.

Face it. The strain is still on GPU as you raise resolution which you have been ignoring. Yes there's been few games within the last year or so where CPU matters a bit more due to console ports as xbox 360 or ps3 have multiple cores. Munky's link is based on 800x600 resolution where CPU matters more but who plays 800x600 resolution? I know I don't. Faster CPU is much faster in resolutions where the GPU constraint is low or next to none. The fact that most people play games in GPU limited situations is where the performance level of CPU topple off to mere 10-15% from bottom end to high end. Of course there are exceptions.

 

[soccerballtux]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Okay....it really doesn't bother me if you don't like it...as long as it's the objective right choice in performance per dollar, then it is in everyone's benefit to buy an AMD chip because without AMD, nobody will be able to afford an upgrade. If you have a problem with this then you're obviously a fanboy...again, not that that bothers me, I just want whats best for everyone in both the short term and long term. Fanboyism doesn't get us anywhere if it costs us twice as much in the long run.

 

[zsdersw]

as long as it's the objective right choice in performance per dollar

It is not always the right choice in performance per dollar, even if you ignore the mobile sector. Why do you not recommend an Intel chip in those situations?

Two main areas that make Intel the objective right choice in some scenarios:

- Upgrade vs new build/purchase: a drop-in upgrade for an existing Intel system can sometimes be better than new mobo/CPU, for example.

- Overclocking: overclocking some inexpensive Intel chips can sometimes offer better performance per dollar than an AMD system.

Both of these are things we've seen in various threads on this forum, yet your recommendation is curiously absent or always for the AMD option. Why?

 

[Munky]

Face it. The strain is still on GPU as you raise resolution which you have been ignoring. Yes there's been few games within the last year or so where CPU matters a bit more due to console ports as xbox 360 or ps3 have multiple cores. Munky's link is based on 800x600 resolution where CPU matters more but who plays 800x600 resolution? I know I don't. Faster CPU is much faster in resolutions where the GPU constraint is low or next to none. The fact that most people play games in GPU limited situations is where the performance level of CPU topple off to mere 10-15% from bottom end to high end. Of course there are exceptions.

The point of testing at 800x600 is to show the maximum fps you can achieve with a given cpu. So if a dual core is averaging 120fps at 800x600, that's great, but if it's getting 25fps, then you're screwed no matter what video card or resolution you use.

 

[andy5174]

The maximum fps a CPU can get is meaningless in the real word/high resolution(1920x1200), because GPU instead is the bottleneck under the condition.

CPU tests done with low resolution show how good a CPU can perform theoretically. However, you are mostly not going to see the performance difference between good enough and high end CPUs in games before GPU catches up with CPU.

Although high end CPUs are not superior in games, they do make significant difference in some tasks.

Thus, whether high end CPU is worthwhile investment depends on what you do. i7 is the way to go if you do a lot of encoding/rendering, whereas, i5/PII are best for gamers.

 

[Markfw]

The maximum fps a CPU can get is meaningless in the real word/high resolution(1920x1200), because GPU instead is the bottleneck under the condition.

CPU tests done with low resolution show how good a CPU can perform theoretically. However, you are mostly not going to see the performance difference between good enough and high end CPUs in games before GPU catches up with CPU.

Although high end CPUs are not superior in games, they do make significant difference in some tasks.

Thus, whether high end CPU is worthwhile investment depends on what you do. i7 is the way to go if you do a lot of encoding/rendering, whereas, i5/PII are best for gamers.

Actually that is wrong. A high end game with 2,3 or even 4 high end video cards NEEDS the I7 and the extra bandwidth it has with all the PCIe lanes.

 

[andy5174]

Actually that is wrong. A high end game with 2,3 or even 4 high end video cards NEEDS the I7 and the extra bandwidth it has with all the PCIe lanes.

True....

However, I never consider the situation of more than 2 video cards because I am not rich enough to get more than 2 high end GPUs...

Besides, 3 or 4 GPUs should have caught up with high end CPU and therefore the full power of i7 shown.

BTW, my comment was based on the difference between i5 and i7 with 2 GPUs.

 

[AzN]

The point of testing at 800x600 is to show the maximum fps you can achieve with a given cpu. So if a dual core is averaging 120fps at 800x600, that's great, but if it's getting 25fps, then you're screwed no matter what video card or resolution you use.

Yes I understand this. Long as you are getting 60fps @ 800x600 what does it really matter? Some people are even content with 30fps but you need a little more than that even if you are a casual gamer. In case of dual cores it's fine for 99% of the games out there. Only exception being GTA4 and Arma2 both badly written for the PC which you've pointed out in your link. But all in all dual core plays just fine in any other PC titles out today.

 

[Munky]

The maximum fps a CPU can get is meaningless in the real word/high resolution(1920x1200), because GPU instead is the bottleneck under the condition.

CPU tests done with low resolution show how good a CPU can perform theoretically. However, you are mostly not going to see the performance difference between good enough and high end CPUs in games before GPU catches up with CPU.

Although high end CPUs are not superior in games, they do make significant difference in some tasks.

Thus, whether high end CPU is worthwhile investment depends on what you do. i7 is the way to go if you do a lot of encoding/rendering, whereas, i5/PII are best for gamers.

The gpu doesn't automatically become a bottleneck at higher rez. For example, an AMD K8 dual core is a major bottleneck for a 4890, even at 1920 rez with eye candy cranked up. I have personally tested this, and it changed my perspective on the issue substantially. Whether or not a gpu will limit performance at high rez varies from game to game, and with different gpu's.

Anyone playing at 1920x1200 is most likely gonna be using a 4870 or faster gpu. These cards are quite capable of pushing playable fps at that rez with settings cranked up, but if your cpu is limited to 25fps at 800x600, then you can't blame the video card for bottlenecking.

 

[Jovec]

Actually that is wrong. A high end game with 2,3 or even 4 high end video cards NEEDS the I7 and the extra bandwidth it has with all the PCIe lanes.

Not as much as you might think on the PCIe lanes. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2045386

 

[andy5174]

The gpu doesn't automatically become a bottleneck at higher rez. For example, an AMD K8 dual core is a major bottleneck for a 4890, even at 1920 rez with eye candy cranked up. I have personally tested this, and it changed my perspective on the issue substantially. Whether or not a gpu will limit performance at high rez varies from game to game, and with different gpu's.

Anyone playing at 1920x1200 is most likely gonna be using a 4870 or faster gpu. These cards are quite capable of pushing playable fps at that rez with settings cranked up, but if your cpu is limited to 25fps at 800x600, then you can't blame the video card for bottlenecking.

I said "good enough" CPU which means i5 or PII-955. i7 is of course better, but you won't see any difference with 1 GPU and minimal difference with CF/SLI.

 

[Munky]

I said "good enough" CPU which means i5 or PII-955. i7 is of course better, but you won't see any difference with 1 GPU and minimal difference with CF/SLI.

Which i5, the 750 or the dual core? Those are in two different leagues, and the benches I linked show the dual core is not quite good enough.

 

[andy5174]

The one released first and in my sig.

BTW, PII-955 is the best buy for gamers in most countries. I got i5 instead as 955 was extremely overpriced in NZ.

 

[andy5174]

Lucky Americans have the cheap high end Intel products. In fact, the money I invested in my rig is 20% more than the X58 system in the US.

EDIT: Oh no, it's 43% more instead. That sucks!

 

[Markfw]

Not as much as you might think on the PCIe lanes. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2045386

While I do find that interesting, its one specific card at different bandwidths, not 3-4 cards on uber-high settings like a high end gamer would do. I am not sure you can tell anything from this example, compared to the scenario I am talking about.

 

[soccerballtux]

Lucky Americans have the cheap high end Intel products. In fact, the money I invested in my rig is 20% more than the X58 system in the US.

EDIT: Oh no, it's 43% more instead. That sucks!

Get your politicians to tax less...tax costs are passed onto the consumer; if the consumer can't pay the company has to fire people to maintain profitability....

 

[andy5174]

While I do find that interesting, its one specific card at different bandwidths, not 3-4 cards on uber-high settings like a high end gamer would do. I am not sure you can tell anything from this example, compared to the scenario I am talking about.

He was trying to say that two 8x is almost the same as two 16x.

BTW, what made you think that 2x HD5970 is not enough for gaming so you need four...

Even the PCs built for CAD are with merely one HD4870X2 in the company run by my friend's father .

 

[Glowyrm]

Core i3 can be had for $125 now. The cheapest Phenom II X4 965 BE I found was $190. They are definitely aimed at 2 different price niches. If you're in the 965 price range though, you're better off adding $10 for an i5 750.

This is because i5 750 (Lynnfield) beats the 965 BE when it comes to gaming (a few other things too like compressed files and encoding/decoding) with extremely similar performance in all other types of computing.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/819/1

The i3 definitely fills a need at the sub $150 price segment. It's great for gaming and from every bench I've seen it's better for gaming than similarly priced AMD chips (~$130).

 

[DrMrLordX]

Core i3 can be had for $125 now. The cheapest Phenom II X4 965 BE I found was $190. They are definitely aimed at 2 different price niches. If you're in the 965 price range though, you're better off adding $10 for an i5 750.

This is because i5 750 (Lynnfield) beats the 965 BE when it comes to gaming (a few other things too like compressed files and encoding/decoding) with extremely similar performance in all other types of computing.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/819/1

The i3 definitely fills a need at the sub $150 price segment. It's great for gaming and from every bench I've seen it's better for gaming than similarly priced AMD chips (~$130).

You're ignoring overall platform cost; AM3 boards are cheaper than P55 boards. H55 boards may change all that but there's some question as to whether or not H55/H57 boards have enough BCLK capability to really push Clarksdale chips to their limits (especially the i3-530).

 

[Markfw]

You're ignoring overall platform cost; AM3 boards are cheaper than P55 boards. H55 boards may change all that but there's some question as to whether or not H55/H57 boards have enough BCLK capability to really push Clarksdale chips to their limits (especially the i3-530).

Also you are comparing the cheapest intel dual-core to one of the most exspensive AMD quads. I just got an AMD X2 550 BE that I hope to unlock to a quad (79% success rate I am told), and get it to 4 ghz, for $91 shipped !! On a $80 mobo. I could have gotten a real quad for $99, but not as much cache.

 

[soccerballtux]

Also you are comparing the cheapest intel dual-core to one of the most exspensive AMD quads. I just got an AMD X2 550 BE that I hope to unlock to a quad (79% success rate I am told), and get it to 4 ghz, for $91 shipped !! On a $80 mobo. I could have gotten a real quad for $99, but not as much cache.

Yeah but it can't fold at home as fast!!!!

 

[DrMrLordX]

Also you are comparing the cheapest intel dual-core to one of the most exspensive AMD quads. I just got an AMD X2 550 BE that I hope to unlock to a quad (79% success rate I am told), and get it to 4 ghz, for $91 shipped !! On a $80 mobo. I could have gotten a real quad for $99, but not as much cache.

True dat. Good luck with your 550BE, by the way . . . you planning on running a 32-bit or 64-bit OS on it?

 

[deputc26]

Uh, if it's at 4.8ghz why does it say @3.07ghz after the i3 name all over that chart?