Intel i7 or AMD Phenom II?

[MJoshi]

Hello,

I am stuck between deciding which processor to base a new-build PC. It's been a while since I've built a new PC from scratch. I would like to be able to do video editing, encoding and perhaps some web development.

A colleague is recommending the AMD Phenom II X4 Quad Core 965. A friend has recently built an Intel system.

I have generally preferred Intel in the past and if I went down the Intel route, I would probably go for the Intel Core i7 930 2.80GHz.

If I went for an Intel i7 system, I would go for 6GB Kingston HyperX DDR3 RAM. If I went for the AMD system, I would probably go for 8GB Kingston HyperX DDR2 RAM.

I will most likely go for the ATI Radeon HD 5750 graphics card whichever system I end up building.

Thanks for your advice.

 

[d4a2n0k]

Video editing and encoding? I7 all the way. The 965 is a great processor but nothing beats the I7's for what you want to do.

 

[pitz]

i5, i7 all the way. Only reason I own a Phenom II personally is because an AMD sales rep literally gave me a chip for free.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

AMD have good value in the mid range(especially when you consider multiplier unlocked black edition core and core unlocking) but right now they don't have anything to compete in the high end.

 

[Arkaign]

PhII and i7 are both perfect for gaming, so for pure gaming the savings skew things towards AMD (can re-use good DDR2 if you got it, cheaper mobos with more features for the same $, etc) ..

BUT

for the uses you mention, i7 pays off for sure, particularly if you get a 930.

 

[Jd007]

AMD's 6-core lineups are going to be released soon, and they are at very attractive prices ($200-$300). So I'd wait a bit and see some benches of these chips first.

 

[Arkaign]

AMD's 6-core lineups are going to be released soon, and they are at very attractive prices ($200-$300). So I'd wait a bit and see some benches of these chips first.

You don't have to wait for the benches, the server parts using the same tech have been out for some time. They're good, but they're no i7 killer. IMHO at least. The clock speeds are too low, and IPC for encoding heavily favors i7.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure where the new 6-core AMD (thuban?) is going to line up. Perhaps as games/apps become more threaded as time goes by, it will be a good foundation. But yeah, for now I'd take a 9xx series i7 that can hit 4ghz pretty reliably over a 6-core AMD that will probably top out in the mid 3ghz range with high end air cooling.

Of course, AMD could surprise us, and we might see parts hitting the ~4.5ghz range necessary to challenge the 980, but I'm not betting on that. I love my PhII X4 though, does everything I ask of it, and my $100ish mobo has heaps of features, so that's win.

 

[Jovec]

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure where the new 6-core AMD (thuban?) is going to line up. Perhaps as games/apps become more threaded as time goes by, it will be a good foundation. But yeah, for now I'd take a 9xx series i7 that can hit 4ghz pretty reliably over a 6-core AMD that will probably top out in the mid 3ghz range with high end air cooling.

The desktop 6 cores are being released because AMD can and doesn't have another option. In the server space, clock speed and HT matter less so the 6 core is very viable. For desktops though they are more of novelty. You'd be better off with a higher clocking AMD/Intel quad for games and with an i7 for real-time "encoding." I encode a lot of HD video, and batch queuing on my AMD quad means it's effectively just as fast to me as the latest 6c/12t Intel EE, so I couldn't see giving up 800MHz-1Ghz of clock per core for 6 cores in a multipurpose home system.

Having said that, if the Thubans clock up to where I have my 955 at 3.8/2.6, then I would still consider them because I could pass down the 955.

 

[BD231]

Encoding programs scale across cores better than any useful application I've ever come across. I'd wait and see what six cores can do for you. If these hex core chips overclock well they'll put up a good fight in some areas.

The multi-tasking abilities alone will be impressive for the price.

 

[floogy]

In regards to hex core CPUs, isn't a lot of software just catching up to dual and quad? I'm not aware of software that can fully utilize 6 cores. I am a pretty casual user but what OS and software can really use it? It seems to me that by the the time you can realize the potential of current hex cores they will be outdated.

 

[richierich1212]

In regards to hex core CPUs, isn't a lot of software just catching up to dual and quad? I'm not aware of software that can fully utilize 6 cores. I am a pretty casual user but what OS and software can really use it? It seems to me that by the the time you can realize the potential of current hex cores they will be outdated.

If software is being optimized for more cores, I'm sure they would run better with more cores. I wouldn't think that software would specifically be optimized for only 2, 4, or 6 cores.

 

[BD231]

The proof is in the numbers ~> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=120&p2=88&c=1

I see no reason why the added cores won't yield the same results for a good number of apps. The jump should be about 25% over the x4, plus whatever we get out of this new Turbo mode.

The 1075T (AMD Hex Core @ 3.2ghz) should at least have AMD giving the i7 some competition being that gaming is pretty much a draw between the Phenom II X4 already. I look at more cores as a means of making interactive software (eh-hem, operating systems) more gracefully interactive. More cores for more process's is a good thing.

One day I'd like a 30 core part with assignable CPU's. I'll be running games on 4 cores in a small window, encoding on as many other cores as I want, crunching with some other ones, running music generating software with some more .... you get the point. With enough ram the possibilities are endless.