Is i7-930 twice the CPU the Athlon II X4 640 is?

[BD231]

n/m

 

[Sickamore]

I bought the 930 from microcenter placed a silver right arrow on it and wow i am impressed by the speed and overclocked. All my computers were amd but the i7 is a force to mess with. I have it at 4.0 ghz right now.

 

[airdata]

930 is probably much more powerful, but how much power does the average user need?

My athlon II 620 works great for me. I dropped around $1500 on a crazy Q9450 / ddr3 system when ddr3 was first coming out and then came to the realization that I didn't need a $1500 when I was at work most of the day and then barely utilizing the system when I was using it.

 

[hans007]

i have a 620 and its more than enough power. unless you are some sort of heavy duty gamer, or doing 3d modeling its a waste to blow your budget on the cpu. i'd save tha tmoney buy a nicer monitor, SSD , speakers, keyboard anything.

 

[Arkaign]

Outside of an Atom (sigh), pretty much even the cheapest of the cheapest CPUs these days will run like absolute champs with almost all common Windows use when combined with basic specs like a decent 1TB HDD and at least 4GB of memory. It helps that Windows 7 is the first new edition of Windows perhaps ever that is MORE efficient than the previous release. I've seen Dual-Cores with 2GB run better on Win7 64-Bit than Quad-Cores with 4GB on Vista (not running raw cpu benchmarks, just responsiveness in Windows and launching apps/startup/shutdown/that kind of thing).

 

[bunnyfubbles]

You missed the best option between the 2 you listed. Grab the i5 760 for $170 instead.

Now you can grab a low voltage $90-95 DDR3 4GB kit instead of $130 DDR3 6GB kit and a good p55 mobo can be had for $125 vs. $200 for i7 930. Socket 1156 760 makes the "full i7 930 + mobo + 6gbs of ram package" poor value imo.

So let's add this up:

$30 (CPU savings) + $75 (mobo savings) + $35 (ram savings) = $140 cheaper than i7 930.

I'd get the i5 760 no question since @ 4.0ghz it will last far longer than the 640. It will definately survive another 3 GPU generations at 4.0ghz, while 640 is already slow in certain games (like SC2) due to lack of cache.

All fanboism aside, there is not a single CPU from AMD that can compete with an overclocked Core i5 760 (or even a stock one) unless you are doing some specific video / encoding work. The X6 may prove to be better in the future as more programs become multi-threaded, but the 640 is still only a quad-core.

The ram savings don't count, socket 1366 is just as capable when running in dual channel and thus the 2 x 2GB kit could be used if money is an issue yet the i7 930 still desired. x58 motherboards are also easier to find with SATAIII and USB 3.0 features as well, a comparable P55 board might not be that much cheaper.

Although I'd still recommend P55 over X58 unless a user really wants at least one of X58's significant advantages such as the extra RAM slots for more memory and/or the ability to run a sixcore i7 right now. A P55 system will consume less power and will be easier to tame the heat on the CPU while still delivering most if not all the performance. I'd even go as far as to recommend the more expensive (at least per Microcenter) i7 870 or i7 875K for those reasons. $250 for the i7 875K might very well be more than worth it for an overclocking novice thanks to its unlocked multiplier.

Outside of an Atom (sigh), pretty much even the cheapest of the cheapest CPUs these days will run like absolute champs with almost all common Windows use when combined with basic specs like a decent 1TB HDD and at least 4GB of memory. It helps that Windows 7 is the first new edition of Windows perhaps ever that is MORE efficient than the previous release. I've seen Dual-Cores with 2GB run better on Win7 64-Bit than Quad-Cores with 4GB on Vista (not running raw cpu benchmarks, just responsiveness in Windows and launching apps/startup/shutdown/that kind of thing).

So you're saying you've seen fresh installs of Win 7 vs. Vista SP2 side by side the same day with such hardware disparity and Win 7 really is that much more efficient?

I think you're twisting the truth a bit if not making things up and thus unfairly perpetuating the myth that Vista is an impotent OS, when in reality Vista and 7 are actually very close. While I'm sure its been proven that Win 7 is indeed more efficient, and even some extreme cases such as guys getting it to run on Pentium 2s, but there's no way I take a dualcore/2GB/Win7 over a quadcore/4GB/Vista (assuming equal niche duals/quads; obviously an E8600, i3-560, or especially an i5-680 would wipe the floor with an entry level quad in every day tasks, regardless of OS)

 

[RaistlinZ]

If you absolutely HAVE to choose between the AMD X4 + SSD vs. I7 930 + HDD, I'd go with the X4 +SSD.

But if you can afford to save a bit more, an overclocked I7-930 is thing to behold, and stomps the X4 640 in performance.

 

[bryanW1995]

The i7 should be MUCH faster.

The Athlon II X4 630 (2.8Ghz quad-core), scores around 12,000 stock on the Nuclearus benchmark. Coincidentally, so does my friend's overclocked E5200 @ 3.625Ghz.

So the X4 630 is equal to an overclocked Intel Core2 dual-core. The i7 930 should blow it away.

yes, because the athlon II doesn't oc. 😕

Why not instead say that an athlon II @ 4.0 is equal to an i7 930?

 

[bryanW1995]

5 years ago, the new top of the line CPU's were Athlon X2 and Pentium D dual core. Both of these are weaker than today's entry level dual core Pentiums and Athlon II X2.

Based on that, I would say that in 5 years you may find that you would appreciate the extra oomph that the i7 would give.

As RS points out, the best deal might be the i5 760. Nearly as powerful as the i7 930 in most cases, and cheaper total platform cost because S1156 mobos are cheaper that S1366.

Its' easier to upgrade the video and SSD in the future.

BTW, before purchasing the Radeon 5770, you might want to look at an Nvidia GTX 460 768mb. The 5770 is nice - I have no problems with mine - but if you can catch a GTX 460 on sale, it will be only ~$30 more expensive, and is a hella performer at that price.

that post was hella cool.

 

[bryanW1995]

Outside of an Atom (sigh), pretty much even the cheapest of the cheapest CPUs these days will run like absolute champs with almost all common Windows use when combined with basic specs like a decent 1TB HDD and at least 4GB of memory. It helps that Windows 7 is the first new edition of Windows perhaps ever that is MORE efficient than the previous release. I've seen Dual-Cores with 2GB run better on Win7 64-Bit than Quad-Cores with 4GB on Vista (not running raw cpu benchmarks, just responsiveness in Windows and launching apps/startup/shutdown/that kind of thing).

amen.

I got by for a year with 2gb on my work rig with vista 64. It was a nightmare.

So you're saying you've seen fresh installs of Win 7 vs. Vista SP2 side by side the same day with such hardware disparity and Win 7 really is that much more efficient?

I think you're twisting the truth a bit if not making things up and thus unfairly perpetuating the myth that Vista is an impotent OS, when in reality Vista and 7 are actually very close. While I'm sure its been proven that Win 7 is indeed more efficient, and even some extreme cases such as guys getting it to run on Pentium 2s, but there's no way I take a dualcore/2GB/Win7 over a quadcore/4GB/Vista (assuming equal niche duals/quads; obviously an E8600, i3-560, or especially an i5-680 would wipe the floor with an entry level quad in every day tasks, regardless of OS)

I could easily imagine that scenario. I've been stuck running on 2gb ram on my i7 rig at home for the past month while I went through rma hell, and it was a LOT more useful than my q9450 vista rig with 2gb on my office rig. I didn't realize how unbelievably shitty the 2gb/vista rig was until I got another 2gb finally a week ago. vista absolutely sucks with 2gb, while win 7 is just fine with it, and I can say that because I use both the work and home computers for several hours each day.

 

[twinrider1]

Pulled the trigger on the Athlon.

Less than $120 out the door for the mobo and cpu. And it has onboard graphics and I can use the XP I already have.
Coming from P2/P4, I'm so far behind the curve, there are plenty of games to play before I get to SC2 and Civ5. And by then the current hot vid cards will be more affordable.
This will allow some time for Sandybridge and the next round of video cards to shake out. I know there's always something newer and faster coming, but this seems like healthy size bump coming.
And when I eventually feel restricted by this rig, I can pass it down to my daughter for her first computer. It'll be fine for her needs.

 

[Concillian]

Split the difference.

i5 750 or 760 instead of i7
Momentus XT hybrid instead of full SSD.

Get most of the benefit most of the time for the same money as either the CPU or full SSD.

 

[faxon]

As people have been saying, if you're still happy with your P4 for what you do, then I'd spend the same budget but get an SSD, you definitely won't regret it. If you can, I would try and get a phenom 2 of some type if you can though, considering how long you keep your systems for, as they start at not much more over the highest athlon x4