Is Intel really that far ahead?

[RussianSensation]

Also, I have upgrade my vid card to a HD5670 card so I fixed my sig. .

Oh come on. Why didn't you ask us about a videocard upgrade recommendation? A 5670 is not really an upgrade from a 3870. If you can, return it and suck up the restocking fee. Seriously 4870/5770 should be the bare minimum at this point as an upgrade choice.

 

[perdomot]

I already did the research and based on my needs(non-gamer) this card has everything I need and only cost me $75 new. Got my two pc monitors and HDTV hooked up to the card and still have 2 mobo connections if needed and it all works flawlessly.

 

[Rifter]

I already did the research and based on my needs(non-gamer) this card has everything I need and only cost me $75 new. Got my two pc monitors and HDTV hooked up to the card and still have 2 mobo connections if needed and it all works flawlessly.

yeah for a non gamer that card is good, no need for more GPU if you dont game, could have got away with a cheaper card if you wanted.

 

[RussianSensation]

I already did the research and based on my needs(non-gamer) this card has everything I need and only cost me $75 new. Got my two pc monitors and HDTV hooked up to the card and still have 2 mobo connections if needed and it all works flawlessly.

Oh ok then. If you are non-gamer, what's the point of the i3 530 then? If you need to do video / audio work, then you'd want 1055T or Core i7s anyway.

 

[mrcmtl]

Well if someone has a i5 750 at 4Ghz, we can test and compare with my own X6@4Ghz with 3Ghz on the NB. No flaming here, just as information for everyone.

 

[classy]

Do you have any 1055T 4Ghz vs i5 4Ghz benches? i have been looking for some for a while and was unable to find any from a reputable site. I cant see the 1055T being any further ahead at the same clockspeeds(4Ghz vs 4Ghz)

Intel just has too much of a clock for clock advantage at the moment. Hopefully bulldozer will change things up and force intel to start lowering prices.

The 1055 is little better overall when both are overclocked to the same speed.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1055t-overclocking.html

That is the print version, one window.

But here is where the future where all those cores will be used

http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-review/18

As we quickly moved towards patches and new software where those many cores will be utilized in software, the more cores the better. I would say in the life span of these cpus, the owner will see those changes. Unless a person changes every 18 months or so.

 

[Rifter]

The 1055 is little better overall when both are overclocked to the same speed.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1055t-overclocking.html

That is the print version, one window.

I just looked that over, they are pretty much the same, i5 won 10 benches the 1055T won 8 when OC to 4Ghz. The 1055T did used over 100w more power under load though which is a huge differnce in power consumption. Thanks for the link, ive been looking for 1055 vs i5 OC benches for a long time now.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Thanks for all the advice. If I was going to upgrade to an intel rig, I'd likely go with the i5-750 at this point. I was just so surprised at the dual core 530 beating the X3 that I had to ask. Also, I have upgrade my vid card to a HD5670 card so I fixed my sig. As for benchmars at 4Ghz, try this link:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1055t-overclocking_8.html#sect0
Thanks again.

Nice link. That pretty much crushes the argument someone else made about the i5-750 beating the 1055T in benches. Simply isn't true. It's more or less a wash until you get to multithreaded apps, where the 1055T has a clear advantage. A 5% difference either way is meaningless in real-world perception. Don't even talk about 3DMark, which does not appear to be optimized for anything beyond quads and needs an update (unless Vantage actually exercises the hyper-threading, which would presumably compensate for AMD's two additional physical cores).

Not only that, but basing your computing experience and opinions solely on benchmarks is really limited. At this point, using more than a fast dual-core for Microsoft Office and browsing is nice, but overkill and unnecessary. (I mean high-end Core 2 Duo and up. Of course, you can get quads for considerably less than those now.) Yeah, a 4 GHz Gulftown would help me run PHP scripts in Firefox 10ns faster, but almost anything you buy now over $100 in CPU land is plenty for the average user's needs. Not even the average creative-type user (I consider myself to be one) is going to push a hexacore anywhere near its limits. And benchmarks in general are a shell game.

 

[evolucion8]

Nice link. That pretty much crushes the argument someone else made about the i5-750 beating the 1055T in benches. Simply isn't true. It's more or less a wash until you get to multithreaded apps, where the 1055T has a clear advantage. A 5% difference either way is meaningless in real-world perception. Don't even talk about 3DMark, which does not appear to be optimized for anything beyond quads and needs an update (unless Vantage actually exercises the hyper-threading, which would presumably compensate for AMD's two additional physical cores).

Yeah, only in very optimized scenarios, HT can give you 50% better performance theorically, but usually is between 10% and 30%, so an AMD Quad Core with two more cores is basically 50% more performance theorically, and is closer to reach the 50% gains in performance to compensate the fact that AMD current architecture is slower per IPC compared to Intel.

Not only that, but basing your computing experience and opinions solely on benchmarks is really limited. At this point, using more than a fast dual-core for Microsoft Office and browsing is nice, but overkill and unnecessary. (I mean high-end Core 2 Duo and up. Of course, you can get quads for considerably less than those now.) Yeah, a 4 GHz Gulftown would help me run PHP scripts in Firefox 10ns faster, but almost anything you buy now over $100 in CPU land is plenty for the average user's needs. Not even the average creative-type user (I consider myself to be one) is going to push a hexacore anywhere near its limits. And benchmarks in general are a shell game.

My GF bought an Athlon II X4 635 with a motherboard for less than $135, that's far more than most average users will ever need, a Quad Core for such low price is a steal!

 

[Rifter]

My GF bought an Athlon II X4 635 with a motherboard for less than $135, that's far more than most average users will ever need, a Quad Core for such low price is a steal!

I totally agree, the 635 is a great value right now and intel has nothing in that price range other than old 775 chips. And if its the new C3 stepping they overclock very well.

 

[perdomot]

I've always like the value you get with AMD cpus and the computing power has always been quite good. I'm hoping the new Bulldozer cpus really bump up performance but still haven't seen any benches showing performance yet.