need to understand CPU speeds

[dg27]

I have another post in the hardware forum because I am trying to decide whether to let a friend do a custom build or whether to simply buy an out-of-the box Dell. I am aware that some people have had problems with Dells, but I bought a Dell Studio XPS 7100 desktop for my wife and a Studio XPS 16 laptop for myself and I'm really happy with both of those.

I'm trying to understand which is the smartest choice in terms of the CPU: I don't have any bias for or against AMD or Intel.

The 7100 I have has an AMD Phenom II X6 1035T (2.6 MHz)
The XPS 16 I have has an Intel I7-720QM (1.6 MHz)

The Dell 9100 I'm looking at has an Intel i7-930 (2.8 MHz)
Two Dell 8100s I'm looking at have i7-860 (2.8) and i7-870 (2.93)

My builder was suggesting I get the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2GHz

Is the GHz really the most important spec? In terms of the Intels, is a higher GHz i5 actually preferable to a lower GHz i7?

I use the system for photo, video, and music editing as well for my job as an editor. I need something that's rock solid.

The 8100s are half the price of the 9100: If 2.93 is preferable to 2.8 I'm thinking I should save some cash...

Does this make sense?

dg

 

[SickBeast]

Intel CPUs tend to be faster clock-for-clock compared to AMD CPUs.

That said, AMD CPUs tend to have more cores than Intel CPUs for the same price.

For example, that Phenom II X6 that he's trying to sell you has 6 cores compared to 4 cores on an Intel i7. That said, the i7's cores are so fast that it is often faster than the X6.

Basically what it comes down to is performance per dollar. You need to read some reviews.

IMO the best value in a CPU right now is the AMD Athlon II X4 640. It costs around $100.

You could get away with the X6 1055 and save yourself $75 if you're willing to overclock.

Really the only task where you're going to notice the X6 or the i7 is video editing. Otherwise, you'd be fine with the X4 640 for $100. You need to gauge how much video editing you do, and whether or not you're comfortable just leaving your machine to encode overnight.

I'm not sure if CUDA would be a factor for you as well. I hear the new Adobe apps support it and it works well. You might be better of investing in a better GPU and sacrificing some CPU speed.

 

[SickBeast]

You should also consider the fact that the new "Sandy Bridge" CPUs from Intel are just around the corner and they are supposedly beasts when it comes to video encoding.

 

[dg27]

Thanks, SickBeast. I was thinking that if I go with an out-of-the box solution I might be better off saving $900 by going with the 8100 instead of the 9100 and putting a few hundred into a better GPU.

 

[darckhart]

if you're buying dell, what you get is what you get. in this case, know whether or not your software can take advantage of multi core. as mentioned, clock for clock, intel is your winner. decide if amd's 2 extra cores will make up for that. if you're squarely positioned in the intel camp, look at the break up of time you spend realtime editing and the time you spend letting it alone to do the processing. if your choice comes down to 2.8 vs 2.93, you wont be noticing any practical differences in performance.

 

[dg27]

Thanks, darckhart. I use Adobe CS5 extensively, much of it photo editing: I do a lot more of that than video editing. Considering that I am using a single core Intel P4 3.40 GHz, just about anything I get will be a vast improvement. I saw that when I got my laptop in August.

 

[betasub]

If you are using a P4 3.40GHz, you already know that clock speed (GHz) is not the most important factor.

Sickbeast says you need to read some reviews. Preferably with relevant benchmarks in them.

 

[dg27]

Indeed--thanks.

 

[Soccerman06]

How much do you wanna spend on this? Because at $500 the amd system is probably going to be the best performance, however an i7 system at $750 is going to be much faster.

Rough SB performance compared to others.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/8

Performance of most cpus.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3833/intels-core-i7-970-reviewed-slightly-more-affordable-6core/2

So how much you wanna spend?

 

[dg27]

Ideally I'd like to spend about $1000; would be OK with $1200. Not thrilled with dropping two grand....

The AMD system I bought in August is $800 (my wife uses that):

http://www.microcenter.com/single_pr...uct_id=0337323

The 8100 systems come in two ranges @ microcenter:

$1000:

http://www.microcenter.com/single_pr...uct_id=0346791

$1130:

http://www.microcenter.com/single_pr...uct_id=0337324

The Dell 9100 I spec'd out is $1970 with these specs:

DELL Studio XPS 9100
Component Model
Processor Intel® Core™i7-930 processor(8MB L2 Cache, 2.80GHz)
Motherboard unknown
Memory 8GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1333MHz - 4 DIMMs
Power supply 525 W
Boot drive Seagate 1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
Secondary drive Seagate 1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
Optical drive 1 Dual Drive: Blu-ray Disc Drive (BD/DVD/CD burner w/double layer BD write capability)
Optical drive 2 16X DVD+/-RW
Video card ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB GDDR5
Sound card Sound Blaster® X-Fi™ Titanium
OS Windows® 7 Professional OS, 64bit, English

Adding another $200 to each of the less expensive systems to add another 1 TB drive plus another optical drive still makes this one $700-800 more and I must question whether it's worth it...

(I bought my current system (a Dell 8400) as a refurbished, stripped down model, in which I later upgraded the sound card, GPU, etc.)

Wonder whether a variation of that concept is better for me. I do not have the time or skills to build it all on my own.

dg

 

[fffblackmage]

Either of the microcenter desktops looks good, but the 350W PSU will limit what graphics cards you can upgrade to in the future (if that matters). On the other hand, I find it impossible to justify paying $700-800 more for the XPS 9100 for the LGA1366 platform and beefier PSU and GPU.

 

[dg27]

Either of the microcenter desktops looks good, but the 350W PSU will limit what graphics cards you can upgrade to in the future (if that matters).

On all of my desktops I've gotten away from having the maximum number of HDDs inside the system since I use several externals, so the wattage I add is fairly minimal. All I'd likely add to one of the microcenter systems would be an additional optical drive. I'm thinking that I might still have enough headroom for a slightly better GPU if I really need it.

On the other hand, I find it impossible to justify paying $700-800 more for the XPS 9100 for the LGA1366 platform and beefier PSU and GPU.

That was my thought exactly. I replaced another (8400) desktop with the 7100 for my wife in a hurry because I was going away out of the country for a month. That worked out fine. I'd like something with a bit more cujones for myself, mostly because I use Adobe CS constantly, which is why I was originally looking at the Dell 9100. But when all was said and done, the bottom line seems out of whack for what I'd be getting.

 

[ModestGamer]

Intel CPUs tend to be faster clock-for-clock compared to AMD CPUs.

That said, AMD CPUs tend to have more cores than Intel CPUs for the same price.

For example, that Phenom II X6 that he's trying to sell you has 6 cores compared to 4 cores on an Intel i7. That said, the i7's cores are so fast that it is often faster than the X6.

Basically what it comes down to is performance per dollar. You need to read some reviews.

IMO the best value in a CPU right now is the AMD Athlon II X4 640. It costs around $100.

You could get away with the X6 1055 and save yourself $75 if you're willing to overclock.

Really the only task where you're going to notice the X6 or the i7 is video editing. Otherwise, you'd be fine with the X4 640 for $100. You need to gauge how much video editing you do, and whether or not you're comfortable just leaving your machine to encode overnight.

I'm not sure if CUDA would be a factor for you as well. I hear the new Adobe apps support it and it works well. You might be better of investing in a better GPU and sacrificing some CPU speed.

I'd put a thuban and a intel processor in a benchmark using a gcc built application.I have seen to much of the buggery thats gone on with the intel compiler to trust any of the synthetic benchmarks.

 

[Markfw]

I'd put a thuban and a intel processor in a benchmark using a gcc built application.I have seen to much of the buggery thats gone on with the intel compiler to trust any of the synthetic benchmarks.

I agree. One example. My 4127 ghz I7 950 just barely edges out my X6 @ 3.6 in PPD in F@H
11,188 to 12.905, and over 500 mhz in speed difference. When my X6 was at 4127, it was getting 12-15k ppd and wiping the floor with my I7's. Too bad with the new motherboard I can't get that out of my X6.