plz tell me what intel processor is better than

[Gikaseixas]

by answering Celeron you implied it was the only intel cpu the Phenom could beat, now that a bunch os BS and we all know don't we?

Sorry this is boarder line AMD fanboyism talking here.

How is admiting AMD is not doing well fanboyism???? You either have a well developed twisting nature or you're in need to be told a second time to fully understand things. Like i said i'm gaming on a E8500 but using the 9850 BE as my main rig.

No sorry phenoms ARENT faster, nor are they more smoother or very very repsonsive.
I never said Phenoms where FASTER did i???? WOW there you are again twisting what i said. Advice for you: calm down son and set an example

Compared to kentsfield, Phenom loses seriously.

Never said otherwise, you sound like a broken record cuz we all know this oh but since you mentioned it, Phenom "loses seriously" when both are overclocked, when they aren't performance is much closer and we (overclockers) represent a very small portion of the buyer pie.

You acused me of being a fanboy right? Now just read both posts again. I have a E8500 and a 9850, love both so i can't be a fanboy like you.

I'll be back to answer your next post but please keep it clean, don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
O great i just canceled my long long post on why your wrong about saying that phenoms are not smoother or very responsive. Damn it!

A good post on why phenoms are theoretically smoother than C2Qs or C2Ds for that matter
Basically i was going to write about the same thing which abit more information. Spin locks and how these have a great influence on the synchronization of multi-threaded programs.

The above link clearly shows just how MCM quads are technically inferior to native quad designs when it comes to multi threaded programs and syncing of these threads using spin locks. Fact is, core 2 qauds are 2 core2duos communicating via FSB, and only shares 4MBs of L2 cache per 2 cores and not 4 i.e technically only has 4Mb of L2 cache.

Remember the argument "native design is better than the MCM method?" well this puts that to rest. Its only because conroe's were such a huge success in terms of performance that it eluded most people from the truth when comparing the phenoms to core2 quads. Benchmarks out today dont reflect real world multi-threaded applications and i,e doesn't try in showing how effective a quad core is when it comes to dealing with multi threaded programs but rather show its brute computational prowess instead.

Why do you think intel is moving on to native quad core design, IMC ala nehalem? because they know this better than most people know. That MCM designs are inferior to native designs. Synthetic benchmarks will never show this, and i find claims like "phenom goodbye in any benchmark you ran" pointless or downright uninformed because benchmarks have too their limitations in measuring CPU speed as explained in the link.

Maybe we should have a thread entirely on the discussions on this, and further inputs from people that have more indepth knowledge on multi-threaded programs and spinlock or synclock (w/e people know them by).

And Aigo you are being very childish here. Im quite surprised.

Note - Smoothness is different to Computational power. In context of games, one can produce an average of 30Fps with an average deviation of +/-5fps. The other produces an an average of 40 fps with an average deviation of +/-10fps. The former is smoother.

Cookie Monster thx for noticing the disturbing behavior being displayed by Aigo. Smoothness and responsiveness have nothing to do with raw power or benchmark results (something Intel wins hands down)

 

[Cookie Monster]

But fact is, you cant scientifically gather data or quantify that one CPU is "smoother" than the other which is a shame. If one could, there would be benchmarks with syncing in mind which could illustrate a different picture. I guess you could but decoding the information would be the most difficult.

Anyway enough with the OT.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

X7470 mono6 > mono4

oh, and also

X7470
E7459
E7440
E7430
E7420
L7455
L7445
Q9650
Q9550
Q9450
Q9300
X3650
X3350
X3320
Q6700
Q6600
E8600
E8500
E8400

and a few others

 

[OCGuy]

LOL @ a cpu being "Smoother." Would someone care to quantify that please? There is a reach if I have ever heard one...

 

[imported_Woody]

I don't know why I even read through all that.

I for one really do hope AMD will survive the recent onslaught by Intel. AMD makes fine processors and pushed Intel hard a few years ago with their AthlonXPs then kicked Intel right off their pedestal with the Athlon 64. I owned and still run both those chips in some of my older systems. The X2 was somewhat of a dissapointment but not because their CPUs are no good, it's just that Intel got off their ass and built something better. Apparantly Intel learned their lesson because their still building something better.

If AMD went away tomorrow we would all lose. Intel would back off on R&D and increase their price until some other underdog came along and shook them up again.

I run Intel CPUs on my top systems today but only because I'm a hardware guy and I overclock. If I were building a low to mid range system with no intention to overclock I would still seriously consider an AMD based system if for nothing else but to keep Intel on their toes.

I'm a fanboy of competition and choice.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
LOL @ a cpu being "Smoother." Would someone care to quantify that please? There is a reach if I have ever heard one...

I believe Cookie did quantify it in a post above. I thought this was generally accepted since the P4 days, that even if you had a P4 that was technically faster then an A64 at a given speed, the A64 still seemed to be a more responsive computer (assuming all the important stuff is equal of course). I really don't know about this myself, I don't have a P4 or C2D here to compare, so it could all be a bunch of B.S., all I know is I'm plenty happy with my computer even though it doesn't bench as high as the C2D's. I guess the way I picture it is say you have 2 PC's that are identical in every way, but one has a 5400rpm drive and the other a 7200rpm. They may bench identically in almost all benches, but the user may notice the PC with the 7200rpm drive just seems to react quicker I guess.

aigomorla, I'm kind of suprised to see a moderator here get so defensive about something that was really not even said the way it seems you think it was based on your reply. A person who owns both an E8500 and a Phenom says he feels his Phenom is more responsive (note, he never said it was faster) and you post something asking for a Phenom to beat a Prime95 score and call it fanboyism...? I don't think anyone said that the Phenom was faster, just someone who owns both said his Phenom seemed more responsive.

 

[aigomorla]

Okey let me be on my defense.


The first part was because i never mentioned anything about my E2200. I just said single core celeron and he went off on me about it.

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: taltamir
can i have some of what you are smoking?

What intel CPU is NOT better then then the 9500? actually.. most the X2 are ALSO better then the 9500 since most software is not quad core optimized yet. (meaning it will run faster on a faster X2 then on a phenom)

single core celeron?

Here is his reply:

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas

@aigomorla, your E2200 is not a celeron and it's not better than a Phenom so what's your point?

1. you never say a mod said something that he didnt. You should never say anyone said anything that he didnt. Infact.

I never mentioned anything about my E2200 until that post. This sounded like you trying to instigate something with me honestly.

Sorry when someone starts saying stuff for me, i need to make myself clear.

Which was that whole post.


Then his reponse:

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas

I know very well how bad AMD is doing, i just bought a E8500 for my gaming and love it but for my everyday use i prefer the Phenom, it's just much smoother and very very responsive.

Okey, if that doesnt sound like AMD is better, then i dont know what does. Expecially since i given into the fact that a E8400 is better then a Q6600 in gaming. Yes im actually admitting this. And this topic was a heated debate for many months.

Sorry i dont allow misinformation to pass on this forum. If i came off a bit rude i appologize. But as i said, i felt approached with his last comment, so i took the rest exactly as that.

The Thread is asking a simple question, what INTEL processors are better then AMD Phenom.

The answer is simple, ALL QUADS OLD and NEW. Yet you guys are trying to defend AMD in this and that.

All the bench marks point to intel being the suprerior processor. Even games show intel coming ahead of AMD. What more benchmarks do you guys require?

I dont pick sides. If via comes out with something that spanks everyone, i'll be on that. This is what im trying to say.

In Fact i even Defended AMD against another MOD:

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Scotteq
A year old Q6600 or better beats anything AMD have except in memory bandwidth.

Regarding the price differential: Newegg has a Q66 for $216. At the same store, a 9750 shows at $215, and a 9850 BE is $215.

QFT

Sorry to say, AMD has nothing to offer these days. Except possibly at the very bottom end, even then an E2140,60,80, etc... are right there.

Low power low heat low noise HTPC is very tempting mark :T

My last comment about ruiz, well, yeah, im a bit bitter at him. Why because i had very high hopes. Answered all with delays and lies.

How he still has his job, i have no clue. I'll go Edit that out. I appologize to everyone on that part.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
My last comment about ruiz, well, yeah, im a bit bitter at him. Why because i had very high hopes. Answered all with delays and lies.

How he still has his job, i have no clue.

I've come to the conclusion that AMD just doesn't have the money to be able to fire him. These CEO's get paid more when they're fired than they do when they do their jobs correctly, unfortunately.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Your missing the point. The problem is that you seem to die and live by benchmark numbers, yet these same benchmarks at best dont illustrate the actual differences between the new/old quad core processors. (Maybe duals too but im not too sure). How? well ive already explained this somewhere in this thread. From what you've posted above, i cant really say you've read my posts.

Nobody is picking sides. The term "better" nowadays just cant point to performance anymore when benchmarking tools that label its "multi threaded" are just simply made up of duplicated threads (of the original one) with no syncing happening which certainly aint happening in the real world apps.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Your missing the point. The problem is that you seem to die and live by benchmark numbers, yet these same benchmarks at best dont illustrate the actual differences between the new/old quad core processors. (Maybe duals too but im not too sure). How? well ive already explained this somewhere in this thread. From what you've posted above, i cant really say you've read my posts.

Nobody is picking sides. The term "better" nowadays just cant point to performance anymore when benchmarking tools that label its "multi threaded" are just simply made up of duplicated threads (of the original one) with no syncing happening which certainly aint happening in the real world apps.

no i read your post.

And in most cases i would say to each his own. But i havent seen one aspect in AMD which will beat an intel processor. Encoding, Folding, WCGing, Gaming.

Cookie show me where AMD comes ahead. I would genuinely like to know. I know they do OK on the server market in the MP systems, however, i think they lose to yorkie. And not by a small margin either.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Okey let me be on my defense.


The first part was because i never mentioned anything about my E2200. I just said single core celeron and he went off on me about it.

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: taltamir
can i have some of what you are smoking?

What intel CPU is NOT better then then the 9500? actually.. most the X2 are ALSO better then the 9500 since most software is not quad core optimized yet. (meaning it will run faster on a faster X2 then on a phenom)

single core celeron?

Here is his reply:

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas

@aigomorla, your E2200 is not a celeron and it's not better than a Phenom so what's your point?

1. you never say a mod said something that he didnt. You should never say anyone said anything that he didnt. Infact.

I never mentioned anything about my E2200 until that post. This sounded like you trying to instigate something with me honestly.

Sorry when someone starts saying stuff for me, i need to make myself clear.

Which was that whole post.


Then his reponse:

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas

I know very well how bad AMD is doing, i just bought a E8500 for my gaming and love it but for my everyday use i prefer the Phenom, it's just much smoother and very very responsive.

Okey, if that doesnt sound like AMD is better, then i dont know what does. Expecially since i given into the fact that a E8400 is better then a Q6600 in gaming. Yes im actually admitting this. And this topic was a heated debate for many months.

Sorry i dont allow misinformation to pass on this forum. If i came off a bit rude i appologize. But as i said, i felt approached with his last comment, so i took the rest exactly as that.

The Thread is asking a simple question, what INTEL processors are better then AMD Phenom.

The answer is simple, ALL QUADS OLD and NEW. Yet you guys are trying to defend AMD in this and that.

All the bench marks point to intel being the suprerior processor. Even games show intel coming ahead of AMD. What more benchmarks do you guys require?

I dont pick sides. If via comes out with something that spanks everyone, i'll be on that. This is what im trying to say.

In Fact i even Defended AMD against another MOD:

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Scotteq
A year old Q6600 or better beats anything AMD have except in memory bandwidth.

Regarding the price differential: Newegg has a Q66 for $216. At the same store, a 9750 shows at $215, and a 9850 BE is $215.

QFT

Sorry to say, AMD has nothing to offer these days. Except possibly at the very bottom end, even then an E2140,60,80, etc... are right there.

Low power low heat low noise HTPC is very tempting mark :T

My last comment about ruiz, well, yeah, im a bit bitter at him. Why because i had very high hopes. Answered all with delays and lies.

How he still has his job, i have no clue. I'll go Edit that out. I appologize to everyone on that part.

Aigomorla i never said that you said, i just said that you implied. Here's what i said:

by answering Celeron you implied it was the only intel cpu the Phenom could beat, now that a bunch os BS and we all know don't we?

Second, by saying that i prefer the Phenom over the E8500 for everyday use due to it's responsiveness does not means that AMD is better overall. I also said that the E8500 was much better for gaming, why don't you mention that too?

1. you never say a mod said something that he didnt.

What???

a Mod should never take things out of context in the first place or behave the way you just did. Respect if you wanna be respected. You called me a fanboy, something i'm clearly not.
I do apologize also for getting a bit mad, i guess it's human nature.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas

by answering Celeron you implied it was the only intel cpu the Phenom could beat, now that a bunch os BS and we all know don't we?

And isnt that saying something that a mod didnt?
I can think of quite a few intel chips that a AMD would give a good race for its money. However Celeron was the first one on my mind.


However appology accepted. And i too would like to drop this matter.

And if you have proof of anything that AMD has a lead on Intel i would genuinely like to see it as well.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas

by answering Celeron you implied it was the only intel cpu the Phenom could beat, now that a bunch os BS and we all know don't we?

And isnt that saying something that a mod didnt?
I can think of quite a few intel chips that a AMD would give a good race for its money. However Celeron was the first one on my mind.


However appology accepted. And i too would like to drop this matter.

And if you have proof of anything that AMD has a lead on Intel i would genuinely like to see it as well.

No it's not. I just said that you implied that's all.

Why would a Celeron be the 1st cpu that comes to ur mind when asked a question like the one posted by the OP? Why would you compare a Celeron to a Phenom? Isn't that a way to say that the best cpu from AMD can't even beat the worst from Intel?

No i don't have proof of AMD leading Intel at the moment. I just prefer Phenom on certain tasks and i prefer my E8500 for games. It's my opinion on this.

 

[Gillbot]

@ Gikaseixas & aigomorla

You both need to step back, calm down and think before you hit reply again. This thread is degrading fast and if it continues, i'll come in and lock it myself.

Anandtech Moderator
Gillbot

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Nobody is picking sides. The term "better" nowadays just cant point to performance anymore when benchmarking tools that label its "multi threaded" are just simply made up of duplicated threads (of the original one) with no syncing happening which certainly aint happening in the real world apps.

Except most of the multi-threading benchmarks like 3D rendering, video encoding and games aren't simply duplicate threads.

 

[secretanchitman]

Originally posted by: taltamir
can i have some of what you are smoking?

What intel CPU is NOT better then then the 9500? actually.. most the X2 are ALSO better then the 9500 since most software is not quad core optimized yet. (meaning it will run faster on a faster X2 then on a phenom)

you honestly cant be serious.

any c2q will blow away an X2...and if you overclock that c2q, it will OBLITERATE it. and this is coming from someone who is currently running on an overclocked amd opteron (rebadged X2) 170 system. my htpc rig (and now my upcoming q9450 rig) just blow it out of the water.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman

Originally posted by: taltamir
can i have some of what you are smoking?

What intel CPU is NOT better then then the 9500? actually.. most the X2 are ALSO better then the 9500 since most software is not quad core optimized yet. (meaning it will run faster on a faster X2 then on a phenom)

you honestly cant be serious.

any c2q will blow away an X2...and if you overclock that c2q, it will OBLITERATE it. and this is coming from someone who is currently running on an overclocked amd opteron (rebadged X2) 170 system. my htpc rig (and now my upcoming q9450 rig) just blow it out of the water.

Reread his post. He said exactly the same thing that you did, just worded differently.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Accord99
Except most of the multi-threading benchmarks like 3D rendering, video encoding and games aren't simply duplicate threads.

I guess you missed the point. Most benchmarks are purely synthetic. There are no requirements for it to use any synchronization, because if it does, then the information you get out of it will be far to difficult to decode and quantify.

That is why benchmarks labeled "multi-threaded" are simply running a pair of the same thread, or even 4 of the same thread on a CPU. If you think im wrong then ill be glad to see your evidence and accept that im wrong. But at this point in time.

Let me quote from an old AT article about multi threading.

The easiest part of multithreading is using threads that are running completely independent

Link

That is what most, if not ALL multi threaded benchmarks does. Its in no shape or form showing if the CPUs are having thread synchronization overhead i.e having a native quad, or IMC has no advantage for such benchmarks. Its purely dependent on how fast each core is in terms of computational power. Same goes for video encoding.

Games are different however. Tony (from XS) even mentions that even the credible reviewers are mentioning about the fact that games are more smoother on phenoms than core 2 quads. Simply put the phenom is able to produce a lower average deviation from the mean fps (although the mean fps can be lower compared to the core 2 quads as most benchmarks show) i.e producing a smoother experience in fps. I bet AT users could also chime in with a fps graph of some sort in multi threaded games like supreme commander for example.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

I guess you missed the point. Most benchmarks are purely synthetic. There are no requirements for it to use any synchronization, because if it does, then the information you get out of it will be far to difficult to decode and quantify.

Except many benchmarks are not synthetic, they are applications performing realworld tasks, but with a control workload.

That is why benchmarks labeled "multi-threaded" are simply running a pair of the same thread, or even 4 of the same thread on a CPU. If you think im wrong then ill be glad to see your evidence and accept that im wrong. But at this point in time.

A benchmark that simply runs the same threads wouldn't show a reduction in time needed to perform a task.

That is what most, if not ALL multi threaded benchmarks does. Its in no shape or form showing if the CPUs are having thread synchronization overhead i.e having a native quad, or IMC has no advantage for such benchmarks. Its purely dependent on how fast each core is in terms of computational power. Same goes for video encoding.

Most of these benchmarks perform tasks that are realworld, that's the most important thing.

Games are different however. Tony (from XS) even mentions that even the credible reviewers are mentioning about the fact that games are more smoother on phenoms than core 2 quads. Simply put the phenom is able to produce a lower average deviation from the mean fps (although the mean fps can be lower compared to the core 2 quads as most benchmarks show) i.e producing a smoother experience in fps. I bet AT users could also chime in with a fps graph of some sort in multi threaded games like supreme commander for example.

Actually, no review has ever mentioned that games are more smoother. The only people who claim these seem to be Phenom owners trying to justify their purchase of a slower, hotter processor. What you're describing isn't smoothness, it's CPU-limitation. The Phenom produces a smaller deviation as it can't reach as high a maximum FPS in CPU-limited situations as a C2Q.

I bet a Celeron D has an ever smaller deviation but I would doubt it would be considered smooth in a modern game.

 

[mhahnheuser]

Originally posted by: VulcanX
Ok well spyder, firstly, my system doesnt run half as well as C2Ds that i know of, the one dude is running an E6450 or summin, and it is better and faster in CoD4 even tho my rig has corsair and better mobo etc, so its kinda heartache man! it just makes me sad at how weak my CPU actually is, it was one of the first gen x2 anyway, but still has 2 mb cache etc, but still doesnt perform like how a 2.6 should, but thats why i wanted to overclock it, but rather dont and sell it later to chip towards my new system, but im not buying anythin yet as i spend bout $140 i think, on my mobo, so gonna hang onto it till i cant play games anymore, then do a massive upgrade man

If you can't get games to run well on a 2.6GHz X2 sunshine, it's time to give up building your own computer and buy a DELL.

 

[footballrunner800]

After reading through this thread, i just had to give my opinion on the subject as i found that you all had some very interesting points.

It all depends on the needs of the user. There is no doubt that Most intel chips blow away anything AMD has (only some of the lower core duos or celerons, and even then those chips have a great overclocking overhead).

I havent tested a phenom processor, but i have an idea of what you are trying to say. When fine tuning my computer (setting trd, memory settings, ect) i found that vista was snappier, Probably with vista superfetch that loads everything into the memory. Things opened up faster, no delay. With the phenoms having a imc and a monolithic design, bandwidth and latency are even lower than anyone can acomplish with a FSB setup. Im guessing that this is the "smoothness" you guys are talking about. If this is as important as overall speed then get a phenom.

I personally chose a core2 processor from a phenom/athlon because it suited my needs better than the other. The same reason i chose CF 4850 over gtx280. All the problems wih a cf setup where not a problem with me because at the end, they where faster in games i played.

 

[bangmal]

Originally posted by: footballrunner800
After reading through this thread, i just had to give my opinion on the subject as i found that you all had some very interesting points.

It all depends on the needs of the user. There is no doubt that Most intel chips blow away anything AMD has (only some of the lower core duos or celerons, and even then those chips have a great overclocking overhead).

I havent tested a phenom processor, but i have an idea of what you are trying to say. When fine tuning my computer (setting trd, memory settings, ect) i found that vista was snappier, Probably with vista superfetch that loads everything into the memory. Things opened up faster, no delay. With the phenoms having a imc and a monolithic design, bandwidth and latency are even lower than anyone can acomplish with a FSB setup. Im guessing that this is the "smoothness" you guys are talking about. If this is as important as overall speed then get a phenom.

I personally chose a core2 processor from a phenom/athlon because it suited my needs better than the other. The same reason i chose CF 4850 over gtx280. All the problems wih a cf setup where not a problem with me because at the end, they where faster in games i played.

The core 2 look better only on the cache-sensitive bench software, and thats all

 

[pmv]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster


Games are different however. Tony (from XS) even mentions that even the credible reviewers are mentioning about the fact that games are more smoother on phenoms than core 2 quads. Simply put the phenom is able to produce a lower average deviation from the mean fps (although the mean fps can be lower compared to the core 2 quads as most benchmarks show) i.e producing a smoother experience in fps. I bet AT users could also chime in with a fps graph of some sort in multi threaded games like supreme commander for example.

Surely the important point in terms of 'smoothness' is not the average deviation from the mean fps, but the _minimum_ fps?

Who cares if you get a larger deviation from the mean due to the frame rate going extremely high at certain points? That's not a _bad_ thing! What would cause it to feel smoother would be a higher _minimum_ frame rate. _If_ phenoms can achieve that, even with a lower average, then in that case there is something interesting going on.

Edit - petty grammar gripe deleted.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: pmv
Surely the important point in terms of 'smoothness' is not the average deviation from the mean fps, but the _minimum_ fps?

Who cares if you get a larger deviation from the mean due to the frame rate going extremely high at certain points? That's not a _bad_ thing! What would cause it to feel smoother would be a higher _minimum_ frame rate. _If_ phenoms can achieve that, even with a lower average, then in that case there is something interesting going on.

Edit - petty grammar gripe deleted.

I'd agree on the minimum framerates. I'm peeved at how few reviewers show minimum framerates when benchmarking. Generally they show the average framerate and draw conclusions from there. A 60fps 'average' could easily mean the game swings from 100fps+ around idle scenery to 30fps during intense scenes.