So this X6 thing...

[Makaveli]

lol Nemesis is as bad as everyone says he is, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt before but its like talking to one of those blind reglious nuts.

 

[mbevolution]

I would do the same as 80% of the people in the world and buy the intel priced at same price because in most apps we use the intel is faster .

I don't understand where are you coming from. It seems that you are still stuck with the idea that an i7 is faster than a x6 while they are priced similar. That's not the case at all.
If you are talking about an i5, then in most apps we use intel is NOT faster. Of course I don't have direct proof of this, but from the benchmarks I have read so far, x6 has a sight lead to say at least (unless gaming is all you do). So why are you making this like Intel is 10x better than AMD?

 

[Accord99]

What is the 750's stock speed ? I liked the "best OC for each chip" that someone did. In this case, a 4 ghz OC of both with benchmarks.

i5-750 is 2.66 GHz quad-core with no HT, turbos up to 3.2GHz

But the 1055 did win most benchmarks.

By my count, it's 8-8 if you ignore games and only count things like 3DSMax, Cinebench and x264 once.

 

[mbevolution]

"With new software coming out that will support more than 4 cores, I see a major advantage of upgrading to 1055T."

As for this people have been saying this from single to dual from dual to quad and now quad to hexacore.

And the majority of software is still only dual core aware, i'm not talking about the encoding and rending programs they obviously support alot of cores i'm talking general software. Won't even mention games because we all know where that is. So unless you are doing something right now that uses all these cores I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for software because by the time most applictions are requiring quads we will already have Bulldozer out or its successor.

Just my 2c

I'm building this computer primarily for adobe cs5, which iirc can utilize 6 cores. Also I like to have this computer at least keep up with the mainstream for the next 4 years. I agree with you that majority of the software still using only 2 cores, but you never know what may happen in the next few years .

 

[Nemesis 1]

True but real life is not about numbers in clinical benchmarks. Put an i7 system with the same ram, video card ect, side by side with a Phenom II system and it is all but impossible to tell the difference in actual usage.

Everyday tasks are a dead heat as all that extra horsepower of the i7 is wasted on such mundane work. Games at resolutions from 1680 and up and more about the video card than the CPU. The overall feel of the system is more heavily impacted by an SSD than ANY CPU change.

Lets face it outside the clinical, in the real world the i7 just does not offer anything special. Oh sure there are a few specific expections to that rule but again note they are specific and not all that common.

So if in the real world the difference is to small in day to day use to notice does it matter? Even if it does why would you pay more money for the same experience?

Whats more the 6 core does show itself more capable than 4 cores with HT in ANYTHING near the same price point. Which means for the same money you have more future directed capability.

Sure if you spend your time running benchmarks or wanting to get your ewood up the i7 is great but for day to day use in a world where cost to real benefit matters the AMD line right not B#$%H Slaps Intel.

Yes I agree some couldn't. But Most who used old intel FSB would know . The ones that could tell the differance between FSB and AMDs HT. Would know the differance its a feel. Its like driving at high speeds its about feeling .

I am not argueing the point you think I am . I am angry about the 6 core hype AMD is recieving . As you yourself said If i set up 2 Machines . One with AMDs Highend One with Intels low end . None would know the differance . If I did Highend intel against lowend AMD everyone would know. Intels 2 core 32 is alot better than what credit its given . Fact is myself and bob discussed doing just such a test for utube videos using random people and getting their output. We both already have a good understanding of the results but Bob wants to prove it out in real world and than show those results bob is more of a snapping turtle than I am . He will never let go. I fear also he will use his 2 core sandy bridge in the test . Which I guess is OK . But I would just use the high end 2 core 32nm thats available at the time . Ya Bob I blabbed

 

[Nemesis 1]

I'm building this computer primarily for adobe cs5, which iirc can utilize 6 cores. Also I like to have this computer at least keep up with the mainstream for the next 4 years. I agree with you that majority of the software still using only 2 cores, but you never know what may happen in the next few years .

If everthing you say is true than you want 4 core sandy Bridge in 1st qt. of 2011 . Why is that you might ask because . SandyBridge 4 core makes your brand new 6 core AMD a relic of the past . AVX is for what you want . Its is anywere from 40% to110% faster than Intels present cpus which already smoke AMD core for core.

 

[Computer.Ed]

I already did this test using an Intel i5 750 and an AMD Athlon II X4 620. Both systems where in identical cases with 4 gigs of RAM, the same OS, same HD and the same video card. Both systems where put on identical 22" monitors and the games put on the system where set to the same settings.

Local LAN party had about 20 people come over and take the test and only ONE was able to tell the difference in the system. Interestingly enough of the 7 people that CLAIMED to be able to tell the difference the other 6 got the IDs wrong.

As for the previous comment about video transcoding you are correct that an Intel chip does it faster however faster still is the use of the GPU for this task. Another drive generation or two should see this become a primarily GPU task.

As for presuming peoples budget allowances you are right there are some people out there with the money to throw at a $1000 CPU. However I think the statement is fair to say the MAJORITY are a bit more budget minded.

 

[mbevolution]

If everthing you say is true than you want 4 core sandy Bridge in 1st qt. of 2011 . Why is that you might ask because . SandyBridge 4 core makes your brand new 6 core AMD a relic of the past . AVX is for what you want . Its is anywere from 40% to110% faster than Intels present cpus which already smoke AMD core for core.

cuz i don't want to spend more than $700?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Some of you enterprising enthusiasts need to snag a Thuban and get all tweaky with the BIOS, p-states, core affinity & AOD and see how much you can make those cores jump around.





--

 

[Nemesis 1]

I don't understand where are you coming from. It seems that you are still stuck with the idea that an i7 is faster than a x6 while they are priced similar. That's not the case at all.
If you are talking about an i5, then in most apps we use intel is NOT faster. Of course I don't have direct proof of this, but from the benchmarks I have read so far, x6 has a sight lead to say at least (unless gaming is all you do). So why are you making this like Intel is 10x better than AMD?

The test used highly threaded apps . which few exist. Let me pick the benchies and view the results and AMD loses every app. to a 2core i5. Now I will bet everthing I own on this. Because I know for fact its true.

 

[mbevolution]

Yes I agree some couldn't. But Most who used old intel FSB would know . The ones that could tell the differance between FSB and AMDs HT. Would know the differance its a feel. Its like driving at high speeds its about feeling .

I am not argueing the point you think I am . I am angry about the 6 core hype AMD is recieving . As you yourself said If i set up 2 Machines . One with AMDs Highend One with Intels low end . None would know the differance . If I did Highend intel against lowend AMD everyone would know. Intels 2 core 32 is alot better than what credit its given . Fact is myself and bob discussed doing just such a test for utube videos using random people and getting their output. We both already have a good understanding of the results but Bob wants to prove it out in real world and than show those results bob is more of a snapping turtle than I am . He will never let go. I fear also he will use his 2 core sandy bridge in the test . Which I guess is OK . But I would just use the high end 2 core 32nm thats available at the time . Ya Bob I blabbed

AMD targets the mainstream and I think with the release of x6, its done a good job. x6 is a really good improvement from x4, good enough to insert itself right in between 750 and 930 (1055T) and 930 - 965 (1090T).

The test used highly threaded apps . which few exist. Let me pick the benchies and view the results and AMD loses every app. to a 2core i5. Now I will bet everthing I own on this. Because I know for fact its true.

prove it

 

[Nemesis 1]

cuz i don't want to spend more than $700?

Now Thats understandable and honest . But Please don't say you have a high performance PC because it would be a lie . IN a 2 horse race one horse loses. The winner being high performance and the loser being in the race at the starting line only. This doesn't make the loser high performance . When you can go and get the studs colts and have the same results other than the starting line part.

 

[Nemesis 1]

AMD targets the mainstream and I think with the release of x6, its done a good job. x6 is a really good improvement from x4, good enough to insert itself right in between 750 and 930 (1055T) and 930 - 965 (1090T).



prove it

AMD isn't targeting anyone here . There just in the race were ever they slide in. In this case its not the middle as you claim but the low end . Keep facts straight please . Don't forget your all comparring to intels 4 core not intels 6 core that high end . Intel middle end still outperforms AMD . Your going by price only and dreaming your getting more than you really are.

 

[VirtualLarry]

If everthing you say is true than you want 4 core sandy Bridge in 1st qt. of 2011 . Why is that you might ask because . SandyBridge 4 core makes your brand new 6 core AMD a relic of the past . AVX is for what you want . Its is anywere from 40% to110% faster than Intels present cpus which already smoke AMD core for core.

Are you saying that CS5 is ALREADY optimized for AVX? Because my understanding is that software has to be re-written, or at the minimum, recompiled, for AVX to be of any use. Much like the AES-NI instructions.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Now Thats understandable and honest . But Please don't say you have a high performance PC because it would be a lie ..

I sure as hell wouldn't consider a dual-core, no matter how highly clocked, to be a
"high performanced PC" either. I would consider it obsolete. Even if it were 32nm.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I already did this test using an Intel i5 750 and an AMD Athlon II X4 620. Both systems where in identical cases with 4 gigs of RAM, the same OS, same HD and the same video card. Both systems where put on identical 22" monitors and the games put on the system where set to the same settings.

Local LAN party had about 20 people come over and take the test and only ONE was able to tell the difference in the system. Interestingly enough of the 7 people that CLAIMED to be able to tell the difference the other 6 got the IDs wrong.

As for the previous comment about video transcoding you are correct that an Intel chip does it faster however faster still is the use of the GPU for this task. Another drive generation or two should see this become a primarily GPU task.

As for presuming peoples budget allowances you are right there are some people out there with the money to throw at a $1000 CPU. However I think the statement is fair to say the MAJORITY are a bit more budget minded.

Well bob wants to do it differant AMDs top against Intels highest binned 2 core 32nm . Than AMDs PH ll 965 I believe it is. against intels highest end chip . Whats the differance in the total price of AMDs top and Intels 930 including M/B and ram . Now we seem to be talking apples and grapes here. I am not talking about Dell pcs . You buy AMDs top of the line overclock . Than run it against mywifes PC overclocked . I already know the results and the pricies for $100 more I will take the Intel . If ya try to use a sub 100 AMD M/b its not even laughable. She won't play she a good sport. I have never paid for top of the line ever . But if what I am told is true . Intel is suppose to release an extreme dual core if that happens I will spend $500 for that cpu.Even with sandy bridge on its way . I already using 2 core but haven't moved it over online use as I just like it that much . I pulled a four core intel out to put it in and haven't looked back .

Hell I am still using 3.2 C for browsing and one game I like to play online. Not sure but Isn't Atom faster than what I use online if not faster pretty dam close . Yet I download as fast as my carrier allows . Trueth is I have way more money tied up in Hard drives than anything else I own , I consider it treasure. The internet is becoming controlled and downloads are closely watched now . My music library is second to none and I can't risk exposing such things to the internet. My video library is growing fast now that I have access to free DVD movies. But Thats something I really don't care about I don't watch TV or movies anymore but my music is holy ground. But I still protect my libraries . Right now in my village 36 pcs pull content from my libraries . and it was not freely given . I paid for the hook ups and give the content away freely to those on my network. They also give me content I want. I don't know what everone uses there PCs for . But gaming cost $$$ . Video editing cost $$$. Entertainment is a no brainer dead ass cheap and 6 year old $100 PCs do the job nicely. and debating in forums requires only a $50 pc.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I sure as hell wouldn't consider a dual-core, no matter how highly clocked, to be a
"high performanced PC" either. I would consider it obsolete. Even if it were 32nm.

Ok larry my 2 core against what ever you got.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Are you saying that CS5 is ALREADY optimized for AVX? Because my understanding is that software has to be re-written, or at the minimum, recompiled, for AVX to be of any use. Much like the AES-NI instructions.

Are ya that thick headed or what . Why has intel sent out thousands of SB cpus and M/B to developers . Tell me you seem to have all ans. How much work is the recompile .

 

[mbevolution]

AMD isn't targeting anyone here . There just in the race were ever they slide in. In this case its not the middle as you claim but the low end . Keep facts straight please . Don't forget your all comparring to intels 4 core not intels 6 core that high end . Intel middle end still outperforms AMD . Your going by price only and dreaming your getting more than you really are.

intel i5 750 and i7 920 are classified as mainstream according to intel's roadmap, keep your facts straight please.

oh yeah i get what i pay for, i paid $125 so i expect a $125 processor. in fact, i get more than a $125 processor. try comparing 1055t with i3 (that's a intel low end processor), and are you gonna say i3 is better?

im not gonna argue w/ you anymore because your comments are not based on any evidence. there is no doubt that 1055t and 1090t are great processors for the value, and there is no doubt that amd has done a good job making them. As i said earlier im NOT comparing cores, im comparing PRICE, so the point that you were trying to make is irrelevant to what i was saying.

anyways, i think this is far beyond op's original purpose. as whoever stated earlier, since you are not doing anything hard core, i would recommend the cheapest system you can get, in other words, an 1055T system with 5770 for about $725 dollars (assuming you missed the $125 deal).

 

[Nemesis 1]

I don't understand where are you coming from. It seems that you are still stuck with the idea that an i7 is faster than a x6 while they are priced similar. That's not the case at all.
If you are talking about an i5, then in most apps we use intel is NOT faster. Of course I don't have direct proof of this, but from the benchmarks I have read so far, x6 has a sight lead to say at least (unless gaming is all you do). So why are you making this like Intel is 10x better than AMD?

You don't get it . It is I thats telling it straight. If you take every App out there. Run them The 2 core i5 wins the majority and thats the trueth anyone who denies this is a liar.

It is not I who is pretending intel is 10x faster , But those who simply won't except the trueth . Every review of AMD 6x used all the multi programms they had to use in these test . If you go back and look not many test at all very few in fact . Go back to 06 and look at reviews than see if same apps are used . This test were run to show AMDs Brighter spots . I view the whole picture not just what pleases myself.

 

[TomSeek]

Ok Intel backers, I think you guys need to speak up because this Nemesis guy is making a mockery of Intel. I am an Intel user and I am beginning to feel embarrassed by this show.

TBH, AMD is putting up a good fight, which I think will help my bottom line (I will get cheaper Intel CPU's). All in all though, I think Intel's I930 still have the edge for most every day use, because most programs are not multi-threaded. When you're only using 1 or 2 cores in your apps (which most people do all day), Intel will at least tie or beat AMD in most cases.

TOM

 

[mbevolution]

You don't get it . It is I thats telling it straight. If you take every App out there. Run them The 2 core i5 wins the majority and thats the trueth anyone who denies this is a liar.

It is not I who is pretending intel is 10x faster , But those who simply won't except the trueth . Every review of AMD 6x used all the multi programms they had to use in these test . If you go back and look not many test at all very few in fact . Go back to 06 and look at reviews than see if same apps are used . This test were run to show AMDs Brighter spots . I view the whole picture not just what pleases myself.

you think someone is really gonna spend $700 to get a 2 core system? dude, if you ever do anything intensive such as video editing, rendering etc, you will use more than 2 cores.
I get a 6 core because i want to do some video while at the same time do photoshop and other stuff, and 4 cores just arent' enough for the level of multitasking. hell if there is an 8 core i would jump for that if it falls within my budget.

 

[Nemesis 1]

intel i5 750 and i7 920 are classified as mainstream according to intel's roadmap, keep your facts straight please.

oh yeah i get what i pay for, i paid $125 so i expect a $125 processor. in fact, i get more than a $125 processor. try comparing 1055t with i3 (that's a intel low end processor), and are you gonna say i3 is better?

im not gonna argue w/ you anymore because your comments are not based on any evidence. there is no doubt that 1055t and 1090t are great processors for the value, and there is no doubt that amd has done a good job making them. As i said earlier im NOT comparing cores, im comparing PRICE, so the point that you were trying to make is irrelevant to what i was saying.

anyways, i think this is far beyond op's original purpose. as whoever stated earlier, since you are not doing anything hard core, i would recommend the cheapest system you can get, in other words, an 1055T system with 5770 for about $725 dollars (assuming you missed the $125 deal).

Please I don't care what you paid . I am going by AMDs sugjested price .I think 2 times I have paid regular price only because I didn't want to wait for almost free products.

Were did I say it wrong . Were discussing Intels lowend i7 against AMDs higher clocked supper dupper world rocking 6x PH ll . Its you who are at an enthusiast site were self builds are the way to go yet I can't O/C my wifes i7. O/C is free power yet you want to change the rules and go NO o/C LOL NOt happening. And intels 920 is only sold no longer made the i930 is what needs to be comparred . AT did a bad job on that one . But what reviewssites have AMD winning . Because the majority showed intel winning and at O/Cs Intel stomped AMD x6 . Whats really funny is AT was one of the few that actually did a half honest job of O/C intels tested cpus.

 

[mbevolution]

Please I don't care what you paid . I am going by AMDs sugjested price .I think 2 times I have paid regular price only because I didn't want to wait for almost free products.

Were did I say it wrong . Were discussing Intels lowend i7 against AMDs higher clocked supper dupper world rocking 6x PH ll . Its you who are at an enthusiast site were self builds are the way to go yet I can't O/C my wifes i7. O/C is free power yet you want to change the rules and go NO o/C LOL NOt happening. And intels 920 is only sold no longer made the i930 is what needs to be comparred . AT did a bad job on that one . But what reviewssites have AMD winning . Because the majority showed intel winning and at O/Cs Intel stomped AMD x6 . Whats really funny is AT was one of the few that actually did a half honest job of O/C intels tested cpus.

you can go by amd suggested price, but you should then go by intel's suggested price as well, $299 for i7 930.

x6 is a silent release, so how is it becoming "supper dupper world rocking", i think you are overexaggerating something. bd is what amd wants to release and i think its gonna be pretty sweet.

when did i say that i don't do overclocking? but from op's perspective, i doubt he will buy a new cooler to just overclock. with intel's stock cooler, you'll run into heat issues very fast. the i5 750 that i installed for my friend, at 2.9ghz idle is 35 and with prime, within 10min it shoots up to 62. which I personally think its a high temperature. so sure you can overclock, but you are not gonna get very far without a decent cooler which is something that some ppl may not want to invest.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ok Intel backers, I think you guys need to speak up because this Nemesis guy is making a mockery of Intel. I am an Intel user and I am beginning to feel embarrassed by this show.

TBH, AMD is putting up a good fight, which I think will help my bottom line (I will get cheaper Intel CPU's). All in all though, I think Intel's I930 still have the edge for most every day use, because most programs are not multi-threaded. When you're only using 1 or 2 cores in your apps (which most people do all day), Intel will at least tie or beat AMD in most cases.

TOM

LOL at you newbe. Intel knocked AMD on its ass in 06 AMD hasn't gotten off the mat yet . The only comparsion any review sites did were based on $$$$$$$. Thats it . Lookat what the 6 core intel does to the 6x AMD both O/C its a complete ass kicking . Intel shreds amd. BUT BUT BUT intels cpu is $1000 . Who cares . Just because you can't afford the $1000 cpu doesn't change the facts . Reality is reality your simply looking at the $$$$$ signs and passing judgement based on what you can afford . I got $100 says AMD doesn't pick up any market share at all. Ya its been 4 long years now and 2011 isn't going to change other than intel getting stronger and richer . Evil intel and its money lol . They all will slit your childrens throat for $$$$$.