What's best AMD for general use?

[evolucion8]

He didn't specify why he'd want an AMD CPU though (I can't think of any reason, but why don't we let him explain himself).
I'm just pointing out that Intel has some options that may suit his particular needs better.

With you it's simple, you're a fanboy.

How in hell you accuse people of being a fanboy when you just posted this;

Originally posted by: Scali

"So: forget AMD, get Intel."

It isn't a fanboy comment? Man, you have serious issues, in heavy multi threading scenario, the AMD X6 1090T will smoke a punny i5 750, they aren't much faster than previous C2Q processors, does it make sense for me to move from my CPU to an i5??

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/9 <<Does the 1090T trails in gaming performance to the point that its unplayable? Doubt it...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/6 <<1090T outperforms the i5 and even the i7 860 in two of the three tests

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/7 <<In all tests, its halfway between the i7 920 and i7 975.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/8 <<Here the 1090T makes a show off outperforming the i7 920 in one of the tests, even the 1055 outperforms the i5 750 slightly and in the last tests its fishy because the i7 920 looses against the similar clocked i5 750, so multi threading isn't really strong in the 7-zip max compression tests.

Stop your fanboyism and stop derailing threads!! He wanted an AMD setup, never said anything about Intel, are you gonna recommend him a dead 775 platform?

 

[Markfw]

It also shows that the Core i5 750 outperforms the 1055T...
i5 750 is a good compromise... nice turbo mode for good gaming performance, and its 4 cores are very fast, so it holds its own in multithreaded environments well.
It also overclocks like a maniac, and is about the same price as a 1055T.

So: forget AMD, get Intel.

I don't see that...Where ? And I have an X6, and a 920, and the X6 wins most of the time, and my 920 is clocked higher.

I see the X6 beats the 750 in that link....and by quite the margin ~!

 

[Scali]

"So: forget AMD, get Intel."

It isn't a fanboy comment?

No, I responded to a benchmark recommending the 1055T over quadcore options, pointing out that the equally priced i5 750 was considerably faster than the 1055T in that same benchmark.

Man, you have serious issues, in heavy multi threading scenario, the AMD X6 1090T will smoke a punny i5 750

The 1090T is about 50% more expensive than the i5 750... We're discussing the 1055T here. Is that a fanboy comment?

 

[Markfw]

No, I responded to a benchmark recommending the 1055T over quadcore options, pointing out that the equally priced i5 750 was considerably faster than the 1055T in that same benchmark.



The 1090T is about 50&#37; more expensive than the i5 750... We're discussing the 1055T here. Is that a fanboy comment?

And you read the benchmark wrong. The 1055T did 90, and the 750 did 134, in a benchmark where less is better.

 

[Scali]

I don't see that...Where ? And I have an X6, and a 920, and the X6 wins most of the time, and my 920 is clocked higher.

See the posted link, PhotoShop CS4 benchmarks on Tomshardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Adobe-Photoshop-CS-4,1387.html
Core i7 750: 126 s.
Phenom X6 1055T: 139 s.

I think it's pretty clear which $200 CPU you'd want in this case.

 

[Scali]

And you read the benchmark wrong. The 1055T did 90, and the 750 did 134, in a benchmark where less is better.

Not sure where those figures come from.
Not from the linked benchmark page anyway:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Adobe-Photoshop-CS-4,1387.html

Sounds like you read the benchmark wrong.

 

[Scali]

Stop your fanboyism and stop derailing threads!! He wanted an AMD setup, never said anything about Intel, are you gonna recommend him a dead 775 platform?

The Core i5 750 is not a 775 platform.
Now calm down and stop ranting like a lunatic, before your false accusations get you banned. In fact, forget that, keep going.

 

[evolucion8]

The Core i5 750 is not a 775 platform.
Now calm down and stop ranting like a lunatic, before your false accusations get you banned. In fact, forget that, keep going.

That's the best that you could come with? Those tests are flawed, heck, even the almost 4 years old QX6850 is matching the i5 750, (Not the i7 750 that you said...) please, its obvious that the tests are flawed or the software isn't heavily multi threaded. For no reason, a six core processor would have to loose against a Quad Core (No HyperThreading) in real multi threaded scenarios.

Your reference: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Adobe-Photoshop-CS-4,1387.html

When I said 775, I was talking about the fact that since you are a fanboy, you could even recommend it for the sake of not recommending AMD processors. Please, only a noob would not know that none of the Intel ix series are in the S775, don't subestimate my intelligence kid. You know what I was talking about, don't play around.

 

[Scali]

When I said 775, I was talking about the fact that since you are a fanboy, you could even recommend it for the sake of not recommending AMD processors.

Okay, so now I'm accused of being a fanboy because I *could* recommend a socket 775 platform, even though I *didn't*.
It's amazing... now you can be accused of things you DIDN'T do here.

What I *did* do is simple...
The OP stated that he was mainly looking for a system to do photo editing, bit of gaming, video etc on the side.

Then someone posted some PhotoShop CS4 benchmarks (photo editing, what the guy is interested in), recommending the 1055T processor (the most expensive option he listed).
Then I pointed out that the equally priced i5 750 did considerably better in that benchmark, so perhaps he should investigate that option as well (it is also a better overclocker and gaming CPU, other things he's interested in).

Don't blame me for Intel outperforming AMD in a PhotoShop benchmark. I'm just recommending the fastest processor for his budget ($200-ish). If it was AMD, I'd recommend that, but it isn't. You just need to shut up, okay? I'm through with you.

 

[evolucion8]

Then someone posted some PhotoShop CS4 benchmarks (photo editing, what the guy is interested in), recommending the 1055T processor (the most expensive option he listed).
Then I pointed out that the equally priced i5 750 did considerably better in that benchmark, so perhaps he should investigate that option as well (it is also a better overclocker and gaming CPU, other things he's interested in).

Don't blame me for Intel outperforming AMD in a PhotoShop benchmark. I'm just recommending the fastest processor for his budget ($200-ish). If it was AMD, I'd recommend that, but it isn't. You just need to shut up, okay? I'm through with you.

The issue is that Anandtech has far more better reputation than Tomshardware, and you insist to prove him wrong putting shoddy links with tests that are flawed, how's possible than an old QX6850 can match identically an i5 750?

For me, that result looks far more real and inline compared to other processors relativity performance, (Like the i5 750 outperforming slightly the QX9770, not matching an QX6850), now, can you try to shut me up? I doubt that.

 

[Scali]

The issue is that Anandtech has far more better reputation than Tomshardware, and you insist to prove him wrong putting shoddy links with tests that are flawed, how's possible than an old QX6850 can match identically an i5 750?

Firstly, it wasn't me who posted the Tomshardware link.
Secondly, the QX6850 is irrelevant here. We were only comparing 1055T and i5 750.
Anandtech's benchmarks show exactly the same: the 750 is faster.
In fact, Anandtech is only more in Intel's advantage, as the 750 beats the more expensive 1090T here aswell, where at Tomshardware, the 1090T still had a slight edge.
Lastly, I don't think Anandtech and Tomshardware tested the same operation, so it could well be that in Tomshardware's test, the QX6850 really does perform that well.

 

[Markfw]

See the posted link, PhotoShop CS4 benchmarks on Tomshardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Adobe-Photoshop-CS-4,1387.html
Core i7 750: 126 s.
Phenom X6 1055T: 139 s.

I think it's pretty clear which $200 CPU you'd want in this case.

This is where I saw it:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...remiere-Pro-CS4,Prix_fpricex100b200,1404.html

90 for X6, 134 for I5....

Besides, he said he would OC. They both do ~ 4 ghz. Then lets see who wins.

 

[Scali]

This is where I saw it:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...remiere-Pro-CS4,Prix_fpricex100b200,1404.html

90 for X6, 134 for I5....

Yea, that's Adobe Premiere Pro CS4 (video editing), not PhotoShop CS4 (photo editing). Not the link that was posted, not the topic we were discussing.

 

[jvroig]

For me, that result looks far more real and inline compared to other processors relativity performance, (Like the i5 750 outperforming slightly the QX9770, not matching an QX6850), now, can you try to shut me up? I doubt that.

I don't see what you are trying to argue. That graph you just posted shows the 1055T to be slower than the i5-750. The least you could have done was show a graph that didn't have the 1055T lose to the i5-750, if that was your intention.

 

[nyker96]

I agree with some previous posters, you just need a X4 630 or something like that if you don't game. but ... since amd x6 is not too expensive, if you can afford that, for threaded app it's still the king.

 

[Scali]

I don't see what you are trying to argue.

I don't think it matters to him what he's trying to argue.
As long as he can insult me. He's been doing it in tons of threads now, getting more outrageous with every post.
I'm just recommending the best performing $200 CPU in PhotoShop CS4. His response is as if I've just said something horrible about his mother.

 

[Rifter]

If he could afford a i7 i would say going intel for sure, its a no brainer they are the best consumer CPU's on the market right now. It would be a good platform for the type of programs he is going to use, but not in the price range he is in.

So if he can only afford either a i5 750 or a 1055T then i would go with the 1055T, the lack of hyperthreading on the i5 gives the 1055T the clear advantage in multithreaded applications, and as time goes by more and more apps will be using multiple cores.

 

[Scali]

So if he can only afford either a i5 750 or a 1055T then i would go with the 1055T, the lack of hyperthreading on the i5 gives the 1055T the clear advantage in multithreaded applications, and as time goes by more and more apps will be using multiple cores.

I disagree.
'Multithreaded applications' is too vague. What applications are we talking about *specifically*?
Games are multithreaded... but the i5 750 has quite a clear advantage in pretty much all games.
The i5 750 also has a clear advantage in video encoding with eg DivX and Xvid, even though these encoders are also multithreading-optimized.
Multithreaded applications don't necessarily scale well to many cores, getting us back to Amdahl's law and all that.

Aside from that, I suppose you have to evaluate how important certain applications are for you. You don't use 'multithreaded' applications. You use applications... whether they're multithreaded or not is not that relevant. You just want the CPU that performs best with the applications you use, regardless of how that performance is delivered.

 

[Rifter]

I was going by cinebench as its known to scale well up to 6 cores. So is sisoft, and in both of those the 1055T will beat the i5 750.

Take a look at this page

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-gulftown-scaling,2663-4.html

i know it is about a 6 core i7 but tells you which applications are good for multithreaded benchmarks and which are not, as its pointless to point out a i5 beats a 1055t in a situation where only 1 or 2 cores is really doing anything anyways as i dont think anyone is disputing that intel is going to murder AMD clock for clock in single threaded applications.

If you want compare 4 core to 6 core CPU's you need a application that scales well to 6 cores.

 

[Rifter]

Aside from that, I suppose you have to evaluate how important certain applications are for you. You don't use 'multithreaded' applications. You use applications... whether they're multithreaded or not is not that relevant. You just want the CPU that performs best with the applications you use, regardless of how that performance is delivered.

Thought i would add i agree with you on the above point and i5 is going to be better if used for mostly single threaded or poorly coded multithreadded apps, it will depend on what you are doing and with what programs.

However as time goes on and if you plan on keeping the system for 4 years or more it is only going to get faster with more cores as all programs will become better multithreaded. I think the 1055T will age better than the i5.

 

[Scali]

If you want compare 4 core to 6 core CPU's you need a application that scales well to 6 cores.

I think this shows the problem I was trying to point out, but apparently failed.
You take the requirement that applications scale well in order to compare 4 cores to 6 cores.
Think about it, why do you put that requirement in?
Because you know that 6 cores aren't better in ALL cases.
If you have applications that don't scale as well (which vastly outnumber the ones that do), the advantage of 6 cores quickly fades away.

Aside from that, it's not a 1:1 comparison of cores here.
The Core i5 may only have 4 cores, but each core is significantly faster than each core in a 1055T.

 

[jvroig]

However as time goes on and if you plan on keeping the system for 4 years or more it is only going to get faster with more cores as all programs will become better multithreaded. I think the 1055T will age better than the i5.

If performance mattered to someone at all, then in 4 years or more, he wouldn't want to use either CPU, the same way that he probably wouldn't want to use an Athlon 64 X2 5000+ or whatever today.

The most reasonable criteria when buying hardware TODAY then is how it performs TODAY.

If I had $200 for the CPU budget (and assuming the rest of the components don't matter so much, and I also don't care about brands), I guess I could either:
a.) buy a 1055T and HOPE that in the few years I would use it, most applications will "get with the program" and start being multi-threaded like crazy, so I can enjoy better performance by that time, or;
b.) buy the i5-750 and enjoy better performance TODAY.

My personal preference is to go with option b. It makes more sense to me as I am sure to enjoy better performance, instead of hoping for it.

As for "needing proper multi-threaded software", look at the OP's needs. He mentioned video-editing (1) and games (2) as minor, then photo editing (3), surfing (4) and office apps (5) as primary use cases.

We know that in (1), 1055T is probably faster.
In (2), we know the i5-750 is faster
In (3), the i5-750 is faster
In (4), both will suffice, we can benchmark it to show the i5 is still faster, but in real world it probably cannot be noticed, so let us be generous and say it is a tie.
In (5), it is the same as (4), except if heavy Excel work is done. Let's assume that's not the case, so let's be generous again and say it is a tie.

From there, the 1055T wins only in one category, and that is a minor need as mentioned by the OP.
The i5 wins two categories, one minor, and one primary.
The two remaining primary needs are virtual ties (or, benchmark-wise, another set of i5 victories).

Is the 1055T still a better deal?


------------------

Now, the OP has specified an AMD system, so this debate is not needed here, and my recommendation is still the 965BE over the 1055T if no overclocking is concerned. With overclocking in the picture, it might be a wash - the 965BE is unlocked while the 1055T is not, and you risk being board limited before achieving 4GHz (you'd need 280+ FSB).

If the OP comes back and says "Hmmm, now that you mention it, I guess a lynnfield system is acceptable", then naturally, at this budget, it makes perfect sense to go i5-750, and trying to justify otherwise just doesn't make a lot of sense. Since he hasn't yet, it's none of our business to push it.

So how about we all just sit tight, cool down, and wait for the OP to come back. He'll tell us why he wants to go AMD and if an i5 is acceptable or not, then from there we can let this thread continue as it was meant to be.

 

[evolucion8]

Thought i would add i agree with you on the above point and i5 is going to be better if used for mostly single threaded or poorly coded multithreadded apps, it will depend on what you are doing and with what programs.

However as time goes on and if you plan on keeping the system for 4 years or more it is only going to get faster with more cores as all programs will become better multithreaded. I think the 1055T will age better than the i5.

I totally agree with you. Anandtech's Phenom II X6 review stated that clearly;

"Applications like video encoding and offline 3D rendering show the real strengths of the Phenom II X6. And thanks to Turbo Core, you don't give up any performance in less threaded applications compared to a Phenom II X4. The 1090T can easily trump the Core i7 860 and the 1055T can do even better against the Core i5 750.

You start running into problems when you look at lightly threaded applications or mixed workloads that aren't always stressing all six cores. In these situations Intel's quad-core Lynnfield processors (Core i5 700 series and Core i7 800 series) are better buys. They give you better performance in these light or mixed workload scenarios, not to mention lower overall power consumption."

The AMD Star architecture might be slower in a per clock basis compared to Lynnfield, but not in a million years, a heavily multi threaded application will run faster on 4 cores than 6 cores.

I disagree.
'Multithreaded applications' is too vague. What applications are we talking about *specifically*?
Games are multithreaded... but the i5 750 has quite a clear advantage in pretty much all games.
The i5 750 also has a clear advantage in video encoding with eg DivX and Xvid, even though these encoders are also multithreading-optimized.
Multithreaded applications don't necessarily scale well to many cores, getting us back to Amdahl's law and all that.

Aside from that, I suppose you have to evaluate how important certain applications are for you. You don't use 'multithreaded' applications. You use applications... whether they're multithreaded or not is not that relevant. You just want the CPU that performs best with the applications you use, regardless of how that performance is delivered.

You in the other thread claimed this;

Not really, aside from DX10+ features, newer videocards also have much better performance and image quality than these cards.
But the image quality and performance of the more high-end DX10 cards is very similar to the DX11 cards. And they are often better value for money (like the 4870 still being popular because it's so cheap, and still a pretty mainstream performer).

Talk about double standards. Multithreading is the future, and it has proven that real cores are faster than fake ones, and it was clearly shown in that review, that in (Let me put it in words easy for you to understand, so your don't have to claim again "is too vague"), in very well parallelizable code, multi threaded code, the X6 1090T was able to match and outperform with six cores the 4 real cores with 4 logical cores i7 860, even though each core of the i7 is faster than each core of the Phenom II. Phenom II architecture has similar performance compared to the Intel previous C2Q architecture, so is no wonder and easy to understand that i7 isn't much faster. The only CPU that can show twice the performance compared to previous generations is the powerful i7 980X processor.

XVID is a joke of codec, I use it and never uses more than two cores, Divx never uses all my cores together. Why you don't talk about the x264 results, where the X6 1055T was beating soundly the i5 750? A brand new codec which can really tax my CPU, see? You are clearly biased to Intel and is true that in lightly threaded applications, the higher IPC Intel processor will be faster, period. BUT in heavily threaded applications (I mean, software that implements multi threading in a very efficient and parallelizxable way maximizing the utilization of the processor's execution engine resources like the x264 codec), the X6 1055T will be faster and its predictable performance will last longer and hence, will age better.

In the end, if the OP isn't gonna tax the CPU a lot, the i5 should be a better buy, but if the OP is gonna keep the system a bit longer, and will do lot of video encoding with current and future codecs and High Definition content, the Phenom II X6 is the better buy. But from my POV, the i5 is more suitable for the OP, but he's the only one who can choose his usage model and what processor will be more suitable for him.

 

[Scali]

Talk about double standards.

What double standard?
I'm saying the same thing in both cases, namely:
1) Multithreading may be the future (which I don't think, as a professional software developer developing multithreaded applications on a daily basis... we've already had our free lunch, low-hanging fruit, and <insert various other metaphores here>, you get the idea). But I would go with what is faster *today*.
2) DX10+ may be the future, but I would go with what is faster/better image quality/etc *today*.

Difference being that in case 2), the fastest/best quality/etc cards in DX9 are also the cards that support DX10+.

 

[holabr]

WOW, you guys really got into it after I went to bed. The reason I said AMD was because my last two systems used AMD and I have been very happy with them. I'm a little more comfortable with them. Also, and I hate to add fuel to either fire, I forgot to mention that I like to use AutoCAD LT 2005. I probably won't be upgrading that anytime soon because of the cost but would like to improve 3D performance.

Also, the DDR3 Intel requirement to work in 3s adds to the cost a little since I will need 6GB vs. 4GB ram. Will the added ram pay for itself in performance boost?

It appears that we have processor bigots on both sides. Unless there are absolute compelling reasons to switch sides, I am staying with the AMD.

Right now my thinking is 1055t with a Gigabyte GA-880GA-UD3H. Will I be able to Oc with this or is the GA-890GPA-UD3H worth the additional cost?