What's best AMD for general use?

[Scali]

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?

That only goes for the i7 900-series. The 800-series and below (including the mentioned 750) have a dual-channel memory controller like AMD, and as such only require ram in pairs.

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.

Depends on how important you think power consumption is, perhaps.
That's possibly the biggest difference between AMD and Intel at this point:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/10
Especially in idle (which will be most of the time), the difference is pretty huge.
Judging from how the AMD camp responded to nVidia's Fermi, AMD people think power consumption is very important, so

 

[jvroig]

WOW, you guys really got into it after I went to bed

Hehe, bet you didn't see that coming.

It appears that we have processor bigots on both sides.

Can't help it. Even if there really weren't any, there's just no stopping some people from "discovering" that there are, from either camp.

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?

Last I remember, Lynnfield (like the i5-750) only has a dual channel. What you are saying only goes for the higher end i7 Bloomfield chips. So you can stick with 4GB dual-channel RAM, absolutely.

Unless there are absolute compelling reasons to switch sides, I am staying with the AMD.

Depends. Is all-around, generally better performance compelling enough for you or not?

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?

Both will probably do just fine, but any OC is never a guarantee. You can end up paying for a more expensive board and just be as board-limited as a cheaper one. However, with that disclaimer aside, I like the Gigabyte brand and for me it makes sense to not scrimp on the board so much, especially for a machine that I plan to use often for quite a long while. So my personal choice, based on what I've just said, is to go for the 890.


EDIT: Looks like Scali beat me to it, and he does bring up a point I missed - power consumption. That's another thing worth considering aside from performance.

 

[evolucion8]

At idle, the 1055T should consume 25W more than the i5 750, at full they should tie. But the Fermi issue is another story, the difference is just too great, and considering that the X6 processor which has 6 cores consuming slightly higher more power at both, full and idle compared to a 4 Core i5 with the latest in technology of manufacturing process is a testament of AMD's litography, because Intel is the leader here, by a long shot.

 

[Scali]

At idle, the 1055T should consume 25W more than the i5 750, at full they should tie. But the Fermi issue is another story, the difference is just too great, and considering that the X6 processor which has 6 cores consuming slightly higher more power at both, full and idle compared to a 4 Core i5 with the latest in technology of manufacturing process is a testament of AMD's litography, because Intel is the leader here, by a long shot.

And you're accusing others of double standards?

 

[evolucion8]

And you're accusing others of double standards?

jajajaja, you are funny. AMD's tactics moking Fermi are low, but Fermi consumes far more power than Cypress (Much higher than the measly 25W you are whining about) and the performance gains are far from spectacular. While Thuban consume slightly more power, it is convincingly faster than the i5 in multi threaded scenarios, where most of the load comes, which means that in the end, you might save some power thanks to ending the task sooner, and the difference is quite small in terms of power consumption.

GTX 280 consumed more power at full than the HD 4890 but it was faster and it was well balanced in terms of power usage/performance advantage. Fermi is out of proportion, like you.

 

[Scali]

jajajaja, you are funny. AMD's tactics moking Fermi are low, but Fermi consumes far more power than Cypress (Much higher than the measly 25W you are whining about) and the performance gains are far from spectacular.

At least GTX470/480 are actually *faster* than their AMD competitors. And videocards have considerably higher power consumption anyway... in the absolute sense the difference may be larger, but relative to the total power consumption, the difference between nVidia and AMD GPUs is not that far off from Intel and AMD CPUs.

While Thuban consume slightly more power, it is convincingly faster than the i5 in multi threaded scenarios, where most of the load comes, which means that in the end, you might save some power thanks to ending the task sooner, and the difference is quite small in terms of power consumption.

Not really, Thuban is not THAT much faster, even in the best cases... Besides, as soon as they go idle, the diffence is WAY large again (about 40W!).

ANd if we include all Intel and AMD chips, then we see that Intel's chips use less power AND are faster, *way* faster (The 980X uses about the same as the 750).

 

[evolucion8]

Not really, Thuban is not THAT much faster, even in the best cases... Besides, as soon as they go idle, the diffence is WAY large again (about 40W!).

ANd if we include all Intel and AMD chips, then we see that Intel's chips use less power AND are faster, *way* faster (The 980X uses about the same as the 750).

Are you nuts? 39.5W because you are comparing it with the 1090T which consistently outperforms the i5 750.

Idle

Load

Don't be such a cry baby, AMD nor Intel are gonna pay you for you propaganda here in the forums. 980X is way faster and consumes little power thanks to Intel's leadership in manufacturing process (Is a 32nm processor). And of course, is way faster than anything AMD has, period. Nothing can't argue against it, but who buy such expensive processors? The money is in the OEM market and below $300 market where AMD is far more competitive. Thuban is clearly the better processor at its price point, wheter you like it or not. AMD can't compete against Intel directly, so they use pricing for that.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/12

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 better way to look at it is to ask yourself what sort of machine you're building. If you're building a task specific box that will mostly run heavily threaded applications, AMD will sell you nearly a billion transistors for under $300 and you can't go wrong. If it's a more general purpose machine that you're assembling, Lynnfield seems like a better option.

If someone buys an i5 for web browsing and light app, he should just buy an Athlon II or cheap Core 2 5x0 series or Pentium Dual core and save some cash.

 

[Scali]

Are you nuts? 39.5W because you are comparing it with the 1090T which consistently outperforms the i5 750.

In idle mode it doesn't matter, they all clock down to the same speeds. 1090T may actually use slightly less because it is a higher bin chip. You see that with the Intels aswell: the 920 and 975 are the same chip, but the 975 is a higher bin, and as you see, it uses slightly less in idle mode.

Thuban is clearly the better processor at its price point, wheter you like it or not.

This is exactly the point of discussion. jvroig and myself are of the opinion that the i7 750 is the better choice on average, at the $200 price point.
Just like the review you quoted says:

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.

Funny, that is the second time you're quoting a review that says EXACTLY the same as what jvroig and I are saying.

 

[jvroig]

Thuban is clearly the better processor at its price point, wheter you like it or not.

1055T vs i5 750 c/o AT Bench: I can't see where the 1055T is clearly the better processor. In fact, I see the opposite.

From there, I derived my post earlier, which explains my decision-making process into formulating an opinion and advice for the OP, taking into account his specific needs (minor and primary) which he clearly stated in the opening post, and why the i5-750 is indeed the better deal if he does change his mind to consider Intel.

Can we now lay the issue to rest and actually proceed to help the OP, whether his requests stay with AMD, or change to accomodate Lynnfield now that he has been educated about not needing triple channel? It is still up to him, but turning this thread into another warzone clearly will not help him or anybody else.

 

[TheMeanestGuest]

It's pretty obvious OP isn't really interested in Intel processors. There's no point in getting all bitter over it. The i5 750 and the 1055t are both very good processors and either would make an excellent choice. Since OP is interested in AMD, obviously the 1055t is the way to go for him personally.

 

[Scali]

From there, I derived my post earlier, which explains my decision-making process into formulating an opinion and advice for the OP, taking into account his specific needs (minor and primary) which he clearly stated in the opening post, and why the i5-750 is indeed the better deal if he does change his mind to consider Intel.

Which is exactly the same decision-making process that I applied (and also taking into account that he indeed looks for buying a motherboard and DDR3 memory as well), before reaching my recommendation of that same Core i5 750.
I just didn't think I had to spell it out in such a detailed way initially (I just said it was good in PhotoShop, good in gaming, and would hold its own in the other (less important) tasks)... but now jvroig has already done that, and I completely agree with his assessment.

 

[Scali]

It's pretty obvious OP isn't really interested in Intel processors.

Not that obvious to me:

Unless there are absolute compelling reasons to switch sides, I am staying with the AMD.

Sounds like he's interested enough to listen to 'absolute compelling reasons'. jvroig and I tried to show him some reasons why he could go Intel (better performance in certain tasks, lower power consumption), and also took away one reason why he thought Intel would not be such a good idea (triple channel memory requirements).
Now we just have to wait and see if he finds them compelling enough.

He seems more open to the idea of Intel than some of the other people in this thread anyway.

 

[aigomorla]

general use id go with the 965.

I put my best friend on an AMD platform, because of budget reasons.
And she loves it almost as much as her i7 system for every day use.

It has enough power for what a normal person would need, and its fairly green if u have all the power saving features on.

Its single core performance is fast enough for almost everything, and multi cores only allows you to do more in the future.

My vote goes on the 965

 

[TheMeanestGuest]

Not that obvious to me:


Sounds like he's interested enough to listen to 'absolute compelling reasons'. jvroig and I tried to show him some reasons why he could go Intel (better performance in certain tasks, lower power consumption), and also took away one reason why he thought Intel would not be such a good idea (triple channel memory requirements).
Now we just have to wait and see if he finds them compelling enough.

He seems more open to the idea of Intel than some of the other people in this thread anyway.

And you're allowed to think that, I'm not trying to take that away from you. I'm sorry if I've offended you.

He could go Intel, he could go AMD. Since both companies provide very good options for him I don't see that it really matters which he picks. However, my impression is that he would be most satisfied with an AMD solution since he has previous experience and satisfaction with their processors.

 

[Scali]

He could go Intel, he could go AMD. Since both companies provide very good options for him I don't see that it really matters which he picks.

Neither do I... Don't mistake the fact that I'm under extreme attack by some AMD zealots for me trying to push only an Intel solution.
I was merely trying to point out that Intel seems to have a very good product on offer for his specific needs (I sincerely think it's the best option for him, not because it's Intel, I don't care about brands... but because it's just the best option, Anandtech's review says pretty much the same as what I've said). He can take it or leave it, I don't care. But at least I made him aware of the option.

However, my impression is that he would be most satisfied with an AMD solution since he has previous experience and satisfaction with their processors.

I think that's all the more reason to go Intel this time. I'm positive that he will have a great experience, since Intel's current platform is very good. Else he'd be limiting himself to AMD for the rest of his life, never knowing what he may be missing out on... Or he'd be positive that he's not missing out on anything next time

 

[jvroig]

Since OP is interested in AMD, obviously the 1055t is the way to go for him personally.

Honestly, even if the OP said he would never consider Intel, I still wouldn't recommend the 1055T. It just gives up too much on lightly-threaded performance, look at its gaming performance. I'd stick with a quad core that runs at 3.4 all day, every day, for every single thread. It will give up some video editing power, but that's just one of his minor concerns, but this shortcoming is redeemed in the gaming performance of a 965BE (another minor concern), so as far as minor concerns are being judged, it's a tie.

As for overclocking, a light overclock is easy to make on the 965 BE. One bios setting and you have 3.6 or 3.7. But on the 1055T, you have to crank up the FSB, and before you reach the OC level of a 965BE, you might be board limited.

And for longevity (OP said 4-5 years), I would bet that a 965BE, with the multiplier adjusted to get 3.6 - 3.8, FSB at stock, will last longer than a 1055T with a mobo with a cranked up FSB (270? 280?) and higher NB volts and all. Overclocking the black editions will just end up being more forgiving on the system, and it counts when someone expects a long life on their system.


Summary: Even if it's just AMD vs AMD, I would recommend the 965 BE over the 1055T, for lots of practical reasons that meet the OP's needs, as explained above. Now, if it's an e-peen thing, then yes, maybe bragging "I've got a hexcore PC" is better than having a 965 BE, but aside from bragging rights, it just doesn't make sense much based on the OP's described needs.

 

[holabr]

OK, you guys are really giving me an education and I thank you for it. After all this talk I do have to admit that one of the things that has been an issue with the AMD systems has been the heat (great in winter/not in summer). The question now (and this might be getting off topic) is what would you buy to put together an Intel i5-750 or an AMD 965BE system that would cost $450-500, including MB, CPU, 4GB memory and hdmi video suitable for some gaming and the video editing. I would definitely like to have USB3, SATA3, a com port/header and a lpt port/header. If a aftermarket HSF can be squeezed in there to allow OCing, that would be a plus, but the setup should allow OCing in the future with the addition of cooling. Another stupid question (hopefully not opening a new can of worms) but are the processor speeds between Intel and AMD comparable. It wold also be helpful if you estimate the percentage of OCing possible in a configuration.

Can it be done?

 

[aigomorla]

750 if your a gamer

the AMD if you want a general multi purpose machine.

 

[Markfw]

OK, you guys are really giving me an education and I thank you for it. After all this talk I do have to admit that one of the things that has been an issue with the AMD systems has been the heat (great in winter/not in summer). The question now (and this might be getting off topic) is what would you buy to put together an Intel i5-750 or an AMD 965BE system that would cost $450-500, including MB, CPU, 4GB memory and hdmi video suitable for some gaming and the video editing. I would definitely like to have USB3, SATA3, a com port/header and a lpt port/header. If a aftermarket HSF can be squeezed in there to allow OCing, that would be a plus, but the setup should allow OCing in the future with the addition of cooling. Another stupid question (hopefully not opening a new can of worms) but are the processor speeds between Intel and AMD comparable. It wold also be helpful if you estimate the percentage of OCing possible in a configuration.

Can it be done?

OK, with a decent air cooler, both can do about 4 ghz. I still say for your applications, that the 1055T is your best bet. You could even use your old DDR2 memory with it !

 

[Scali]

Another stupid question (hopefully not opening a new can of worms) but are the processor speeds between Intel and AMD comparable.

If by 'processor speeds' you mean clockspeeds, then no.
Intel processors are generally faster at the same clockspeed, especially the Core i5/i7 series.
For example, overall the Core i7 860 competes with the Phenom X6 1090T (AMD's fastest offering at the moment). That's a 2.8 GHz quadcore (with HT) vs a 3.2 GHz 6-core.
So basically that's 400 MHz extra, and two more cores, and still AMD loses quite a few benchmarks. Which indirectly also explains the much higher power consumption: AMD just needs a lot more brute force to get the same level of performance.

 

[Markfw]

If by 'processor speeds' you mean clockspeeds, then no.
Intel processors are generally faster at the same clockspeed, especially the Core i5/i7 series.
For example, overall the Core i7 860 competes with the Phenom X6 1090T (AMD's fastest offering at the moment). That's a 2.8 GHz quadcore (with HT) vs a 3.2 GHz 6-core.
So basically that's 400 MHz extra, and two more cores, and still AMD loses quite a few benchmarks. Which indirectly also explains the much higher power consumption: AMD just needs a lot more brute force to get the same level of performance.

And thats not always true either...

One VERY specific example that most people don;t do, F@H. My 920@3.7 looses quite often in performance to my X6@3.6 doing the exact same work unit, and by quite a margin, 12k vs 16k. As far as power consumption, while they are different, its not near as bad as the comparison between the old Pentium-D and the X2. Reading your posts makes it seem like Intel is the only way to go, and thats just not true, especially if you put price in the equation.

Scali, you need to tone down your replies to many people here, which is why you think they are attacking you, your tone is like "I am right and you are wrong, period". Please try to rephrase some of your replies.

 

[Scali]

And thats not always true either...

Ofcourse it's not always true. That's the problem with different architectures, different core count etc. There's always applications that go one way, and applications that go the other.
Even the Pentium 4 managed to win certain benchmarks, no matter how badly people thought it sucked

Scali, you need to tone down your replies to many people here, which is why you think they are attacking you, your tone is like "I am right and you are wrong, period". Please try to rephrase some of your replies.

No I don't. And I especially don't need advice from you. You insisted for various posts that I "read the benchmark wrong" in more of a "I am right and you are wrong" tone than anything I ever posted.
And you were HORRIBLY wrong at saying that, because in reality it was YOU who was reading the wrong benchmark numbers.
So I really don't think you are in any position of giving me posting advice, with all due respect. I find it very bad form to discuss people's posting style or tone anyway.

My posts are very calm, friendly, and factual. If anyone reads anything else into them, that's in their head.
However, if you read evolucion8's posts for example... really... That guy has totally lost it. I don't *think* he's attacking me. It's pretty obvious. He throws everything he can at me. Even quotes from reviews that *agree* with what I say... Yet, I try to be friendly and calm, *even* to him, although he doesn't deserve it. And frankly, neither do you. You seem quite agitated at this whole benchmarking thing... first coming after me, then being caught with the wrong numbers... and you wanted AMD to win so much. So now you're going for this sort of personal attack nonsense. Don't. Just stay away from me.

 

[badboyeee]

OP: maybe youll last 3 years with the 1055T. 4-5 years if you can wait for Bulldozer

 

[evolucion8]

However, if you read evolucion8's posts for example... really... That guy has totally lost it. I don't *think* he's attacking me. It's pretty obvious. He throws everything he can at me. Even quotes from reviews that *agree* with what I say... Yet, I try to be friendly and calm, *even* to him, although he doesn't deserve it. And frankly, neither do you. You seem quite agitated at this whole benchmarking thing... first coming after me, then being caught with the wrong numbers... and you wanted AMD to win so much. So now you're going for this sort of personal attack nonsense. Don't. Just stay away from me.

If you get rude at me, sure I will get rude at you. Everybody can read the whole thread here and see what I posted, and watch how suddenly you came from nowhere, saying stuff with such etilist attitude that I'm wrong and that I'm a fanboy etc. I don't have to get that crap from you. You are wrong, period, most of people here are showing you arguments in a friendly way and you just say stuff like keep dreaming, or you are wrong, or you must be a fanboy because of this or that, please, if you can't keep it civilized, then you don't deserve to be here at all. The i5 750 is an excellent processor for the price, no one can't deny that, but it can't outperform the 1055T convincingly enough to justify the platform costs, specially that the OP has already DDR2 memory sticks.

 

[Scali]

In fact, let me clarify what I said:

If by 'processor speeds' you mean clockspeeds, then no.
Intel processors are generally faster at the same clockspeed, especially the Core i5/i7 series.
For example, overall the Core i7 860 competes with the Phenom X6 1090T (AMD's fastest offering at the moment). That's a 2.8 GHz quadcore (with HT) vs a 3.2 GHz 6-core.
So basically that's 400 MHz extra, and two more cores, and still AMD loses quite a few benchmarks. Which indirectly also explains the much higher power consumption: AMD just needs a lot more brute force to get the same level of performance.

With the words 'generally' and 'overall' I already indicate that what I say is not an absolute truth, but on average it pans out that way... exceptions to every rule etc etc blahblah.

And I say AMD loses 'quite a few' benchmarks. I never claimed they lost ALL benchmarks.

Which basically is the truth. Not meant in an "I am right and you are wrong" way, I leave plenty of room for AMD to win some benchmarks, which they do... just that on average, things pan out in Intel's favour. Anandtech's reviews of these processors will confirm EXACTLY what I said.

If you read it any other way, as an absolute truth that Intel is ALWAYS faster etc etc... that's YOUR problem, then YOU can't read... Because that's never what I said... and posting benchmarks where AMD wins is just an indication that you completely misread it.