Whats Better AMD vs. Intel

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: DrBombcrater

Originally posted by: Duvie

That is lame....why saddle the Intel Q9650 with the more expensive DDr3...in the reviews I listed above they ran DDR2 on the Intel setups

Both the AT and Tom's reviews used DDR3 on the Intel systems. Show me an Intel /DDR2 setup that beats the PhII-940/DDR2 at the same price. From all the reviews I've seen there's no such thing.

Are you sure? I think in the AT review they used DDR2 on the Q9650, and DDR3 on the i7 (had no choice). I don't see a test setup page in AT's article, so I can't be sure. I can't find the Toms review at all so I don't know on that. Could someone link it please?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: yh125d

Originally posted by: RaptureMe
Ok well lets put it this way I am down grading from the system in my sig as it uses way to much electric for my likeing.
I did have a q9650 and going from that to this I7 920 my electric bill jumped up $30-40 bucks and I am not going to put up with that kinda bull shit.
Do the math $40 x 12 months $480 bucks for a year just to run a core I7 Screw that!!
Core I7 is nice but its not that nice.
So what will take less power to run but let me do the stuff I am wanting.
I use Nero recode,WinRar,DVDshrink,some gaming but only at 1400x900,torrent stuff,Win Media player ect..
usually all at once too also keep in mind I run my system 24/7..

Uhh, your electric bill most definitely did not change that much because of your i7 rig. The electricity cost of running a i7 for a year and running a mid range rig for a year is pretty small.

You'll have to tell us what state you live in for us to determine the likely price of electricity for you:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/e...ty/epm/table5_6_a.html

But the USA average is $0.11/KWhr...so if your monthly power bill jumped $40 for 31 days of usage solely due to your i7 then your i7 system is using something like $40/$0.11/kWhr = 363 KW's in 31 days above and beyond what your prior rig was already using.

That's roughly an extra 12 KW more electricity per day or basically you are convinced (and are trying to convince us) that your i7 computer uses an additional 500W of electricity above and beyond your prior rig?

I flat out don't believe that. Your i7 is more power-efficient than any other processor on the planet, C2Q and PhII alike.

If you aren't happy with the total power consumption of your rig then why not underclock it? Sure you end up with reduced performance and reduced power consumption...but the performance won't be less than an equally power-consuming C2Q or PhII. Your logic seems to be in error.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: RaptureMe
Maybe I should buy both a Q9650 again and the PII 940??

financial suicide.

you get an i7 which stomps both.

Originally posted by: Idontcare

But the USA average is $0.11/KWhr...so if your monthly power bill jumped $40 for 31 days of usage solely due to your i7 then your i7 system is using something like $40/$0.11/kWhr = 363 KW's in 31 days above and beyond what your prior rig was already using.

:X

i dont think anyone has a more power hungry system then i do. *sigh*

im still tripping out at the 73AMPS on the GPU sector alone at full load. :rofl:

 

[RaptureMe]

Its not saving power when overclocked nor is it saving power when the power saving features are all off like eist ect...
Running at 4ghz 24/7 does use that much electric dont matter what craptastic excuse you give me I have the elecrit bill in hand and its always the same every month till I got this damn power hungry beast!!
I cant underclock it for what I use it for as I need all the umph I can get from it for what I do.

 

[DrBombcrater]

Originally posted by: yh125d
Are you sure? I think in the AT review they used DDR2 on the Q9650, and DDR3 on the i7 (had no choice). I don't see a test setup page in AT's article, so I can't be sure. I can't find the Toms review at all so I don't know on that. Could someone link it please?

Tom's:
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...om-ii-940,2114-14.html
"On the Intel platforms, we used DDR3-1333 with timings set to CL 7.0-7-7-21"

AT doesn't specifically say what memory was used on each platform, but it lists the socket 775 board they used as the Intel DX48BT2, which is a DDR3 board.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=11

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: RaptureMe
Its not saving power when overclocked nor is it saving power when the power saving features are all off like eist ect...
Running at 4ghz 24/7 does use that much electric dont matter what craptastic excuse you give me I have the elecrit bill in hand and its always the same every month till I got this damn power hungry beast!!
I cant underclock it for what I use it for as I need all the umph I can get from it for what I do.

compared to what tho?

What are you comparing to?

A yorkfield will draw near the same power if you overclock it simular.

LN2 testing also showed it takes a little bit less LN2 to get the same performance, which in turns can mean to less heat load when you go way extreme.

i7 compared to a dually? HELLZ YEA your gonna see it.

i7 compared to a simularly clocked quad? Was your quad even on?


I cant stress this enough, leave your personal reflections out of the door. If your gonna state a fact to the opt, ANY COMMENT WITHOUT LINKS TO SUPPORT IS BS IN MY EYES.

Whats faster? the Yorkfield.
Why is it faster? its a better overall chip.
Can you make it even faster?

That yorkfield your looking at is a gaurentee'd E0. Gaurentee for 4ghz if you have a good sink on air. OR Gaurentee'd to be DOWNVOLTED so it can run even cooler then stock.

Can the PHII backup that top comment i just added? And i had 4 E0's to back up my comment.

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: RaptureMe
Its not saving power when overclocked nor is it saving power when the power saving features are all off like eist ect...
Running at 4ghz 24/7 does use that much electric dont matter what craptastic excuse you give me I have the elecrit bill in hand and its always the same every month till I got this damn power hungry beast!!
I cant underclock it for what I use it for as I need all the umph I can get from it for what I do.

Whether it's running 4gHz 24/7 or 2.5gHz 24/7 doesn't change power usage that much. Unless it's running at 100% utilization 24/7, it won't be using very much power.


Your i7 rig is NOT what is raising your bill. Going from a Q9650 to an i7 like you did, you're probably using LESS power now. Going back to Q9650 is NOT going to fix your bill. Period.

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: DrBombcrater

Originally posted by: yh125d
Are you sure? I think in the AT review they used DDR2 on the Q9650, and DDR3 on the i7 (had no choice). I don't see a test setup page in AT's article, so I can't be sure. I can't find the Toms review at all so I don't know on that. Could someone link it please?

Tom's:
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...om-ii-940,2114-14.html
"On the Intel platforms, we used DDR3-1333 with timings set to CL 7.0-7-7-21"

AT doesn't specifically say what memory was used on each platform, but it lists the socket 775 board they used as the Intel DX48BT2, which is a DDR3 board.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=11

Good catch. No wonder the Toms and AT reviews put the PHII lower comparatively... they're not really "equal" setups

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: yh125d

Originally posted by: DrBombcrater

Originally posted by: yh125d
Are you sure? I think in the AT review they used DDR2 on the Q9650, and DDR3 on the i7 (had no choice). I don't see a test setup page in AT's article, so I can't be sure. I can't find the Toms review at all so I don't know on that. Could someone link it please?

Tom's:
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...om-ii-940,2114-14.html
"On the Intel platforms, we used DDR3-1333 with timings set to CL 7.0-7-7-21"

AT doesn't specifically say what memory was used on each platform, but it lists the socket 775 board they used as the Intel DX48BT2, which is a DDR3 board.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=11

Good catch. No wonder the Toms and AT reviews put the PHII lower comparatively... they're not really "equal" setups

LOL they were never equal to begin with.

AMD was always the budget approach.

Intel the Speed Demon route. This hasnt changed yet, and is going to take a while b4 it ever does.


In all honestly, skip yorkfield, grab a 920 setup for 100-200 more.
And learn how to overclock QPI. Dont push it too hard, an i7 @ 3.6ghz with 8 possible threads is nothing to laugh at, even if you dont use it.

An gainestown with 16 possible threads @ near 4ghz is what the ITs call extasy.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: yh125d

Originally posted by: DrBombcrater

Originally posted by: Duvie

That is lame....why saddle the Intel Q9650 with the more expensive DDr3...in the reviews I listed above they ran DDR2 on the Intel setups

Both the AT and Tom's reviews used DDR3 on the Intel systems. Show me an Intel /DDR2 setup that beats the PhII-940/DDR2 at the same price. From all the reviews I've seen there's no such thing.

Are you sure? I think in the AT review they used DDR2 on the Q9650, and DDR3 on the i7 (had no choice). I don't see a test setup page in AT's article, so I can't be sure. I can't find the Toms review at all so I don't know on that. Could someone link it please?

exactly...The AT review showed the use of PC2-1066...that wouldn't have been used on the phenoms...so it had to be DDR2 on the sckt 775 quads...

 

[Duvie]

Come on guys....everyone who has read on this knows that 1333mhz DDR3 is not a noticeable stepup from the 1066mhz ddr2.....You could have put this on a P35-P45- or X48 and would have got similar results....

Dont try to skew and spin this....

The DDR3 would only start showing benefits once it hits 1600mhz speed which is overclock or perhaps needed on an i7 core...(which i am not 100% sure about that)

http://www.breakitdownblog.com...333-does-speed-matter/


other then specific ram bandwidth test the quad core is not bandwidth limited for DDR3 1333 to make a difference over the DDR2 1066

what you pick up in ram speed you loose you give back in relaxed timings....

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Why don't you just put your Core i7 at stock settings? It'll use much less power than it does now and give you performance similar to either the 940 or Q9650. I seriously doubt your new computer was the only reason for a $30 increase in the electric bill. Your usage must be different as well. And don't forget this is winter, so electric bills will go up when the temperature goes down. This is, of course, assuming you live in a cold area.

Just crunch the numbers. At stock speeds and under full load the 920 would only use about 30 watts more power than a 9650 under full load. If you run each computer 24/7 for a month (30 days) you'd only use an extra 21.6 kwh. At 11 cents/kwh, your electric bill would only increase by $2.376. You are claiming your overclocked Core i7 rig is using over 10 times that much power to increase the electric bill by $30.


And here are the estimation numbers I was using: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=9
AT's review of Core i7 pitting the 920 against the Q9450, and I was looking at the results from the POV-Ray 3.7 and Cinebench XCPU tests, which are probably worst-case scenarios.

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Come on guys....everyone who has read on this knows that 1333mhz DDR3 is not a noticeable stepup from the 1066mhz ddr2.....You could have put this on a P35-P45- or X48 and would have got similar results....

Dont try to skew and spin this....

The DDR3 would only start showing benefits once it hits 1600mhz speed which is overclock or perhaps needed on an i7 core...(which i am not 100% sure about that)

http://www.breakitdownblog.com...333-does-speed-matter/


other then specific ram bandwidth test the quad core is not bandwidth limited for DDR3 1333 to make a difference over the DDR2 1066

what you pick up in ram speed you loose you give back in relaxed timings....

Similar yeah, but the use of ddr3 on the Q9650 gave it a 1-5% boost which skewed the results away from being all about the processor

You get back relaxed timings? Might want to read again about how memory timings work... DDR3 1600 at like 7-7-7-20 or whatever takes less time to access than DDR2 1066 at 5-5-5-15

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: yh125d

Originally posted by: Duvie
Come on guys....everyone who has read on this knows that 1333mhz DDR3 is not a noticeable stepup from the 1066mhz ddr2.....You could have put this on a P35-P45- or X48 and would have got similar results....

Dont try to skew and spin this....

The DDR3 would only start showing benefits once it hits 1600mhz speed which is overclock or perhaps needed on an i7 core...(which i am not 100% sure about that)

http://www.breakitdownblog.com...333-does-speed-matter/


other then specific ram bandwidth test the quad core is not bandwidth limited for DDR3 1333 to make a difference over the DDR2 1066

what you pick up in ram speed you loose you give back in relaxed timings....

Similar yeah, but the use of ddr3 on the Q9650 gave it a 1-5% boost which skewed the results away from being all about the processor

You get back relaxed timings? Might want to read again about how memory timings work... DDR3 1600 at like 7-7-7-20 or whatever takes less time to access than DDR2 1066 at 5-5-5-15

First off it was DDR3 1333 not 1600....

based on calculation cas 5 pc2-8500 1066mhz ram has a cas latency in ns of 10.6ns

cas 7 pc3-10666 1333mhz ram has a cas latency in ns of 10.5....

so you are right, but for all intensive purposes about equal!!!!



well if it is 1% that isn't going to make a dent to anything for the spreads we saw above....even 5% wont change the end results....

so I guess I dont see where this changes anything.

I take that chip place it on a P45 chipset (more reasonably priced) or an X38 DDR2/DDR3 chipset and use DDR2 with DDR2 1066 and nothing changes the fact that the Q9650 is still faster clock for clock versus the PhII 940....

try to spin it how you may....data isn't moving enough

 

[aigomorla]

no duvie is correct tho.

ddr2 -> ddr3 doesnt show much of an improvement, expecially on yorkfield who dont have a built in imc.

 

[RaptureMe]

"F" it guys I am stupid I sold my Core I7 Rig and just bought 3 complete systems in exchange.
I just couldnt resist the prices in exchange for what I am unhappy with..

I got 2 Amd Phenom II 940BE's cpu

1 Amd x2 5050e cpu

2 DFI jr 790gx mobo's

1 ASUS M3A78-EM 780G mobo

3 packs of 2 Sticks Crucial DDR2 1066 2.0v

3 Lite on x20 DL/DVDr burners

Total only $725 Shipped to my door by Monday..

I figure this is an even exchange plus gives me a backup pc incase I fry one of them from running it overclocked @3.6-4ghz 24/7 and I get a totaly free HTPC to watch HD-DVD's and Blu-Ray movies..
Pretty good deal or not??
I can always change one of those Phenom II 940's for a Q9650..
Besides the guy I sold the stuff to prolly will use it to the full potental when I think the 940 will suite me more.
If not Tax time is right around the corner and I can always pickup another I7 or AM3 system..

 

[Duvie]

So you sold the i7 chip, mobo, and DRD3 ram?

Whatever makes you happy man....YOu never have to justify anything to anyone here...

Have 3 separate systems running and I guarantee you electricity bill will go up....LOL

 

[RaptureMe]

Na only will be running 1 at a time and the other phenom II system will sit in my closet on a shelf in case of a case that I may need it.
The 5050e system only runs at 45w so it wont hurt the electric bill like my 189w Core I7 LOL.
Yeah I know Core i7 is only 130w but not when overclocked its more like 189w..
But this x2 5050e system is only for a Media HTPC type build.
May even under clock this little green beast hope to get it to run at 35-40w @ 2Ghz
If you think its a really shitty deal please tell me and I will cancel the order and refund the guy his money back..

 

[Quizard]

The way I see it both companies make great products, end of story

 

[zenguy]

#1 - Do the Math, The System Can't be using that much MORE power than your last System. Contact your Electric Company. Find your rates and do some math yourself.

#2 - If you actually NEED that much OCing, then clearly downgrading is not an option since you will get less perofmrance.

#3 - The Phenom II while being slower, also only sees power efficiency gains when idle and drops down to 800Mhz which is lower than the i7 will drop in power saving mode. Since you stated you refuse to use power saving modes, this is again pointless.

 

[yh125d]

picard.jpg


Whatever makes you happy man

 

[JMapleton]

Wow, I don't know what do say about this thread.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: zenguy
#1 - Do the Math, The System Can't be using that much MORE power than your last System. Contact your Electric Company. Find your rates and do some math yourself.

+1

His CPU has to consume some 500W 24/7 for a month in order to come in at $40 on his electric bill. Someone has trickered themselves or this is one big tricker on the AT forums.

Originally posted by: zenguy
#2 - If you actually NEED that much OCing, then clearly downgrading is not an option since you will get less perofmrance.

I thought this was kinda obvious too and wondered to myself as to why it needed to be said, glad to see others come to similiar conclusion.

Originally posted by: zenguy
#3 - The Phenom II while being slower, also only sees power efficiency gains when idle and drops down to 800Mhz which is lower than the i7 will drop in power saving mode. Since you stated you refuse to use power saving modes, this is again pointless.

i7 actually clocks the cores down to 0 GHz (zero). They shutdown entirely when idle. There's simply no besting an i7 when it comes to performance/watt. Intel nailed that one.

 

[taltamir]

the i7 is the most power efficient processor ever made, and DDR3 takes less power than DDR2... neither of them will every come CLOSE to paying back its cost in power savings... but if you upgraded to an i7 your total power consumption should have gone DOWN for the system...

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: DrBombcrater

Originally posted by: HopJokey
A Q9650 (3.0 Ghz) is significantly faster than a PH II X4 940 (3.0 Ghz). It is about 10-15% faster. Check out AT's comparsion of the two:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=4

I'd love to see reviewers do a cost-for-cost system performance comparison rather than a clock-for-clock one. Say a Q9650 with 8GB of DDR3-1333 and a 7200rpm HD vs a PhII-940 with 8GB of DDR2-800 and a 60GB SSD, which should be roughly the same cost if my sums are correct.

Completely impractical, which doesn't stop some from trying...
It makes more sense to say a p2 920 = Q8300 and a p2 940 = Q9400 and allow you to find out how much those cost for you.
Prices fluctuate based on country, store, phase of the moon, the weather, and of course, the latest price slashing as intel and AMD try to offer better deals.