Re: Intel or AMD based system?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Paul, Oct 30, 2010.

  1. Paul

    Paul Guest

    Pigmy Elephant wrote:
    > Are Intel still leaps and bounds ahead of AMD at the moment with their
    > chips or have AMD caught up yet?
    >
    > If you had the choice of a new mid-priced system costing roughly the
    > same based on either of the following two chips, which would you
    > choose and why?
    >
    >
    > AMD Phenom II X6 Six Core 1055T 95W Edition 2.80GHz oc'd to 3.80GHz
    >
    > or
    >
    > Intel Core i3 530 2.93GHz Clarkdale Dual Core overclocked to 4.20GHz
    >
    >
    > One has more cores but the other has more raw speed and recent
    > reputation for the performance of their chips.
    >
    > If one of the following scenarios was going to be the primary use for
    > the pc, which chip would it sway you to go for?
    >
    > 1) Gaming
    >
    > 2) Multimedia e.g. photo, video and audio editing
    >
    > 3) Office Tasks, Web Browsing, Email, Messenger
    >
    >
    > At the moment I am thinking definitely the Intel for Gaming because
    > you're not going to be playing more than one game at a time and here
    > raw clock speed would surely win through as far as the CPU goes.
    >
    > For Office tasks I'm thinking you would likely have numerous
    > applications open at once and I'd go with the 6 core AMD for this.
    >
    > I'm not so sure on Multimedia though. You may have more than one
    > application open at a time but perhaps not as likely to have as many
    > open as with the office applications? So I am not sure which way it
    > would swing for me on this. Do you need more than the two Intel Cores
    > overclocked to 4.2 Ghz? Or would you benefit more in any way from six
    > cores at 3.8 Ghz? What do you think? Raw Speed or more Cores?
    >
    > Would you choose the two thoroughbred stallions that will get most of
    > your stuff there, or the six donkeys that you know will get all your
    > stuff there eventually?
    >
    >


    If you use this list, and click "CPU value" to sort the list by bang for
    buck, the 1055T does pretty well.

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

    Passmark Rank Value Price
    AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 5184 43 26.45 $195.99

    Intel Core i3 530 @ 2.93GHz 2708 161 23.76 $113.99

    The 1055T gives high value and a high Passmark. That implies it'll do
    better on multithreaded tests. Once overclocked, the Passmark values
    will need to be scaled a bit, but the 1055T will still have an advantage.
    The 1055T also uses more power than the other processor.

    This is the number two ranked processor for comparison.

    Intel Core i7 980X @ 3.33GHz 10426 2 10.43 $999.99

    It does half as well on value, due to the high purchase price. It
    also has a better benchmark. You're getting double the benchmark
    of the 1055T, at 5 times the price.

    *******

    Those charts don't handle single threaded performance.

    This benchmark is single threaded, as near as I can tell. The extra cores
    don't help on this one. The best Intel ones, are winning due to the
    high clock value of their Turbo feature.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...ng-iTunes-9.0.3.15-wav-to-aac-Audio,2422.html

    1055T (2.8GHz, Turbo 3.3Ghz) time in seconds = 99 seconds

    i3-530 2.93 GHz 92 seconds

    I don't really know what happens to the Turbo feature of the
    1055T when you overclock. Is the 3.8GHz the Turbo value, or
    is Turbo even higher than 3.8GHz ? You can apply some kind
    of scaling to those results, to get some idea how well
    they'll do when overclocked.

    *******

    You can find the occasional article, where they analyze how well
    the cores get used. There are a few games here, with CPU graphs included.

    http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_phenom_ii_x6_1090t_be_1055t,6.html

    In some cases, the 1055T behaves more like a quad, perhaps
    being limited by the memory interface.

    Since the i3-530 is a cheaper processor, perhaps you should compare
    it to a comparably priced Intel processor ? The i5-750 is the
    only one that comes close, and it likely won't overclock like
    your other examples. The i5-750 doesn't do as well on the
    Passmark benchmark, but seems to remain more in the running,
    in the Legionhardware article.

    And the i5-760, looks like a contender as well. One of the
    reviewers on Newegg, got 4.2GHz from the nominal 2.8GHz 760,
    which is pretty damn good.

    http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyId=42912
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115067

    The 750 and 760 don't have integrated graphics, if that is
    important to you.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul

    gnu / linux Guest

    On Oct 30, 3:49 am, Paul <> wrote:
    > Pigmy Elephant wrote:
    > > Are Intel still leaps and bounds ahead of AMD at the moment with their
    > > chips or have AMD caught up yet?

    >
    > > If you had the choice of a new mid-priced system costing roughly the
    > > same based on either of the following two chips, which would you
    > > choose and why?

    >
    > > AMD Phenom II X6 Six Core 1055T 95W Edition 2.80GHz oc'd to 3.80GHz

    >
    > > or

    >
    > > Intel Core i3 530 2.93GHz Clarkdale Dual Core overclocked to 4.20GHz

    >
    > > One has more cores but the other has more raw speed and recent
    > > reputation for the performance of their chips.

    >
    > > If one of the following scenarios was going to be the primary use for
    > > the pc, which chip would it sway you to go for?

    >
    > > 1) Gaming

    >
    > > 2) Multimedia e.g. photo, video and audio editing

    >
    > > 3) Office Tasks, Web Browsing, Email, Messenger

    >
    > > At the moment I am thinking definitely the Intel for Gaming because
    > > you're not going to be playing more than one game at a time and here
    > > raw clock speed would surely win through as far as the CPU goes.

    >
    > > For Office tasks I'm thinking you would likely have numerous
    > > applications open at once and I'd go with the 6 core AMD for this.

    >
    > > I'm not so sure on Multimedia though. You may have more than one
    > > application open at a time but perhaps not as likely to have as many
    > > open as with the office applications? So I am not sure which way it
    > > would swing for me on this. Do you need more than the two Intel Cores
    > > overclocked to 4.2 Ghz? Or would you benefit more in any way from six
    > > cores at 3.8 Ghz?  What do you think? Raw Speed or more Cores?

    >
    > > Would you choose the two thoroughbred stallions that will get most of
    > > your stuff there, or the six donkeys that you know will get all your
    > > stuff there eventually?

    >
    > If you use this list, and click "CPU value" to sort the list by bang for
    > buck, the 1055T does pretty well.
    >
    > http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
    >
    >                                 Passmark  Rank  Value    Price
    > AMD Phenom II X6 1055T         5184       43   26.45    $195.99
    >
    > Intel Core i3 530 @ 2.93GHz    2708      161   23.76    $113.99
    >
    > The 1055T gives high value and a high Passmark. That implies it'll do
    > better on multithreaded tests. Once overclocked, the Passmark values
    > will need to be scaled a bit, but the 1055T will still have an advantage.
    > The 1055T also uses more power than the other processor.
    >
    > This is the number two ranked processor for comparison.
    >
    > Intel Core i7 980X @ 3.33GHz   10426        2  10.43    $999.99
    >
    > It does half as well on value, due to the high purchase price. It
    > also has a better benchmark. You're getting double the benchmark
    > of the 1055T, at 5 times the price.
    >
    > *******
    >
    > Those charts don't handle single threaded performance.
    >
    > This benchmark is single threaded, as near as I can tell. The extra cores
    > don't help on this one. The best Intel ones, are winning due to the
    > high clock value of their Turbo feature.
    >
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Audio-Enco...
    >
    > 1055T  (2.8GHz, Turbo 3.3Ghz)   time in seconds = 99 seconds
    >
    > i3-530  2.93 GHz                                  92 seconds
    >
    > I don't really know what happens to the Turbo feature of the
    > 1055T when you overclock. Is the 3.8GHz the Turbo value, or
    > is Turbo even higher than 3.8GHz ? You can apply some kind
    > of scaling to those results, to get some idea how well
    > they'll do when overclocked.
    >
    > *******
    >
    > You can find the occasional article, where they analyze how well
    > the cores get used. There are a few games here, with CPU graphs included.
    >
    > http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_phenom_ii_x6_1090t_b...
    >
    > In some cases, the 1055T behaves more like a quad, perhaps
    > being limited by the memory interface.
    >
    > Since the i3-530 is a cheaper processor, perhaps you should compare
    > it to a comparably priced Intel processor ? The i5-750 is the
    > only one that comes close, and it likely won't overclock like
    > your other examples. The i5-750 doesn't do as well on the
    > Passmark benchmark, but seems to remain more in the running,
    > in the Legionhardware article.
    >
    > And the i5-760, looks like a contender as well. One of the
    > reviewers on Newegg, got 4.2GHz from the nominal 2.8GHz 760,
    > which is pretty damn good.
    >
    > http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollect...com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115067
    >
    > The 750 and 760 don't have integrated graphics, if that is
    > important to you.
    >
    >     Paul


    AMD !
     
    gnu / linux, Nov 2, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul

    adam

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4
    but why i3 when i7 is in marked. Compare it with i7

    Regards,
    Adam
    yoursystemadmins.com
     
    adam, Nov 4, 2010
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,154
  2. Antti Heiskanen

    Intel P4 or AMD system for image editing and RAW-conversion?

    Antti Heiskanen, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    981
  3. Allan Mayer
    Replies:
    54
    Views:
    1,239
    Lionel
    Aug 13, 2003
  4. Au79
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    441
  5. =?Utf-8?B?SVQgU2Ft?=
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,948
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    Mar 7, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page