[Help] Core i7 or AMD Phenom II X6

AMD Phenom II X6 or Intel Core i7 Hex Core

  • AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3GHz Hex Core

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • Intel Core i7 970 3.2GHz Hex Core

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • AMD Phenom II X4 970 3.5GHz Quad Core

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Intel Core i7 960 3.2GHz Quad Core

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    7
That's what i mean, AMD phenom II is better in the aspect of cost.
 


but intel is better at the aspect of reliability.
and if time = cost then intel is better in the aspect of cost.
 
no it's not, to get a hexa core as fast as the AMD Phenom II X6 1100T would cost £500-£700.

and anyway i've always found that intels slow after time, but with the AMD's never had a problem, EVER!!
 
CPU's don't slow after time, it's just that your perception of speed changes.
Also, most likely, the article you read referred to the PC unit, not the Central Processing Unit. They meant the PC slows down after time when you install too much stuff into it and have to reformat to make it speed up again.
-
Also, it's not the cores that count, it's the software that can properly load balance it.
 
Strider said:
I would recommend Core i7 Quad (Core i7-975 XE or 965 XE ) and if you can't afford that - Phenom II Quad. Better stay away from those Hexacores.

Btw. Phenom II X6 1100T can't even match to Core i7-860 in most of the available test results.
Click to expand...

Test results are just that, results. IMO, it's the "real life" performance that matters. I say this because for me, I don't think I could get the test results of say 3 different systems and be able to choose which is the best performer.

Another discussion I am having with some friends is ISP bandwith. Speedtest shows my system at 20 MB/s Download and 2 MB/s upload. Compared with others results, I go prison for a while for going 10 times faster !!!!

The results also show 6 minutes to d/l an 800 mg file. Ok, if I do that and it truly ends up being 6 minutes, maybe I do deserve the prison time !!! But I doubt it will maintain that speed for that length of time...

Rick
 
OK, kiddies, we got a fundamental perception problem here. First off, almost all computer performance is bound by I/O channel speed, not the processor. The fastest processor in the world ain't gonna get more than 120MB/S or so out of a standard disk drive. About the ONLY place you're going to see the processor controlling performance is in heavy video conversions or CPU intensive graphics. You will not notice the difference between a 2GHz P4 and the latest Sandy Bridge processor in normal usage, ie: browsing, office applications, etc., which is what 95% of the users run. Only the artificial test suites and some extreme games will show the differences. So, outside of reliability issues, the exact processor doesn't matter to most users. Only us wierdos care.
-
 
I would agree with wcogent. CPU's don't wear out like a car engine. The CPU you buy today, should have the same performance in 3 years. One minute before it fails, the performance would be the same as the first day put into use..

What changes? The upgraded S/W. The S/W you use will slow the CPU, But the CPU is still clipping along at the same speed. The upgraded S/W can and will choke your system.

I've said for years, Java was a bottleneck for internet use. A site I have visited used Java pretty heavily. A while back, they rewrote some stuff and eliminated the use of Java and instead used Flash Player. Guess what? Overall performance on that site was improved significantly. Java was choking it... Apparently Java got a FAT head and decided they could bloat the S/W.

Rick
 
I'll concede that poorly written software can plug up a system, like unto Windows or Java or a language interpreter. My point was that system performance for standard applications is not bound by the CPU, but by the I/O channel speed.
-
 
davnel said:
I'll concede that poorly written software can plug up a system, like unto Windows or Java or a language interpreter. My point was that system performance for standard applications is not bound by the CPU, but by the I/O channel speed.
-
Click to expand...


Very true. I get dizzy thinking about all the specs of the various components a system makes up. To use CPU and/or memory as a starting point for why a system is bogged down is easier for me to understand and maybe explain to others. From a technical point, that doesn't tell the whole story.

But if I explain to someone that a CPU/MB/Memory upgrade is going to improve performance, they will get hopefully a MB with faster I/O. And all is well !!!

EX: I can show someone task manager and the CPU usage. They can use there system normally watching the CPU graph go up and down. If CPU usage is frequently at 50 percent or better and they are wanting better performance, I would do the CPU/MB/Memory upgrade/replacement suggestion. If they do and move up a step or 2 in CPU technology, I think they will see that CPU usage goes down considerably and they can FEEL the better performance.

A step in CPU technology to me is single core to dual core.

You seem to do well in getting things in proper perspective..

Rick
 

Back
Top