Performance poll

delamite said:

...I7-920
Prolimatech Megahalems
Intel DX58 mobo
12 gigs Mushkin frostbite
GT 240 card
Win7 x64...

...I7-950
Prolimatech Megahalems
Gigabyte X58A-UD3R mobo
6 gigs Mushkin radioactive
GT240 card (soon to be replaced w/(2) GTX460-OC cards in SLI)
Win7 x 64...

My current system is very similar to your two I7 computers:

I7-920
Prolimatech Megahalems
Gigabyte X58-UD3R mobo (Note: It's the first version, without the "A".)
6 gigs Corsair XMS
ATI 6870
Win7 x 64

It has been fantastic for me.

What are your Windows Experience Index scores?
What HDs are you using?

I'm guessing that you either have a configuration problem or something is failing on you. As a start, what kind of energy management stuff do you have enabled in the BIOS?

I am running Win 7 off an SSD as of last May, but the system was terrific even without it.

I wouldn't expect JAW DROPPING performance gains going from an Intel Quad Core CPU (6600) to an i7 rig. Coming from a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz to an i7 rig might be more inline with jaw dropping. With that said, I would expect that you would see noticeable performance gains though.

Going from an SLI'd config using 2 x 8600GT's to a single 240 is going to reduce gaming performance. No doubt about that.

Here To Help said:

Highest I7 is around $1000-1200 for the 6 core CPU> The Highest AM3 is around $250-300.

While the highest priced Intel chip is indeed this high in cost, The Intel chips priced at the $250-$300 mark perform as good, and in some regards better than the AMD counterparts at that same price point.

Here To Help said:

Overall your better off buliding an AMD build and take the money you saved and put it into your build or buy a new TV.:)

I cannot universally agree with this. If you want the cheapest 6 core option, AMD is your best bet. If you want the best performance for the dollar, the number of cores might be irrelevant based on the software that you use. Therefore, you might find that a lower priced intel quad core becomes the best bang for the buck. And in particular instances, it might whoop the 6 core AMD.

FirewaveZ said:

Well, according to these tests, Intel's quad-core option goes neck to neck with AMD's 6-core.
[Blog] AMD Phenom II Six Core 1090T vs Core i7 920 Full Comparison | TechREACTION

I'm pretty sure that Intel's 980x would trounce the 1090T.

That's the exact point that I was making. just because the AMD has 6 cores doesn't mean that the Intel has to also have 6 cores to compete. And one is likely to find that the Intel 4 core is right around the same price as the AMD 6 core. So, it's not a default hands down dollar per performance winner with AMD.

I often see people mentioning the hexacore i7 as a comparison, instead if similarly priced CPUs. The hexacore will trounce anything, but at a price. The "lesser" i7's will still outperform a comparitively priced AMD CPU. Of course, as mentioned, it depends on what you do with your PC.

And of course, how much performance you really need. My i5 system is more than I'll ever need, but a gamer, or someone who uses intensive apps wouldn't be able to get by with it. But the Intel/AMD comparison doesn't hold water. Will a lower price AMD CPU suit your needs? If so, then by all means, that is best for you. Some people tend to stick with what they know. This holds true in cars, TVs, etc.

A Guy