Intel Core i3 vs Phenom II X6 - AMD should be ashamed...

AnandTech - Bench - CPU

This is sad that an Intel Core i3 can beat the highest end AMD CPU in some areas. This makes me really question AMD as a "value" CPU...

One, those are synthetic (aside from the games, which if I'm to be honest, anyone who games on a PC exclusively is likely to have a good enough video card where the CPU is the bottleneck anyway) and only matter if you're doing any of those activities on a constant day-to-day basis. Otherwise they don't matter one iota.

Two, I don't know if you just glanced over the scores but the X6 wins 20-something of those tests, everywhere else it's either on par or slightly off, and by slightly off I mean negligible to the point where you'd have to be anal to care about an additional .3 points or 4 frames or so. I do see the point you're attempting to get across but you have to ask whether or not a person on a budget is going to care about menial scores concerning software they're either unlikely to own or know how to use. All they see is a 6-core CPU for a steal of a price. And even if they're not on a budget, do you know how much the equivalent i7 costs? It isn't $189...

That's clever marketing ANY way you look at it.

Terronium 12 said:

I do see the point you're attempting to get across but you have to ask whether or not a person on a budget is going to care about menial scores concerning software they're either unlikely to own or know how to use. All they see is a 6-core CPU for a steal of a price. And even if they're not on a budget, do you know how much the equivalent i7 costs? It isn't $189...

I completely see the point that he is trying to make. Most AMD fanboys like to tout at how powerful the AMD processors are and they can be had for a fraction of the cost of an Intel chip. They often say, "yeah, but how much is a 6 core Intel, huh?". "I don't have $1,000 to spend on an Intel CPU".

And you make the classic mistake discussing a 6 core AMD and then asking how much an equivalent i7 costs. The thing is, it doesn't take a 6 core i7 to outperform the 6 core AMD. In fact, the 4 core Intel i5-2500 outperforms the AMD 1100t pretty much across the board...(with the exception of heavily CPU intensive app that fully utilizes more cores...and these apps are few for home use). An 1100T costs $190 and a Core i5-2500k costs $209. For $19, I'm going to take the extra performance 9 times out of 10.

I'm not saying that AMD processors are bad, but for me they lost the "value" CPU moniker years ago. They used to cost 1/3 to 1/2 of what an Intel CPU costs, but times have changed and Intels are far more competitively priced. Since the Core 2 Duo days and beyond, Intel has clearly held the price/performance ratio (for me). For a diehard AMD fan, they would rather support the underdog company..and I'm fine with that..but it doesn't make their processor choice any better in terms of performance or value.



That's clever marketing ANY way you look at it.[/QUOTE]

pparks1 said:

I completely see the point that he is trying to make. Most AMD fanboys like to tout at how powerful the AMD processors are and they can be had for a fraction of the cost of an Intel chip. They often say, "yeah, but how much is a 6 core Intel, huh?". "I don't have $1,000 to spend on an Intel CPU".

And do you think it was any different when Intel was falling behind? Brand loyalty stretches far and wide, back then Intel fanboys had the 805, 840, 905, etc, etc. All or most of which were either outperformed by, or performed on par with the single core Athlons, Semprons, and Opterons. What's different today? Intel has that 'golden' floorplan, while AMD is searching for it.

And you make the classic mistake discussing a 6 core AMD and then asking how much an equivalent i7 costs.

Did I, or are you simply taking a well-laid point I was making out of context? Read it again.

The thing is, it doesn't take a 6 core i7 to outperform the 6 core AMD. In fact, the 4 core Intel i5-2500 outperforms the AMD 1100t pretty much across the board...(with the exception of heavily CPU intensive app that fully utilizes more cores...and these apps are few for home use). An 1100T costs $190 and a Core i5-2500k costs $209. For $19, I'm going to take the extra performance 9 times out of 10.

Did I ever claim otherwise?

I'm not saying that AMD processors are bad, but for me they lost the "value" CPU moniker years ago. They used to cost 1/3 to 1/2 of what an Intel CPU costs, but times have changed and Intels are far more competitively priced. Since the Core 2 Duo days and beyond, Intel has clearly held the price/performance ratio (for me). For a diehard AMD fan, they would rather support the underdog company..and I'm fine with that..but it doesn't make their processor choice any better in terms of performance or value.

The scales never weigh in one direction forever; It didn't for AMD during their reign, and it won't for Intel now. The one thing you seem to be neglecting is that even during whatever it was Intel sniffed during the P4/Netburst days they were still relatively...okay not "relatively", but they were still somewhat competitive but ultimately, to anyone who cared, their purchase was unwise as they were practically emitting heat capable of burning through your motherboard (I joke of course, but you know just as well as I do that P4's, especially the EE's, were hot-running POS), and Netburst...which just sucked.

That's clever marketing ANY way you look at it.

Wrong. That's outright performance any way you look at it; that's of the notion "Our product is better and will basically sell itself".