A question about Phenom II vs Core i7

[Broodyr]

So I'm looking into building my first computer, and saw that Phenom II 6-core was much better than a Core i7 quad core, plus it cost much less? I'm wondering why this is. The links for both:

Phenom II 1055T x6

Core i7 920 Bloomfield x4

I know there's something I must be missing, but I can't quite tell.

 

[Mellon Head]

Don't believe all of the marketing hype. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and the fanbois of each will tell you why one is better than the other.

The i7 has eight virtual cores, the Phenom has 6. The Intel will perform better at certain tasks than the Phenom. In the end, it's a price/performance issue.

My personal machine has a Phenom in it. The machines I spec for work have i7's in them. If I had the money, my own machine would have an i7, simply for the multi-threading features and better resource usage. Intels also run cooler in my experience.

I consider myself fairly unbiased, so there's my $.02

EDIT: As stormy13 has pointed out, my statement that the i7 has eight virtual cores is incorrect. I often mistakenly think of it as an 8 core CPU. In reality, the i7 920 has 4 physical cores, and 4 virtual cores, not 8 as I have stated above.

 

[zzz2496]

Price vs Performance wise, Phenom beat i7... but the final decision is at your hand. I personally would go with Phenom simply because of the price difference.

zzz2496

 

[sygnus21]

There are plenty of reviews on the net that are "fanbois" free. Google and do a side by side comparision, than go from there.

And as been mentioned, finances will play a role as well.

Good luck

BTW the 930 is a better chip that is replacing the 920. It faster 2.80 Vs 2.66 and cooler. Newegg.com - Intel Core i7-930 Bloomfield 2.8GHz 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Desktop Processor

 

[sygnus21]

Let's not forget the memory as well for a i7 920/930 chip which requires an X58 board which use tripple channel memory. (3 sticks)

As opposed to the i7-800, 500, and 300 series which require dual channel memory (2 sticks)

 

[sygnus21]

Hmmm...my last post is in response to a post that just... disapeared

 

[bobkn]

It's a complicated question. I was disappointed with the initial reviews I read for the 1090T (higher-end sibling of the 1055T). Its performance in many applications was roughly comparable to the similarly priced I7 920. It's not aimed at the I7 980X (Intel's 6 core, $1000 CPU).

Just to confuse things further, have you looked at the Intel Socket 1156 offerings? Those may be closer in price/performance to the AMD systems.

(I'm not married to either Intel or AMD. I handed down my Athlon64 X2 system to a friend, who continues to make good use of it. I hope that AMD soon gets back to straight performance competition with Intel, as they did when the Athlon64 line was new.)

 

[sygnus21]

I know nothing about AMD's chips or MB's, but here's some info you need to consider should you decide to go with Intel's offering's.

You also need to consider your RAM...

The 55 chipset (1156 processor socket) uses dual channel DDR3 memory i.e 2/4/8 gig = 2 stick sets.

The 58 chipset (1366 processor socket) uses DDR3 triple channel memory 6/12/24gig = 3 stick sets

The X58 chipset is more of a higher end system then the 55 chipset performance wise.

Price wise the 58 system will be more expensive over a similar 55 system. Do your homework and some research.

X58 vs. P55: Explaining Intel's Core i5/i7 Chipsets

Now I'm sure someone who knows AMD can put something similiar together for you to consider.

My two cents.

 

[Mellon Head]

Now I'm sure someone who knows AMD can put something similiar together for you to consider.

My two cents.

The thing with the AMD system is, as mentioned, the cost of the motherboard is generally lower. The AM3 socket series uses dual channel DDR3 modules in a 2/4/8 configuration.

AMD has a slight advantage in the system complexity department, that being the memory controller is on the die of the Phenom, not on the motherboard, and it cuts down on the board's "real estate requirements". Less circuit traces and layers mean reduced cost of the board.

Another tangible benefit of AMD is when using an AMD chipset motherboard, rather than an Nvidia chipset, there seems to be a smoother interface to the graphics hardware, and some motherboards can even Crossfire the onboard GPU with a discrete card. It's called Hybrid Crossfire, and depending on the motherboard and card combination, you can get decent performance out of a cheap ATI Radeon card. No surprise, since AMD owns ATI, that they would optimize their platforms for their own equipment. Nvidia boards also have a Hybrid SLI on some models, as well, but I have never seen a side by side comparison.

A big disadvantage to AMD systems is the lack of memory divider options on most motherboards. Intel rigs allow much more flexibility in how the memory and FSB speeds are strapped and divided. This can lead to some serious gains in performance, particularly when overclocking.

Overall, my take on the new six core Phenom is that it's just "meh." Most apps can't even take advantage of a quad yet, and few users use the kind of software that would really benefit from one at this point. Right now, it's just "Core Wars" from both, and it's a pissing contest to see who can get the most cores on a die.

For my money, rather than the Thuban core Phenom, I would rather just put my money into a good quad like the Phenom 955 or 965, a good quality motherboard, and some fast RAM. You can always upgrade to the six (or eight, or whatever comes out next, as long as it's an AM3 socket) core model later, when the core contest is over and the market stabilizes a little.

 

[tw33k]

Now I'm sure someone who knows AMD can put something similiar together for you to consider.

My two cents.

The thing with the AMD system is, as mentioned, the cost of the motherboard is generally lower. The AM3 socket series uses dual channel DDR3 modules in a 2/4/8 configuration.

AMD has a slight advantage in the system complexity department, that being the memory controller is on the die of the Phenom, not on the motherboard, and it cuts down on the board's "real estate requirements". Less circuit traces and layers mean reduced cost of the board.

Another tangible benefit of AMD is when using an AMD chipset motherboard, rather than an Nvidia chipset, there seems to be a smoother interface to the graphics hardware, and some motherboards can even Crossfire the onboard GPU with a discrete card. It's called Hybrid Crossfire, and depending on the motherboard and card combination, you can get decent performance out of a cheap ATI Radeon card. No surprise, since AMD owns ATI, that they would optimize their platforms for their own equipment. Nvidia boards also have a Hybrid SLI on some models, as well, but I have never seen a side by side comparison.

A big disadvantage to AMD systems is the lack of memory divider options on most motherboards. Intel rigs allow much more flexibility in how the memory and FSB speeds are strapped and divided. This can lead to some serious gains in performance, particularly when overclocking.

Overall, my take on the new six core Phenom is that it's just "meh." Most apps can't even take advantage of a quad yet, and few users use the kind of software that would really benefit from one at this point. Right now, it's just "Core Wars" from both, and it's a pissing contest to see who can get the most cores on a die.

For my money, rather than the Thuban core Phenom, I would rather just put my money into a good quad like the Phenom 955 or 965, a good quality motherboard, and some fast RAM. You can always upgrade to the six (or eight, or whatever comes out next, as long as it's an AM3 socket) core model later, when the core contest is over and the market stabilizes a little.

+1. It's easy to get caught up in the hype and not realize that the extra money spent on trying to get the best performance was really wasted. More RAM or a SSD is the best bet for a truly noticeable performance increase.

 

[stormy13]

The i7 has eight virtual cores, the Phenom has 6.

One small correction. The i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores (or 6 and 6 if you want to go to the i7 980x), the PII x6 has 6 physical cores.

 

[Mellon Head]

The i7 has eight virtual cores, the Phenom has 6.

One small correction. The i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores (or 6 and 6 if you want to go to the i7 980x), the PII x6 has 6 physical cores.

Yes. Thank you for the correction. I often mistakenly lump the i7 cores together and think of them all as virtual when they are clearly not, as you've stated. I have edited my original post.

 

[bobkn]

Now I'm sure someone who knows AMD can put something similiar together for you to consider.

My two cents.

The thing with the AMD system is, as mentioned, the cost of the motherboard is generally lower. The AM3 socket series uses dual channel DDR3 modules in a 2/4/8 configuration.

AMD has a slight advantage in the system complexity department, that being the memory controller is on the die of the Phenom, not on the motherboard, and it cuts down on the board's "real estate requirements". Less circuit traces and layers mean reduced cost of the board.

Intel went to the integrated memory controller for the Socket 1366/ core I7 CPUs. They support triple channel memory, but it's not mandatory. (Recommended, though.) The Socket 1156 CPUs have dual channel memory controllers.

A quick look at at www.newegg.com shows that there are some Socket 1156 motherboards that are cheaper than most AMD 790FX boards. (The X58 Socket 1366 boards are more expensive, starting at about $150.)

I'm almost glad that I didn't have all these choices at the time of my latest mainboard/CPU upgrade. Too complex.

 

[gjoellee]

You should also notice that the i7 processor has TurboBoost which overclocks it to up to 3,4GHz (or something like that), if more processing power is needed. You will feel quite a difference between the processors while multitasking...

 

[sygnus21]

Actually that would depend on the processor as to how much for a given turbo increase.

Example: my i7-930 is stock clocked at 2.80GHz (133x21). With turbo mode enabled, the processor will reach a top speed of 2.93 (133x22) This is for a non-overclocked chip.

Now, and this is important to note - I can set my mutiplier to 22 (default is 21), and have the chip run at 2.93, instead of 2.80, but doing so will disable turbo mode and the chip will run no higher. Again, non-overclocked chip.

However, If I overclock, but keep the multiplier below 22, the chip will go into turbo mode. It's when the chip reaches its multi limit that turbo doesn't work. At least that's the way I understand it; and I'm not sure how high it will jump, for example, If I use a 20 multiplier, will turbo mode jump it to 22? Not sure about that.

FYI, the Extreme chip, i7-980x, does not have a locked multiplier so I'm not sure how Turbo mode works on it, but i'm pretty sure it does work.

My two cents

 

[kucing13]

i thought they already release i9

 

[sygnus21]

I don't think they have been released yet. Unless you want to classify the i7-980x as an i9 seeing that it's a six-core processor named "Gulftown"

Intel six core Gulftown named i7 980-X : Intel Processor Forum

Intel's Core i9 "Gulftown" Six-Core Processor Pictured | Maximum PC

 

[zzz2496]

The i7 has eight virtual cores, the Phenom has 6.

One small correction. The i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores (or 6 and 6 if you want to go to the i7 980x), the PII x6 has 6 physical cores.

Another small correction, i7 has 4 physical cores, this is correct. Each of these cores will handle one thread at normal operation mode. This translates as 4 cores in Windows Task manager. You are seeing all 4 physical cores in action in this mode.

Once you enabled Hyperthreading, each of these cores will be able to handle 2 threads each. In this mode, Windows Task manager will show 8 processor. All of these cores are all virtual cores, the physical got abstracted (hidden) behind the Hyperthreading. Technically, Mellon Head's argument is the right one. It's not like 4 cores accompanied by another 4 virtual cores... All 8 of them are virtual, every single one of them...

In some cases, Hyperthreading can increase performance. But one must note, that this is a technique to increase each core's typical workload, assuming you have a lot of threads running, Hyperthreading will help you stress each cores so that you can make your processor busier. But at come loads that really bog down a core, Hyperthreading rears it's ugly head, you'd get lower performance in Hyperthreading ON mode than in OFF mode.

zzz2496

 

[kucing13]

I don't think they have been released yet. Unless you want to classify the i7-980x as an i9 seeing that it's a six-core processor named "Gulftown"

Intel six core Gulftown named i7 980-X : Intel Processor Forum

Intel's Core i9 "Gulftown" Six-Core Processor Pictured | Maximum PC

That's it. Thanks for the wakeup call

 

[Fumz]

Imho, if you're looking at an lga 1366 i7 or a 6 core Phenom, then you're already caught up in the hype.

Go for an 1156 i5, or if you really "need" hyper-threading, an 1156 i7. Stock they're great chips that are on par with Intel's best; a little overclocking and things start getting amazing.

Intel Core i7-975 EE and Core i5-750 in Contemporary Games - X-bit labs