Performance poll

[delamite]

I would like to take a poll on PC performance, for those who want to participate. My new PC's are not what i expected them to be, and was wondering if any others feel the same. About a year ago I retired my PC to jump into the I7 arena, the stats on my old rig are as folows:

XFX 680i mobo
Proimatech Megahalems
Q6600 Quad Core
6 gigs DDR2
2 8600 GT cards in SLI
Win7 x 32

This PC screamed bloody murder, and gamed in the heaviest titles and executed CAD software flawlessly until I retired it. With the performance of this old rig I thought an I7 would be just jaw dropping in comparison. So this is the computer I replaced it with:

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

This PC is a total dog, has no business trying to compete on any gaming level or oprerate any CAD system in my opinion. Doesnt do anything well. Blaming the mobo for poor performance I decided to build yet another new PC. This is what I built:

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 honest opinion of this rig is that it runs no better than the old rig I retired. I actually feel that the whole I7 thing is a huge waste of money, and am sorry I got on board. So, what do you think? Any better luck than what I am proffessing? Hopefully this is a mature forum and the "haters" will stay home.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Take a gander here:

PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End

On the CPU mark test, those 3 processors score 2976, 5556, and 6344, respectively.

So your results are curious.

Do all of those processors have hyperthreading?

I'm guessing it is something to do with your particular usage patterns---the applications you run--and how well the apps can take advantage of the processor's particular strengths, if at all.

 

[profdlp]

...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.

 

[pparks1]

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]

The I7 is full of alot of hype. Yes it is faster then what AMD has chip for chip. But now lets look at the cost. Highest I7 is around $1000-1200 for the 6 core CPU> The Highest AM3 is around $250-300. The Intel I7 is faster but for a say 6% diffrence in proformace it is not worth the cost. I like Intel but they do some things that make you go "What the $*@#." They seem to not care about the cost how it relates to proformace. The last 3 systems I have built for myself have been AMD. The motherboard companys have favored Intel for many years but now it seems that the great motherboards that Intel users have enjoyed for many years are finaly coming to AMD. 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.

 

[pparks1]

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.

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]

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.

 

[pparks1]

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.

 

[A Guy]

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

 

[FirewaveZ]

Yeah, you really have to be careful when looking at chips. Clock rate and number of cores don't tell the whole story.

 

[Cr00zng]

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

Comparing to my previous Core 2 2.4GHz rig that had been used for gaming and web site design, the new rig with i5 processor is noticeably faster both in games and applications with the same video card. The SSD drive in the new rig certainly has its share in the speed increase, the same drive would've made the previous rig faster as well.

Is it really that much faster and has been worth of the money spent on it? Well, maybe not and I probably would be just as satisfied, if I've added the SSD drive to old rig. At the very least I should've waited couple of month for the Sandy Bridge...

 

[Here To Help]

I agree with pparks1. I am the one that posted about the AMD cpus. I does depend on what program you are running. My issue is the cost thats all. The AMD 6 core turns into a 3 core to boost proformance for non 4+ core programs.