Originally Posted by born2bwild
See, this is denial, you're just convincing yourself that you're not seeing a lucid fact that's right in front of you;
I'll take two high-end processors from both companies;
The Intel i7 960 vs AMD PII 1100T
vs 6 More cores
vs 3.3 Ghz Higher CPU freq
vs 3.7 Ghz
: 4 x 256KB
vs 6 x 512KB More L2 Cache
Performance* (winner underlined):
Sysmark Overall: 238
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Bench - Retouch: 15.0s
DivX 6.8.5 Encode (Xmpeg 5.0.3): 32.3s
x264 encode, 1st pass: 85.8
x264 encode, 2nd pass: 31.6
Windows media encoder: 24
(slightly) poorer performance. Check.
: The 1100T's more cores, higher frequency and more L2 cache, when compared to the i7 960, did not prevent it from performing slightly worse than the i7 960 in most cases.
for more comparisons. The i7 965 EE is equal to the i7 960 in terms of performance when at stock
Look I am really not trying to be an ass hat but what point are you focusing on?
This is not a well thought out discussion. It's not good to keep shifting the goal posts.
First: you say that AMD had always had more cores more cache and had always had a higher clock.
We came back with evidence that they had not, I gathered more information about most of the old and new i7 range and proved that they had the same amount of cores and cache.
Which in the E range the Intel's had more cache.
The 1100T's more cores, higher frequency and more L2 cache, when compared to the i7 960, did not prevent it from performing slightly worse than the i7 960 in most cases.
Let me break this down for you.
Yes the 1045,55,90,1100 have more L2 cache in general, but even you could figure out that it is purely due to core count.
As for performance, put that very same 960 and 1100 in 6 threaded apps and see how much of a difference it makes.
On this point you make an Ok argument but since most commercial software isn't written for 6 cored processors then it makes the point null and void.
But once the 1100T gets chopped back to 4 threaded apps then the i series walks all over it in most cases. But even then that is synthetic and more often than not it doesn't translate well in the real world.
Now SHHHHHH let me let you in on a little secret, it has been like that for the past 2 odd years, you seem to forget that the 1100T is made of the same stuff the as the other PhenomII's. So why would the performance be any different?
Also add to that Intel is a generation ahead of AMD in cpu design, so for you to make a fair comparison you need to put PhenomII against CORE 2 Duo/Quad.
I can see what you are talking about, but it then boils down to architecture and process. Then it's Intel.
The price difference is between the two here in AUS is more like.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T BE-$269.00
Intel Core i7 960-$349.00
So a saving of $80 in favor of AMD, which doesn't look to fantastic but when you know that the next step down is
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE-$229.00
Intel Core i7 960-$349.00-Save $120
Intel Core i7 950-$325.00-Save $96
Then move down a few more AMD rungs.
AMD Phenom II X6 1075T-$215.00
Intel Core i7 960-$349.00-Save $134
Intel Core i7 950-$325.00-Save $110
The savings keep coming.
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T-$189.00
Intel Core i7 960-$349.00-Save $160 "a new SSD anyone?"
Intel Core i7 950-$325.00-Save $136
But yeah when you look at it from an overclockers point of view, and with a little tweaking to the lower end 1055T and the 1075T here and there the price difference is a little better.
I wouldn't say that I am in denial, my machine does what I want and at a quick pace, it doesn't leave me wanting at all.
But the whole PhenomII architecture means Buckley's when it comes to the "new" Bulldozer architecture. Which we as a PC enthusiast community only know tid bits of information about the new Bulldozer CPU's. So we cannot say much at all.Edited by smash_mouth01 - 3/22/11 at 10:02pm