CPU/Mobo Comparing AMD X6 Vs Intel i7
- Thread starter swatkats
- Start date
- Status
Dude, previously the only reason for not buying AMD was that it used to overheat. It was a rumour started by Intel to cripple AMD, just like Apple is now doing the lawsuit thing instead of fighting it out with Android.
Anyways, the answer to your question is both yes and no. AMD X6 has 6 cores, and so will run much hotter than an X2 or X4. But with CNQ enabled and with a good cooler, the temps drop in the range of 45 or less. This is acceptable to many of us. Even a Gulftown class Intel i7 will run as hot as an AMD X6.
Also, line pe aa gaya na?
Anyways, the answer to your question is both yes and no. AMD X6 has 6 cores, and so will run much hotter than an X2 or X4. But with CNQ enabled and with a good cooler, the temps drop in the range of 45 or less. This is acceptable to many of us. Even a Gulftown class Intel i7 will run as hot as an AMD X6.
Also, line pe aa gaya na?
One who is going for a X6 rig should definitely not settle for the stock cooling system. C'mon guys, the money you are saving on AMD should allow you to buy an good cpu cooler. 
nish_pinto said:One who is going for a X6 rig should definitely not settle for the stock cooling system. C'mon guys, the money you are saving on AMD should allow you to buy an good cpu cooler.
Even so the solid copper bottomed AMD stock coolers have performed better than the Intel stock coolers, whose foot-print on the CPU is the size of a two-ruppee coin. [personal experience]
Also on the main topic, related to OP's query whether AMD is a worthy contender to Intel, this is what I say --
AMD was the first company to release true 64-bit design CPU's [AMD Athlon's way back in 2004], they gutted the Intel Net-Burst based Pentium 4 line-up.
AMD Hyper-Transport is the basis of Intel's Quick Path Inter-connect interface along with integrating the memory controller onto the CPU-die instead of the Front Side Bus interface between the NorthBridge-CPU-memory.
Current line-up of AMD CPU's cannot compete with Intel because the archtecture hasn't changed since circa.2006 AMD K8 line-up. Intel on the other hand has set itself into a rhythmic cycle of improving the architecture and reducing die size alternately.
AMD CPU's aren't bad in-fact the current AMD Bobcat [E-series and C-series line-up against Intel Atom] has been reciceving good coverage and offer better performance-per watt. -- AnandTech - The Brazos Review: AMD's E-350 Supplants ION for mini-ITX
The AMD Lynx APU has opened a new format which Intel IGP's aren't ready to counter, now it only needs to be coupled with a CPU package which can exploit the performance of these IGP's to the fullest. -- AnandTech - The AMD A8-3850 Review: Llano on the Desktop
Hope this helps Sire, cheers!!
ALPHA17 said:
Actually Intel announced its plans for 64 bit CPU's 5 years before AMD did and they also shipped their first 64 bit CPU's 2 years prior to AMD. Its just that those CPU's were not targeted for the desktop platforms like AMD did. Also, other 64 bit CPU's existed prior to AMD's. Its just that Athlon 64's were the first 64 bit CPU's to use AMD's 64 bit extensions to x86. So, saying AMD was the first company to release 64 bit design CPU without giving the context makes that a totally blanket statement.
In any case, remember that the x86 architecture itself was introduced by Intel and forced into licensing to AMD due to Intel's deal with IBM at the time. So mentioning any later accomplishments of AMD would be a moot point considering AMD might not even have been in a position to to achieve any of that if it weren't for the fact that AMD had access to Intel's Microcode at one point of time.
Ultimately does any of that really matter? I would chose which ever gives me the best vfm and Intel is the clear winner at the higher end of the market currently. There are AMD CPU's that are better than Intel counterparts. but AMD's hex core's are definitely not it.
Here is a comparison between Intel Core i5 2500k and Phenom X6 1100T both of which seem to be in the same price bracket and have same stock clocks. X6 cannot seem to even keep up with a Core i5 with a couple of cores less.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=203
Lord Nemesis said:
Yes, Intel developed a 64bit extension years before AMD did. Thats 100% true. But unfortunately Intel decided, just like they are changing sockets every year or two, that the 64bit CPU will not be compatible with 32bit programs. We needed special 64bit programs. The only thing ALPHA has forgotten to mention was compatibility.
As far as the x86 architecture is concerned, if you would have delved deeper, you should know that if IBM decided to go with the Motorola platform, instead of Intel, then it would have been a different story. Motorola would have been a giant, not Intel. And why should Intel not share the architecture? Else there would be no evolution, and worse, PC's would be something of a luxury item. Also don't forget, Intel plays dirty.
Ultimately, it does matter. As long as there is competition, there will be evolution. AMD was responsible indirectly for waking up Intel. Now AMD & ARM are doing the same for Atom.
And the correct word you are searching for is performance to watt, not VFM.
X6 makes sense only if you have an existing AMD motherboard and do not need to buy a new one, for anyone else buying a new computer I would never ever suggest a X6 processor in the current scenario......
--- Updated Post - Automerged ---
Please enlighten me, how exactly you feel X6 1090T/1100T is comparable to a Gen 2 i5.....or more VFM
--- Updated Post - Automerged ---
vivek.krishnan said:
Please enlighten me, how exactly you feel X6 1090T/1100T is comparable to a Gen 2 i5.....or more VFM
thebanik said:
Well, for me it is all about cores. I am pretty sure that in highly multi threaded apps like x264, the X6 will be faster than the i5, that is until x264 gets QS support. Else there is no point IMO going with 6C/6T proccy. A 2C/2T will be quite enough to run most of the usual tasks. Also I am comparing the platform as more VFM, not just the proccy. an i5 + Z68 will cost more than X6+880GM platform.
--- Updated Post - Automerged ---
But yes in PPW, the Intel platform will demolish the AMD.
Wow, you pick a 880GM chipset based mobo for AMD, and the higher end Z68 chipset for Intel??? Any particular reason for that???? You can buy a P67 based mobo for i5 at around 7K, and wont limit you in overclocking and other features. As Lord and I said earlier, AMD is good only in the lower end segment and not in the high end. Its as simple as that.
vivek.krishnan said:
vivek.krishnan said:
Can you tell me one good reason why Intel should share the architecture which is the result of investments and years of hard work? Why would AMD would want to patent their own work and not make it available for everyone to see and use? They run businesses to make a profit, not a charity program to evolve PC's. There were a dozen or so chip manufacturers at the time that copied or reverse engineered Intel designs to make their own clones. Most of them dissolved when Intel started naming their chips and patenting the architecture. AMD survived because they had legitimately licensed the technology and became partly independent by using the knowledge of Intel's designs as the basis for developing their own in house implementations which they carried forward. As for Intel vs Moto, it was IBM's decision that they deemed Intel 8088 CPU suitable for use in their PC's. So its a moot point.
As for Intel playing dirty, oh please don't tell me you are naive enough to believe that AMD is a saint in that aspect. You just need to look at the unethical practices AMD reps do in India too to push their chips over Intel ones. Its all part of the game whether its Intel or AMD. The only difference is that the underdog gets to sue the market leader and its also the underdog that gets the sympathy. If there were some other player in the market that gets to be the underdog , then make no mistake that AMD too would be the receiving end of such accusations.
vivek.krishnan said:
Excuse me, but as a buyer it doesn't matter to me that AMD gave a kick to Intel way back during the Athlon 64 era. In fact AMD had become quite arrogant during the Athlon X2 era and Intel too gave them a kick with the Core series. Its such a hard kick that AMD has still not recovered from it. As far as my purchase decision goes, I buy which ever gives me more vfm at the moment I buy. I bought Athlon 64 during its era because it was better than anything that Intel had, but that is not a basis for me to buy an AMD chip now when Intel has something better for the same price. More importantly I don't base my purchase decision around stuff like ensuring competition or ensuring evolution or even business ethics. I buy what ever gives me the best bang for the buck now.
vivek.krishnan said:
The correct word is value for money and that is what I meant and said. Performance per watt is just one of the factors that contribute to vfm.
vivek.krishnan said:
Well then you keep counting the core's on your CPU's oblivious to the fact that quality is more important than quantity and make purchase decisions based on simple math on paper like 6 cores > 4 cores. As for others, they realize that each core on a sandy bridge CPU is roughly 1.5 to 2 times as powerful as the cores in the Phenom X6. So not only would the X6 get trounced by the sandy bridge CPU's in single threaded tests, but also in multi-threading tests as well. In fact you may not have realized it, but take another look at the anandtech comparison link I posted. There are a lot of multi-threaded benchmarks mixed in there. I don't even an octa core CPU based on the same architecture as X6 would be able to comprehensively beat sandy bridge quad. As for your choice of platforms, you can always skew vfm by choosing costlier platforms for Intel even when cheaper ones are available.
I came acr0ss a discussion on VM performance between AMD X6 and i7 9XX. have a look at this.
Intel vs. AMD for VMware Workstation - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net
That discussion backs up the fact that X6 with true 6 cores is definitely better than 4 cores with 8 threads (but double the price) and when it comes to memory management in large scale, AMD has an upper hand as in case of 10+ VMs and 12 or 16GB of RAM.
Intel vs. AMD for VMware Workstation - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net
That discussion backs up the fact that X6 with true 6 cores is definitely better than 4 cores with 8 threads (but double the price) and when it comes to memory management in large scale, AMD has an upper hand as in case of 10+ VMs and 12 or 16GB of RAM.
thebanik said:
I picked up the 880GM platform since that is what i feel is a good chipset with features comparable overall to the Z68 mobos. My decision was based on IGP, USB3, etc features. These are there on both the 880 platform and Z68 platform. And i always prefer to keep a board with an IGP as a standby. Have seen several cases where due to some issue or the other, could not use the GPU and mobo had no IGP support. Thats all. And yeah, i have taken the Intel Z68 board into consideration only, if you feel that an H67/61 is more appropriate, select it. Then you have got the nForce 630a/740G/760G boards to look out for.
And yes, both the mobos should have support for future upgrades, like AM3+ and IB support.
Lord Nemesis said:
True, why should Intel share the architecture? Similarly, the cellphones architecture and design were unwantedly given away. The man who designed the television, he should have never allowed other to copy his design. Intel should never have done it. Total BS.
There are loads of examples where because of opening up the system, there is competition, leading to cheaper prices. If you don't want to accept that, you are surely a ........
Lord Nemesis said:
In a market that has 2 or at the max 3 companies, If one plays dirty, why should the other not too? But the point here is who started it. And IMO, undercutting is not playing dirty, but telling the OEM that if they use chips of the competition, we will revoke all rebates to you is.
Lord Nemesis said:
It does. That is the reason for starting the Core processors, and not for just increasing clock speeds with increasing pipelines and looking at 10Ghz speeds.
Lord Nemesis said:
First understand the concept of VFM. You have still not understood it. An item is called VFM when it does the job you need it to do, at the lower most cost. Ask any one about using a Sempron with a 740G for basic office use and they will agree to the point. Similarly, a person who needs to use a 6C/6T where each core is loaded, say x264, will say the same. Also such stuff is not for the general public, but rather for the niche sector, where you have apps that use the 6C properly, fully loaded.
Also yes, in 4C/4T the Phenom's lose heavily to the i5's. But here the discussion is of a 6C, not a 4C/4T or 4C/8T.
Lord Nemesis said:
I never make my choices based on simple math like the way you are suggesting it. I do believe that the i5's are superior in almost every aspect to the X4/X6. Also arguing on the above point with you is useless as you are repeating what you said earlier, plus you seem fixated on silly points, when i have stated clearly it is useful only in multi threaded apps using 6C/6T. Also regarding choice of platform, see above, i have replied above.
That just shows that you have understanding of neither business or economics. Sharing ones work freely with world is not going to do any good. In fact it does a lot of harm than good. There were about a dozen companies that cloned Intel chips back in the day. None of them bothered with making any significant improvement to the technology. Not even AMD. when Intel no longer wanted to share, most of them had to stop and some even died. AMD themselves were forced to start innovating on their own. So its absense of sharing and very restrictive sharing (licensing for a fee or royalties) that lead to any sort of innovation. When they can directly use someone else's work no one would be bother improving or incur the risk involved in trying to improve it.vivek.krishnan said:
Let me put it in a way that you can easily understand. I want a toaster manufactured and I have 3 manufacturers. I call all of them and tell them to deliver 1000 units of toaster each and that I would close the future deals with who ever gives me the best toasters within the least possible time. Each manufacturer would create his own unique toaster and will hope that his design would win future business. On the other hand, if I hand them a basic design for a toaster and tell them to use that as a reference and again tell them to deliver the best possible design in the least possible time, then I am willing to bet that everyone of them would try to manufacture with the same reference design without any innovation of their own. Since there is a readily available design, they would just compete to be the fastest to deliver the required units and completely ignore the innovation aspect. No one would want to take the risk of deviating from the design thinking that they would loose out on the time front. That is what happens with chips too. If every one has access to the design, every one would be competing to just churn out the maximum number of chips and selling them. No one would dare to take time for adding innovation of their own. Just look at the GPU market. When ever theres a new GPU, if AMD or nVidia tell the partners to make their own designs, you would see of innovation in the designs from each partners, but considering both of these companies give reference boards, every one is busy getting lots of the same design and pushing them to the customers. Look at how much time it takes for the customs designs. some partners don't even bother with ever making a custom design.
Also, you are gravely mistaken if you think that forcing stuff to become cheaper in an uncontrolled manner is a good thing. That is the mantra to make the economy fall apart and would ultimately lead to the downfall of the entire human race itself.
vivek.krishnan said:
Companies play dirty for the sake of their businesses, not because the other guy is playing dirty. both Intel and AMD would play dirty irrespective of what the other is doing. If one decides to stop their unethical practices, it doesn't mean that the other would follow. As for revoking rebates to OEM's, its only natural that as a business man, I would give special incentives (rebates) to someone who wants to push my products exclusively. Why would I give it to some who wants to sell the competitors products as well? There is nothing wrong in that. Even AMD does it in the Indian market. Dealers often get special incentives for pushing AMD products over Intel. Its just that Intel gets punished for such things because its the market leader and AMD gets conveniently ignored because its an underdog. The same courts would not punish an underdog for the same thing even if it is proved. Think of such things as a handicap to keep The underdog alive. Just look at Microsoft's example as well. They were punished for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. They were also ordered to put up a web page that advertised competing browsers. Was MS stopping anyone from installing Netscape Navigator or some other browser. they were punished simply for the act of giving a freebie to their customers. Apple too bundles a lot of software including a browser just like MS does, so why doesn't such a ruling there for Apple? MS got penalized because they are the market leader, not because they did something unethical. There is no other way to look at it except as a handicap given to the underdog.
vivek.krishnan said:
No it doesn't matter to me nor to any other sensible buyer. As a buyer, I don't care about why a Intel has the better processor right now. All I care about is buying the better processor. I don't buy an inferior product from AMD now because 7 years ago, AMD had better products than Intel. A 2 year dominance in a 50 year history and that too 7 years ago is no basis for choosing an inferior product now. How hard is that to grasp?
vivek.krishnan said:
No, its you who need to understand the concept of VFM. VFM has nothing to do with getting the cheapest product that meets your requirements. Its about getting the product that offers the most value for your chosen price window. In a price window, even a higher priced product may actually offer more vfm than a lesser priced one. Its not about the price, about about the value you get for the price. As someone else put it, a product with 10 useful features for 20Rs is more value for money than a product with 1 useful feature for 10 Rs.
vivek.krishnan said:
I am was never talking about 4C/4T Phenoms loosing to Intel's 4C/4T CPU's, but about 6C/6T Phenoms loosing out to 4C/4T in multi-threading performance. Its a concept you are not getting because you are so completely fixated on 6 > 4 rather than taking into account the quality of each core.
To give a crude example, if you have two groups of workers with the first having 6 workers each of whom can do 1 task each hour and the second group has 4 workers each of whom can do 2 tasks each hour. Lets assume you have you have 24 tasks to complete. While you are fixated on picking the fight group because it has 2 extra workers, I say the second group is better. It doesn't matter whether you pit one worker against another or the entire groups. the the 6 workers in the first group even if they are working in tandem cannot beat the 4 workers in the second group when they are also working in tandem.
Any guy who thinks he needs a multi-core CPU with multi-threading in mind would choose a 4C Sandy Bridge over a 6C Phenom just because they have have proven to be better than X6 at multi threading even with 2 cores less.
eternoMind
Herald
Well, I see that i am beaten on this. But then, I am not going to change my opinion. Ever. Also many of you may term me as an AMD fanboi, but I am not really one. Although yes, I do prefer AMD, but all my 3 laptops are Intel ones.
And while I have written half a response to your comments, have decided to not post as its of no use.
Also as to the destructive thing, well to a businessman that is a problem, but for the consumer, its not, rather it means better stuff for lower prices.
--- Updated Post - Automerged ---
Did not really know what to call him, as I had a wide range of stuff to call him.
And while I have written half a response to your comments, have decided to not post as its of no use.
Also as to the destructive thing, well to a businessman that is a problem, but for the consumer, its not, rather it means better stuff for lower prices.
--- Updated Post - Automerged ---
eternoMind said:
Did not really know what to call him, as I had a wide range of stuff to call him.
dr.sankhadeep
Herald
- Status