AMD vs. Intel

Smilodon111 · Post by **Smilodon111** » 13 Nov 2010, 13:03

yup - well AMD is doing pretty good these days, like the x6's are amazing & priced very well...if AMD can keep it going maybe intel's ego can shrink a little and actually care about us

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 15 Nov 2010, 08:36

I was very, very tempted to get the AMD x6, but in the end I decided to stick with Intel.

Smilodon111 · Post by **Smilodon111** » 15 Nov 2010, 09:54

same here - but the reason i went with i7 1366 is cuz they said the socket would last as long as 775....so much for that lol

but yea,im waiting on LGA2011 - i think thats gonna rock...

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 15 Nov 2010, 15:08

I really hate Intel right now. Why the hell bring out a new socket so soon? They are just screwing us.

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 15 Nov 2010, 15:15

Mystical_Titan wrote:They are just screwing us.

what... you mean the company that pioneered the concept of crippling your CPU and then charging you +-R400 to "upgrade" it are slipping you a surprise yam?

no way!

imagine when this becomes SOP... want to run Crysis?... no problemo... just give me your CC details and we'll have your additional pipelines unlocked before your wife can say "Honey, what's this R3000 rand bill for invisible elf boobs!?"...

Smilodon111 · Post by **Smilodon111** » 15 Nov 2010, 20:30

haha yup - x58 ; i7 ; DDR3 was not cheap @ all and already theres LGA1155 (P65) on the way & later LGA2011 (X68) - it really depresses me cuz it took nearly a year put this machine on for the first time & now its gonna be worthless soon

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 16 Nov 2010, 08:48

Yeah. And 775 was around for like 10 years or something? I'm sure 1,366 won't become completely irrelevant as the performance is still good, although they'll probably be taken off the market by Intel once the new sockets are released.

Smilodon111 · Post by **Smilodon111** » 16 Nov 2010, 20:53

yup & still IMO a decent quad on an x38 or x48 board is still powerful by todays standards & i think 1366 will be the same - i mean at least we do have something to upgrade to - a 970 or 980x cpu...12 threads mmmmm...

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 16 Nov 2010, 21:26

Can you say... overkill?!

Smilodon111 · Post by **Smilodon111** » 17 Nov 2010, 07:50

lol yea i know - its funny how ppl got obsessed with the more cores the better lol

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 17 Nov 2010, 08:42

I'd like to pit two high-end machines against each other. One an AMD 6-core with two 6870s and the other an Intel with two 460s. Should be interesting, although the Intel PC should win hands-down.

Smilodon111 · Post by **Smilodon111** » 17 Nov 2010, 20:06

oh yea the i7's are king with multi gpu setups,but i think the amd system would give it a good run for its money - and speaking of money,the amd system will still be cheaper

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 18 Nov 2010, 08:26

That's for sure!

You could almost build a complete gaming PC for the price of the 980x!

Xiphan · Post by **Xiphan** » 20 Nov 2010, 20:06

Smilodon111 wrote:lol yea i know - its funny how ppl got obsessed with the more cores the better lol

The funny thing is on Windows 7 it seems to make a difference. When I unlock the two extra cores on my Phenom II 550 my PC becomes a beast of a machine that handles everything I throw at it and then some, sadly until I get a better cooler I have to run it as a standard dual core which is rather slow in comparison.

Sounds funny? The same CPU but with more cores is faster than the same thing with less cores.

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 21 Nov 2010, 05:36

Xiphan wrote:Sounds funny? The same CPU but with more cores is faster than the same thing with less cores.

What is so funny about that?
We have had multi-core CPU's in some form or another since they first introduced hyper-threading (LOL!) almost 10 years ago.
I would be appalled if after all this time software developers had not written apps that utilize all the cores on a CPU for better performance...\

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 21 Nov 2010, 10:42

One wonders where this insane amount of CPU cores will end...

Smilodon111 · Post by **Smilodon111** » 24 Nov 2010, 20:28

Mystical_Titan wrote:One wonders where this insane amount of CPU cores will end...

it will never end

- the reason IMO is that even if software uses 2 cores @ best, the more cores / threads your cpu has,the better frame rates..i mean core i7 is real overkill for a desktop but if you look @ the benchmarks using a core 2 duo & a core i7, the frames are sometimes over double...even more with a 980X or similar...

Puento · Post by **Puento** » 24 Nov 2010, 20:59

Smilodon111 wrote:
Mystical_Titan wrote:One wonders where this insane amount of CPU cores will end...
it will never end - the reason IMO is that even if software uses 2 cores @ best, the more cores / threads your cpu has,the better frame rates..i mean core i7 is real overkill for a desktop but if you look @ the benchmarks using a core 2 duo & a core i7, the frames are sometimes over double...even more with a 980X or similar...

but why does a i5 750 @ stock with 4 threads get the same amount of frames as a i7 920 @ stock with 8 threads?

Smilodon111 · Post by **Smilodon111** » 24 Nov 2010, 21:27

Puento wrote:
Smilodon111 wrote:
Mystical_Titan wrote:One wonders where this insane amount of CPU cores will end...
it will never end - the reason IMO is that even if software uses 2 cores @ best, the more cores / threads your cpu has,the better frame rates..i mean core i7 is real overkill for a desktop but if you look @ the benchmarks using a core 2 duo & a core i7, the frames are sometimes over double...even more with a 980X or similar...
but why does a i5 750 @ stock with 4 threads get the same amount of frames as a i7 920 @ stock with 8 threads?

true - i knew someone would post that

take my post gently - in some games the i7 shines & in others they dont...

the point im making is that if you were to pair HD5970 with an i7 the frames rates will be much higher than if you put it with a core 2 - mainly @ min. frames rather than average...
i know a lot of other things factor into it like cpu architecture & speed ect...but the more cores the cpu has - the more data can be sent to the gpu in a shorter time...and in most cases - the higher frames you get...

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 25 Nov 2010, 08:39

But of course the software has to be coded to make use of all the cores.

SykomantiS · Post by **SykomantiS** » 25 Nov 2010, 12:36

The multi core wars will end soon, just like the GHz wars ended...

Smilodon111 · Post by **Smilodon111** » 26 Nov 2010, 10:21

yup then they'll find something else to brainwash us with lol

Smilodon111 · Post by **Smilodon111** » 03 Dec 2010, 20:37

Mystical_Titan wrote:But of course the software has to be coded to make use of all the cores.

yup - which was promised with DX11 but still see no difference...

its strange how every DirectX release,ppl get uber exited & then let down a few months later lol..although DX11 aint that bad...remember directX 10.1? man,intel (pissed) a lot of ppl off with that one.

i was one of them - i had jus bought my new DX 10 card and then not even a week later DX 10.1 was released & they said it needed new hardware....wow i was mad

Mystical_Titan · Post by **Mystical_Titan** » 08 Dec 2010, 11:00

*wrong thread*

Smilodon111 · Post by **Smilodon111** » 09 Dec 2010, 08:25

Mystical_Titan wrote:*wrong thread*

sorry i was venting

right, back to topic lol

PCFormat Forum Archive

AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Re: AMD vs. Intel