AMD 6 core $300 fail???

75 replies [Last post]
Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

The purpose of more cores is simple, the more the better. When the max speed of electricity, silicon and copper & gold interconnects reach their limits you can add more cores. Think of this like a human brain with 100 billion cells or rather cores. So while i7 users are limited to 4 thoughts at one time, the X6 is doing a little extra multitasking with the same brain. 4 is small and 6 is normal. At least that is what she said..lol

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

In theory-But cores for the sake of cores is ridicules-

Btw- that was a rhetorical question

My point was that for me as a consumer 2 cores means nothing IF THEY DO NOTHING. The 2 cores added to a 965 to make a x6 REDUCED its gaming performing while keeping it the same at everything else other than multitasking which marginally improved. So basically one is paying $30-$130 for little to no benefit seen by the consumer.

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

Windows 7 can use 256 cores, I think? They talked about having to re-write windows to take advantage of cores. As a consumer if it plays your games at 70fps or 75fps vs 70$ cheaper is all that matters. Even people that make a lot of money will buy the cheaper computers. It's the geeks like us that are buying the Intels, while building everyone else AMD's. Interesting how that works..

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

As I stated above, for gaming as of yet neither is a bottleneck so performance is nigh identical but for MANY other applications the i7 grabs the advantage. Thus if you don't use PS or encone(I do) then AMD is probably for you. This being a Phenom II- a x6 REDUCES the fps for MORE $ thus why I label it a fail.

 

Also, some people buy the best just to have the best-I don't condon but will take the $ any day.

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

Once AMD gets their updated code out to the developers it will get faster.

For now lets look at 256 cores..

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Wow-just wow.... What server do u run/manage? Newegg-LOL?

I manage school server and it has only like 8 xeon's...

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

That is a Windows Task Manager of a machine (at Intel) with 256 cores running on Windows Server 2008 R2. LOL crying

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Ya but what is it DOING? Very few things need that kinda power.

My uncle manages the servers for about 200 newspaper companies in one building and that only has 150 cores.

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

undeadkingpr wrote:

Ya but what is it DOING? Very few things need that kinda power.

My uncle manages the servers for about 200 newspaper companies in one building and that only has 150 cores.

Anyones guess, could be used for visualizations or a WoW server..lol

lestat692k9
lestat692k9's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/26/2010
Posts: 53

i beg to differ on th oc settingsi have a 965 be oced ro 4.2 ghz and it screams and only cooled by a cheap corsair h50 water cooler this system on a custom water cooled system will run the high 5 ghz range to low 6 ghz  on a $180 .00 cpu i think that is rather impressive in my book.For the record also i have seen this cpu  hit 5.9 on a custom water cooled syste. now thats bang for your buck value..

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

an h50 is not "cheap"-it is $60-80. The OC stats i mentioned are on a $40 air cooler. A custom water cooled system can be upwards of $300. For that price you could buy another 2 965's-how is that bang for buck value?

lestat692k9
lestat692k9's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/26/2010
Posts: 53

 

lets see just for instance it 920 $279.99 and the 965$189.99 be on newegg  prices and not to mention the the mother board prices are through the roof for intels med and high end motherboards and i am talking asus boards. Now if i am going to only play games i am going to go amd and save 200 to 300 bucks on a build the only thing to sway me to intel is i am using my computer at a 100% load at all times if the 920 is not at 100% load the differance in the bench marks is so minimal it is not worth metioning. surely not worth the exra 300 dollars to me when i can take that money and put it to a better use rather than buy a small percentage of perfomance

my friend had a good saying intel is money hungry and amd is not

and a corsair h50 is cheap for the performance i get out of it and again 20 to dollars more over an air cooler is worth it in my book and it sure is cheap compared to custom water cooled

and one more thing how much would the i7 system cost as a whole vs the 965 be system to get to 5.9 ghz i guerentee it would cost more than 1500 bucks

ok i am done for the night i have to go to work in the morning lol this reminds me of the WoW forums

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

MY friend you have been misled

There is no way in HELL an equivalent intel system will cost you $300 extra

If you want I can even build near identical rigs on newegg for you to give you an exact # but on average Intel is going to be $50-100 more expensive.

Oh and btw its a 930 not a 920-for $270 not 280- which OC's to 4.33Ghz on a $40 air cooler-NOW THAT'S BANG PER BUCK!

 

No noticeable difference? Pherhaps in gaming but..

8500 more cinebench points

30% better WPrime score

40% better Gimp image editing

40% faster video encoding

70% better mutlitasking

Thus you can see if you do a lot of multi-tasking or video work then CLEARLY the 930 is for you.

Btw-I got my Asus Rampage II Extreme for $160 open box but you can get a P6t with Asus Turbo for only $200 now. And a big reason why Intel boards are more expensive is higher quality components+more PCB layers.

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Intel is money hungry but they make great products. They also typically price most of them very well. They have even been SUED for pricing products less than it costs them to make to try to win over a market.

 Is an h50 worth it/? your whole chip is $160- The additional OC gained over the stock cooler may increase performance by 10-15% while you paid 50% the cost a new cpu for that cooler-You do the math.

personally I use the h50-not just for the performance but b.c I am an enthusiast who enjoys it

 

To get 5.9ghz it takes a tank of Liquid nitro or helium over a dragon f1 extreme cooler or better. Nomatter what chip you have under the cooler you can probably get it ridiculously Oc;d. None of that matters at all though to an average consumer.

Alexander Morou
Offline
Joined: 04/28/2010
Posts: 10

Jared Maynard wrote:If my views over Intel's business practices are generally irrelevant. Then why did Intel give AMD $1.25 Billion dollars? Boy when you step into my arena sounding smart you will take a punch to the face, come prepared next time..lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/technology/companies/13chip.html?_r=1&hp

Intel's business practices have no bearing on their processor's performance.  I'm not trying to sound smart, so don't use ad hominem attacks, and implying that I'll take a punch in the face for your logical destruction of my statements is inane.  Logical stability is provided by factual information pertinent to the topic at hand, not ad hominem attacks, or red herring links that pertain to something else based in the realm of personal preference.

When a company starts to stand on the top, they get hit with monopoly busting legal suits, anti-trust suits due to similar business practices that are likely because they want to take care of their customer, not so much that they want to be the 'best'.  Even if you take the logical road and remove the emotional aspect out of business of their actions: it's all about the bottom line in business.  Being in a financially superior position (based upon market share, budget, earnings and so on), they're able to make moves that AMD can not.  It's not all because it's sleazy, it's just the way it is.  The moral road that Intel is on is debatable, due to not being able to directly read the power players, in Intel's corporate line-up, minds; so conjecture related to this is subjective, rather than objective.  It's also irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

undeadkingpr wrote:

MY friend you have been misled

If you want I can even build near identical rigs on newegg for you to give you an exact # but on average Intel is going to be $50-100 more expensive.

Only 100$ more? 70$ difference in the CPU and then there are the more costly motherboards and that extra stick of memory!

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

All I see here is.. BLAH BENCHMARK BLAH!

undeadkingpr wrote:

8500 more cinebench points < Benchmark Blah!

30% better WPrime score < Benchmark Blah!

40% better Gimp image editing < Benchmark Blah!

40% faster video encoding < BS the real benchmarks show X6 is faster than i7 at rendering!! 2 extra cores)

70% better mutlitasking < Made up numbers!

Thus you can see if you do a lot of multi-tasking or video work then CLEARLY the AMD 6 Core is for you!

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

undeadkingpr wrote:

Intel is money hungry but they make great products.

Hitler was money hungry and made great products Now look how things turned out!

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Ive seen 3d guru, bit tech, and others AND ALL SHOW I7 930 DOMINATES THE X6 AT TRANS CODING, ENCODING, AND EVERYTHING INBETWEEN. If it does not seem that way in a "real" benchmark THATS BECUASE THE I7 930/920 IS UN-OVERCLOCKED. It is performing 40-50% worse than it would be if It was rev'd up.

THE 2 CORES DO JACK SQUAT!

There is a reason these bench's are used BY EVERYONE reviewing products. THEY ACCURATELY REFLECT the performance within 5-10% of a CPU in a given area. Just blowing them all aside like they are nothing is just plain ignorance.

Also note-YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ME WITH ONE LET ALONE TWO CASES WHERE THE X6 BEATS THE 930 OC'D-At this point I can only assume this is because YOU CAN'T FIND ANY! A 930 just outright owns EVERY amd desktop processor.

Oh and btw the processor in which all the bencmarks doesn't come close is the $310 x6- not the $210. The $210 falls so far behind it is just laughable. I also note you have not discussed how the x6 FAILS at gaming so I assume that point is conceded as well.

Stop just bad mouthing and trying to force you argument down our throats-LET ME SEE SOME SOURCES!!!!!

Intel's morality is not at all the issue here nor is this the thread to be discussing it.

Also-drawing a connection between HITLER and a Intel is JUST ABSURD. 9/10 businesses ONLY CARE ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE. Does this mean they are going to start a war which kills 6 million jews, 8 million russians + -HELL NO!!!!

 

p.s the multitasking is not a made up number-Here is exactly how it is computed-

"Our multi-tasking test performs a massive file backup (with encryption) using 7-Zip, while simultaneously playing back a HD movie file using mplayer, making it a demanding test for any PC."
 

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Here are "real" bench's from a quality source showing a 930 ALMOST beating a x6 AT STOCK-that is .4 ghz SLOWER than the AMD-now consider that It can OC to about .4 ghz FASTER than than AMD and you get where I am going..

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-890fx,2613-8.html

So are CS4 -PS-encoding-handbrake blah blah bench's?

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

undeadkingpr wrote:

Ive seen 3d guru, bit tech, and others AND ALL SHOW I7 930 DOMINATES THE X6 AT TRANS CODING, ENCODING, AND EVERYTHING INBETWEEN. If it does not seem that way in a "real" benchmark THATS BECUASE THE I7 930/920 IS UN-OVERCLOCKED. It is performing 40-50% worse than it would be if It was rev'd up.

THE 2 CORES DO JACK SQUAT!

There is a reason these bench's are used BY EVERYONE reviewing products. THEY ACCURATELY REFLECT the performance within 5-10% of a CPU in a given area. Just blowing them all aside like they are nothing is just plain ignorance.

Also note-YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ME WITH ONE LET ALONE TWO CASES WHERE THE X6 BEATS THE 930 OC'D-At this point I can only assume this is because YOU CAN'T FIND ANY! A 930 just outright owns EVERY amd desktop processor.

Oh and btw the processor in which all the bencmarks doesn't come close is the $310 x6- not the $210. The $210 falls so far behind it is just laughable. I also note you have not discussed how the x6 FAILS at gaming so I assume that point is conceded as well.

Stop just bad mouthing and trying to force you argument down our throats-LET ME SEE SOME SOURCES!!!!!

Intel's morality is not at all the issue here nor is this the thread to be discussing it.

Also-drawing a connection between HITLER and a Intel is JUST ABSURD. 9/10 businesses ONLY CARE ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE. Does this mean they are going to start a war which kills 6 million jews, 8 million russians + -HELL NO!!!!

 

p.s the multitasking is not a made up number-Here is exactly how it is computed-

"Our multi-tasking test performs a massive file backup (with encryption) using 7-Zip, while simultaneously playing back a HD movie file using mplayer, making it a demanding test for any PC."
 

Why do you keep bringing up the 930 as the Intel CPU to compare AMD's X6's with when it costs more money? Below the 930 is the 920 and 860, apples to oranges. Intel has had their processors out for years now and AMD is back in the game, once the prices go down that is. Even if they don't beat Intel, things are back on the radar for a good CPU WAR FINALLY! And when they update the BIOS options for these AMD motherboards people that have older processors can upgrade to 6 Cores for only 200$! . Woot! The AMD Phenom II X6 1055T up to 19% faster than Core i7 860, but it's behind the i7 930. So it's priced right in the middle of the two making a nice home for itself.

And now the punch to the face!! nosurprise

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_phenom_ii_x6_1090t_be_1055t,5.html

"HandBrake does utilize all six-cores and as a result we saw healthy performance gains when comparing the Phenom II X6 1090T and 1055T processors to the Phenom II X4 965 quad-core processor. The Phenom II X6 1090T was 18% faster, while the 1055T was also 10% quicker. These gains meant that the Phenom II X6 1055T was a fraction faster than the Core i7 930, while the 1090T enjoyed a 10% performance increase."

 

"The TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress software also failed to push all six-cores, with the CPU utilization levels of the Phenom II X6 processors sitting around 55%. As a result these new hexa-core processors were actually slower than the Phenom II X4 965 processor in this test. Interestingly, the Core i7 980 XE was still able to provide a significant performance advantage over the Core i7 975 EE which was interesting."  < As I've said before wait for the coding to enhance the new 6 Core AMD Processors!

------

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1289/13/

Cinebench R11.5 was able to put a 100% load across all the cores on all of the processors, which makes this a great benchmark to look at multi-core platforms.

Benchmark Results: Running Cinebench R11.5 in 64-bit mode showed that the Intel Core i7 980X processor was 49.4% faster than the Intel Core i7 975 processor and more than twice as fast as the AMD 965 BE.  The AMD Phenom II X6 1090T scored 5.56 points in the multi-CPU test, which was just behind Intel's Core i7-975 quad-core processor.

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

Alexander Morou wrote:

So instead of trying to actually make a point, you ignore the message behind my words and repeat the same nonsensical subjective slant you've been doing from the start.  You also only focus on parts of what I say, which can be considered misconstruing my words.  In short:  you have no intention of debating, you're only interested in flaming people and getting under their skin.  I suspect for the remainder of this thread, ignoring Jared Maynard is probably best, as he has no interest in debating properly.

Well, yeah.. guilty as charged and so your point is "QQ more"? It's a cheap shot, but I can't help it..lol. You missed the part about the (JK) = Just Kidding. And so far the only debate I've seen here is that most people are riding the Intel bandwagon blindly. Snap out of it people and do your own research about the hardware you seem to defend so profoundly.

As a reminder.. I am the moderator, just having a little fun here. laugh

dustyschaffner
dustyschaffner's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/02/2009
Posts: 334

undeadkingpr wrote: If anything an Intel OC's easier than an AMD and FURTHER with LESS overvoltage. a 930 can go up to 4.33ghz coming from ~2.8. In comparison a 965 goes from 3.4 to ~3.95. Clearly AMD is NOT either to overclock NOR overclocks further.

is that why i can overclock my athlon 7750 to 3.7GHz on air cooling? coming from 2.7GHz

and it only cost me $60 USD to buy it

who said AMD cant overclock

currently they actually hold the world record for quad core overclocking :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Hf6d404QY&f=22

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

Nice video!

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Jared-You clearly did not read my post a few up-

THOSE BENCHMARKS ARE AN UN-OVERCLOCKED 920/930. The 920/930 is not being fairly represented. Anyone who actually wanted to do serious encoding etc. WILL OVERCLOCK THE CPU!

 The reason I compare the $270 intel to the $310 AMD IS BECAUSE THAT IS THE CLOSEST COMPETITOR. The Intel flat out OWNS the cheaper AMD. Read some of bit-tech's stats to show just how HUGE of a difference OCing makes on a 930.

Dust-I can oveclock my 920 ON THE STOCK COOLER from 2.66 to 3.7? FOR FREE! Who says Intel can't overclock?

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/27/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-black-edition/5

Oh and just becuase someone get super overclock something past the competition with liquid nitro doesnt mean anything for average consumer

Case in point- 4 new 3d mark vantage records today set by 480 x4 by kingpin. Does this mean 480 is THE best single graphics card-not really.

Alexander Morou
Offline
Joined: 04/28/2010
Posts: 10

So... a quad core Phenom II processor at 7 GHZ is still pushed out by a Core i7 980x?

While yes, it's 6 cores, it's interesting to note that you need more than two times the power of the Phenom II's stock numbers to get a score lower than the 980x.  Core per core, the i7 architecture is more capable than the Dragon architecture.

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Yep, a 930 which is a quad core is far superior to all amd desktop products including thhese hexacores while remaing $40 CHEAPER then the upper end of the x6 line. Clearly, Intel has the advantage here whatever fanboi's say to the contrary-excluding gaming which is about equal and power consumption in  AMD's defense.

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

Alexander Morou wrote:

So... a quad core Phenom II processor at 7 GHZ is still pushed out by a Core i7 980x?

While yes, it's 6 cores, it's interesting to note that you need more than two times the power of the Phenom II's stock numbers to get a score lower than the 980x.  Core per core, the i7 architecture is more capable than the Dragon architecture.

That score is not validated! Not an official score. Not the same cards, but this is about CPU's not GPU's!. Non-regulated drivers. And only half of the test was run... <Block and Counter PUNCH! nosurprise!LOL

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Overclocked to 7.1 GHz

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-Phenom-II-Overclocked,7747.html

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=556849

undeadkingpr
undeadkingpr's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 511

Yes somehow this still has absolutely nothing to do with me as a normal consumer. Do I have tanks of liquid nitrogen sitting next to me here-Maybe-but not for my computer-hehehehe....

I still think my argument is sound. Everyone who is Anyone will overclock their CPU. When OC'd a 930 for $270 or $200 at micro. outperforms in every situation especially gaming+multitasking+encoding the $310 AMD x6 processor also overclocked. Therefore the AMD is a waste of $ that could be spent better. Put the $40 difference towards an Intel motherboard and triple channel ram instead.

Alexander Morou
Offline
Joined: 04/28/2010
Posts: 10

Jared Maynard,

So, if something questions your methods, you simply delete any and all evidence of the fact that they questioned you in the first place?

So far you've deleted two of my posts, without any reason.