Processors?

[Plutonic]

Intel Core i7 960, 3.2ghz - Quad Core - $625
AMD Phenom II X4 965, 3.4Ghz - Quad Core - $169

Why is the price difference so huge? What does Intel offer that AMD doesn't?

[OvRiDe]

Why is the price difference so huge? What does Intel offer that AMD doesn't?


Performance. According to the benchmark charts located at http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

The AMD Phenom II X4 965 scored 4,267 points
The Intel Core i7 960 scored 6,669 points.

Newer architecture and hyperthreading.

These of course are benchmarks and when it comes to real world.. I guess it just depends on what your going to do with it.

[Oneslowz28]

I promise 100% that you will be more than happy with the AMD. These Intel guys will tell you that hyperthreading makes a huge difference, and it does for things like video and 3D rendering but for an every day average Joe 4 threads @ 3.4GHz is more than enough. Save the cash and buy the AMD. Spend the savings on a quality GPU, 4+Gb RAM, and a decent Motherboard.

I run a 965 Black Edition overclocked to 4.1GHz on water. I was able to reach 4.02GHz on air using a Cooler Master V6 GT. But at 3.4GHz I can do anything and everything I want to including heavy gaming, intensive photoshop sessions and even some 3d rendering.

[Cale_Hagan]

oneslowz has the right idea. amd has more than enough horsepower, and if you like gaming, save the rest for a better gpu. also, some applications are run/aided by gpu, and do better than a cpu would. so definitely amd, and save the rest for other stuff.

[dr.walrus]

There is a broad misconception that a processor is the same as another one of the same speed. It's like saying one 5.7l V8 should be the same speed as another - regardless of whether you're comparing one from the 1960s and a modern supercharged race engine.

It's possible to design benchmarks where you get over a 50% performance increase from hyperthreading alone. It's even easier to design benchmarks where there is a 0% increase. I could bore you about how it works, but suffice to say, the i7s are very, very intelligently designed, the AMDs not so much. Look at a range of benchmarks - all the frequency tells you is how many processor cycles it can do a second - not how well or how fast it processes data.

I recently had to make the same decision, and frankly there were other concerns when choosing between them. An AMD 1090T six core 3.2Ghz performs within 5% of an i7 950 quad core, but cost me about 10% less. I went for the 6 core AMD because I wanted one real bad. Not because I need one.

Let's face it, Oneslowzhit the nail on the head... we rarely NEED that much power! If you're gaming, it's really much more about your GPU.

One thing I will say - if you have a ridiculously overpowered multi-core processor, what is great is that anti-virus software

[Lothair]

It's pretty odd that the 3.2GHz i7 is so expensive, while anything less than that is considerably cheaper. The 2.8GHz is $270. The 3.06GHz is even cheaper, but that's probably due to Black Friday. Maybe it's just because they're in low demand?

[Diamon]

I'd say that if you're asking that question you should go for the AMD. Only reason I'm using an intel i7 is that I got it second hand from Trace.

Another thing, except for higher performance, that is (imo) in favor for intel is the x58 mobos, they're rock solid.

[blueonblack]

I promise 100% that you will be more than happy with the AMD. These Intel guys will tell you that hyperthreading makes a huge difference, and it does for things like video and 3D rendering but for an every day average Joe 4 threads @ 3.4GHz is more than enough. Save the cash and buy the AMD. Spend the savings on a quality GPU, 4+Gb RAM, and a decent Motherboard.

I run a 965 Black Edition overclocked to 4.1GHz on water. I was able to reach 4.02GHz on air using a Cooler Master V6 GT. But at 3.4GHz I can do anything and everything I want to including heavy gaming, intensive photoshop sessions and even some 3d rendering.

:stupid:

I run exactly the same processor and consider it absolutely massive overkill. Overclocking this thing would be like putting nitrous in a Viper to go get the groceries. Buy the Lamborghini if you want, but I'd rather have the Viper and money left over.

[Blibbax]

Intel Core i7 960, 3.2ghz - Quad Core - $625
AMD Phenom II X4 965, 3.4Ghz - Quad Core - $169

Why is the price difference so huge? What does Intel offer that AMD doesn't?

Because it's faster.

But as always with PC components, you pay a lot more for a little bit faster.

Intel parts priced more similarly to the AMD would perform similarly, even if they look worse on paper, as Intel seems to be able to get more performance "per specification" at the moment.

[slaveofconvention]

Yeah the value for money is dire in comparison - those two you listed, you're looking at (optomistically) 50% more power, for almost 300% more money. Use the $400 for an SSD and a RAM upgrade and real-world, you'll probably have a faster all around machine

[Oneslowz28]

Man I am loving the AMD support I am seeing in this thread!

[Trace]

Don't make me get my Intel-loving side out!

[Oneslowz28]

I think we should start a support group for those of us who own processors that were previously owned by Trace....

[farlo]

i prefer amd processors, better bang for the buck.

also im cheap.

[dr.walrus]

I will add here that at stock speeds, at the top of AMD's desktop product line, Intel become almost competitive in terms of performance/price. Below that, not at all.

Otherwise, I couldn't care less who makes it....

[Blibbax]

Yeah the value for money is dire in comparison - those two you listed, you're looking at (optomistically) 50% more power, for almost 300% more money. Use the $400 for an SSD and a RAM upgrade and real-world, you'll probably have a faster all around machine

That's like putting a Ferrari engine in a Ford and saying it's bad value for money. Of course it is.

High end Intel CPUs are designed for sytems that already have awesome storage and memory configurations.

At the end of they day you pay for what you get. Yes, AMD is often slightly better bang per buck. Yes, CPUs twice as expensive are not twice as fast. This does not make the comparison a fair one.

If you're spending thousands on a system, the AMD CPU is poor value for money, as it's going to hold back the rest of the system immensley. If you're building a more moderately price system, spending half your budget on a CPU is obviously daft.

Just in case anyone's interested this article (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/newegg-combo-toms-hardware,2753.html) (from an admittedly poor site) demonstrates some of my point.

And no, I am not an Intel fanboy, my next system will without a shadow of a doubt contain a Phenom.

[slaveofconvention]

That's like putting a Ferrari engine in a Ford and saying it's bad value for money. Of course it is.



Utter UTTER nonsense - I made a direct comparison to the benefit you get for the price you pay on a component level.

To make it a bit clearer, assuming both the prices and the benchmarks are accurate, you're looking at paying just under 4c per point for the AMD, and well over 9c per point on the Intel.

[mDust]

Utter UTTER nonsense - I made a direct comparison to the benefit you get for the price you pay on a component level.

To make it a bit clearer, assuming both the prices and the benchmarks are accurate, you're looking at paying just under 4c per point for the AMD, and well over 9c per point on the Intel.That doesn't take into consideration the performance difference though...the performance/price graph is not linear. You're paying more per point because there's more of them. It works the same with screen size, home square footage, or horsepower. I like the Viper vs Lambo comparison as it shows exactly how a bit more performance costs a lot more money.

If anyone even considers getting an i7-960 get a 950 instead and overclock it by 200+Mhz...pocket the $325 and keep the same performance. Or, like others have already said, get the much cheaper Phenom and reduce cost by a lot and performance by a little.

[Konrad]

The price gap gets even wider when you match up the procs with their chipsets. I'm a big chipset guy, why plug awesome GPU cards into a crappy mobo?

[dr.walrus]

a direct comparison to the benefit you get for the price you pay on a component level.

I don't totally agree with the analogy used, but in some ways, I think he made a fair point. Plug that CPU into a cardboard motherboard and you get zero performance at all.

The CPU is directly linked to other components - for example both the i7 and Phenom have onboard memory controllers. This means that the RAM choice will be proportionately more expensive also (or at least different).

Looking at components in total isolation is a fallacy. Definitely weigh up the pros and cons, but you simply can't totally isolate them.

[Konrad]

You can use methodical benchmarks to eliminate unknowns, though.

Run CPUs against each other, using the same mobo/ram/etc configuration. Or compare mobos, ram, and other things by keeping the CPU constant. Just isolate one component at a time. Components can be accurately measured against each other once you've accumulated enough data.

As mentioned before, AMD and Intel machines are good at different things and many performance benchmarks exist which can emphasize either one. GPU cards just complicate things more. AMD is definitely the "bang for the buck" winner; unless you have unlimited budget you can compensate with better hardware elsewhere. Wanna play a game? See which proc/mobo/gpu can pump out the most fps in your price range. Wanna run office and internet? Anything with a few GHz and GBytes will work fine.

[Blibbax]

Utter UTTER nonsense - I made a direct comparison to the benefit you get for the price you pay on a component level.

To make it a bit clearer, assuming both the prices and the benchmarks are accurate, you're looking at paying just under 4c per point for the AMD, and well over 9c per point on the Intel.

It would appear that you missed my point. Of course you pay more per performance with more expensive parts. Like every single other thing you can buy.

The point is that if you were building a system of the likes that the Phenom is aimed at, the i7 would be a stupid choice for all the reasons well documented here.

If, on the other hand, you wanted the best that money can buy, of course you won't get the same value for money, but putting a Phenom in it would be nothing short of retarded.

[Konrad]

AMD and Intel play leapfrog all the time. i7-990X on X58 is perhaps the best now, but X6-1090T on 890FX benches nearly as high at one third the cost.

[Blibbax]

AMD and Intel play leapfrog all the time. i7-990X on X58 is perhaps the best now, but X6-1090T on 890FX benches nearly as high at one third the cost.

An i7-950 or 930 would be a fairer comparison, but your points remains.

[Konrad]

I chose the 990X because I wanted to emphasize how the price gap is exponential while the performance gap is linear. Best (mass consumer) stuff available for now, that I know of.

[nevermind1534]

If anyone even considers getting an i7-960 get a 950 instead and overclock it by 200+Mhz...pocket the $325 and keep the same performance. Or, like others have already said, get the much cheaper Phenom and reduce cost by a lot and performance by a little.

Micro Center has the 950 for only $200.

[Mark_Hardware]

OOhhh an Intel vs AMD thread.... :popcorn:

[Konrad]

Has anyone ever gotten their hands on an engineering sample?

[OvRiDe]

My i7 870 is an ES.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1019766/ovride_cpuid_es.PNG

[Blibbax]

OOhhh an Intel vs AMD thread.... :popcorn:

More of an economics vs common sense thread tbh :P

[diluzio91]

OOhhh an Intel vs AMD thread.... :popcorn:

im with him... :popcorn: :searches for AMD flag to wave:

[billygoat333]

now the best question... do you think amd's prices will fall when sandy bridge comes out?

[Konrad]

I think AM3 stuff will remain at par with current prices, AM3+ will cost a bit more (especially the unlocked Blacks). Older sockets will liquidate cheap until they're gone.

Intel's Extreme stuff will still sit ~$1000, but their other stuff might shuffle down in price a bit, at least until their new P68 cometh out.

[x88x]

Intel's Extreme stuff will still sit ~$1000, but their other stuff might shuffle down in price a bit, at least until their new P68 cometh out.

I'm not sure about the Bulldozer launch prices, but I think you've got Intel right on the money. Intel's top end consumer CPU has always been ~$1,000 for as long as I can remember, and I'm sure it'll stay that way for a long time yet to come. :P

[slaveofconvention]

I have a Amd A64 3000 939 pin engineering sample lol - well it said engineering sample in the bios - might be the board heh