Gaming Rig, Debating Intel or AMD

[MonkeyMhz]

It 100% depends on your need/cost.

If you can get a better deal on the AMD. Go for it since its gonna be pretty much on par aside from the odd win/loose. If you have a use for heavy number crunching go for i7.

Go for what suits you and what you want to get. Theres ups and downs to both the i7 and the 955. Overall i7 is a stronger CPU that runs a bit hotter. But if your just going to be playing games and your not wanting to spend too much them maybe the AMD would save you some cash.

Go decide which one to get on what you need and what you want. Eitherway your gonna end up with a great cpu.

 

[Dolk]

I don't like getting into these arguments, but here is something to help you visually see which is more expensive then the other. (Check my i7 vs Phenom II link in sig) (it was updated, yes)

 

[jheshka]

The i7 is actually supposed to blow the crap out of dual or tripple cores that amd is currently offering.

Intels made it so there's no fsb -- which will provide overall performance enhancement.

Also, the way intel has designed the i7s is that it will lower the power that the idle cores receive so that a single cored (gaming) application can get better performance.

 

[Mjolnir]

The i7 is actually supposed to blow the crap out of dual or tripple cores that amd is currently offering.

Intels made it so there's no fsb -- which will provide overall performance enhancement.

Also, the way intel has designed the i7s is that it will lower the power that the idle cores receive so that a single cored (gaming) application can get better performance.

Lol now youre comparing an apple to a pumpkin! AMDs Dual and tri core line were never even meant to come close to i7.. That was never the intention. How is comparing them even relevant? Sigh. Silly people...

 

[ChanceCoats123]

Just let it go. I reported anyway.

 

[Ahgemon]

depends on how much you want to spend on hardware. you already know intel is more expensive, along with nvidia, and the ddr3 which is only marginally faster than ddr2 and ....costs the most.

you can build an awesome rig for about 2 grand, no doubt about it.

or, if you want a bargin and save money to get performance close to the above described, go with AMD.

I'll tell you right now, with an AMD 955 chip, 8 gigabytes of ddr2 1066 ram, and 2 ati 4890's, all of which are cheaper than the intel solution, you will not notice a difference in todays video games, of course there will be some differences in frame rates, likely the intel set up with some gtx 295 cards being the absolute best and most expense.

AMD runs fast enough, it just almost makes no sense to spend the extra cash for intel and ddr3.

especially right now, in less than a year 32nm chips should be available to the market, likely intel will be the first to release them.

so these mighty 45nm chips are soon to be replaced. may as well save yourself some money and roll with AMD.

However, if you want to pony up the bucks get the intel. I am going to build an AMD gamming rig just because of cost effectiveness. just my opinion do what you like.

 

[David]

The i7 is actually supposed to blow the crap out of dual or tripple cores that amd is currently offering.

Intels made it so there's no fsb -- which will provide overall performance enhancement.

Also, the way intel has designed the i7s is that it will lower the power that the idle cores receive so that a single cored (gaming) application can get better performance.

This post fails. Also (and I know it doesn't make AMD >> i7) look into Hypertransport which appeared... erm... years before QPI. This post sounds like an intel advert.

depends on how much you want to spend on hardware. you already know intel is more expensive, along with nvidia, and the ddr3 which is only marginally faster than ddr2 and ....costs the most.

you can build an awesome rig for about 2 grand, no doubt about it.

or, if you want a bargin and save money to get performance close to the above described, go with AMD.

I'll tell you right now, with an AMD 955 chip, 8 gigabytes of ddr2 1066 ram, and 2 ati 4890's, all of which are cheaper than the intel solution, you will not notice a difference in todays video games, of course there will be some differences in frame rates, likely the intel set up with some gtx 295 cards being the absolute best and most expense.

AMD runs fast enough, it just almost makes no sense to spend the extra cash for intel and ddr3.

especially right now, in less than a year 32nm chips should be available to the market, likely intel will be the first to release them.

so these mighty 45nm chips are soon to be replaced. may as well save yourself some money and roll with AMD.

However, if you want to pony up the bucks get the intel. I am going to build an AMD gamming rig just because of cost effectiveness. just my opinion do what you like.

This post wins.

 

[freeagent]

^^

word.

I feel foolish for buying a 45nm i7

I could have waited..

But im jonesing for new hardware

 

[87dtna]

Intels made it so there's no fsb -- which will provide overall performance enhancement.

look into Hypertransport which appeared... erm... years before QPI.
.

LOL, yeah. AMD was way ahead of intel until the I7 came out. AMD used L2 cache per core, and then a shared L3...whats the I7 have? You guessed it!
And yeah ''QPI'', same exact thing as AMD's hypertransport which we've had for many years.
And sorry but why the hell are you compareing an AMD dual or triple core to an I7? Are you serious? The Phenom II 955 quad is really the only amd chip that stands a chance to compare to the I7, but it does a good job of it and for much less money. AMD's dual cores are 1/3 the price of an I7. You want to get a performance per dollar? I can build a best of everything amd 955 system for $750, and you build the I7 system for $1500, and you can go ahead and have 5-10% better performance for twice the price. If you guys have nothing better to do with your money you can just give it to me rather than flush it down the toilet.

 

[David]

Don't get me wrong, I like the i7. We have a machine with two i7-derived Xeons in it because they are as fast as hell.

I liked Ahgemons post mainly because he made his point, stated his opinion but accepted that people have their choice - i7 is faster but costs more. Pay your money, take your choice

 

[Mjolnir]

LOL, yeah. AMD was way ahead of intel until the I7 came out. AMD used L2 cache per core, and then a shared L3...whats the I7 have? You guessed it!
And yeah ''QPI'', same exact thing as AMD's hypertransport which we've had for many years.
And sorry but why the hell are you compareing an AMD dual or triple core to an I7? Are you serious? The Phenom II 955 quad is really the only amd chip that stands a chance to compare to the I7, but it does a good job of it and for much less money. AMD's dual cores are 1/3 the price of an I7. You want to get a performance per dollar? I can build a best of everything amd 955 system for $750, and you build the I7 system for $1500, and you can go ahead and have 5-10% better performance for twice the price. If you guys have nothing better to do with your money you can just give it to me rather than flush it down the toilet.

...LOL! Amd was ahead before i7? Really? so C2D and C2Q never existed? Dude get your facts right! Seriously! This isn't a flame thread anyway, so stop getting so worked up, please stop posting if you're going to post uneducated masses of misleading info.

 

[87dtna]

...LOL! Amd was ahead before i7? Really? so C2D and C2Q never existed? Dude get your facts right! Seriously! This isn't a flame thread anyway, so stop getting so worked up, please stop posting if you're going to post uneducated masses of misleading info.

What? In what way is the duo and quad like AMD's and the I7 architecture? The facts are, AMD and I7 use designate cache per core....and have seperate shared L3 cache. They also use hypertransport/QPI instead of the front side bus system. C2D and C2Q shares none of these features that AMD has been using for years and intel did not have until the I7 came out.

 

[freeagent]

i think he means that amd was the first with an imc. wich worked really well, but conroe still smashed em. thats another reason why i am moveing to i7, i miss the low latency snappiness that an imc provides

thats not to say my pc is not snappy, it is, but im talking down into the 40ms range.. thats perty quick!

 

[Ahgemon]

curious as to why intel still has the C2Q 9000 series chips priced the same as the i7 line, I have been waiting, and waiting for intel to drop the price on the q9650, which is still around 320 dollars, thats alittle bit less than the i7 920, what gives?!

I know the q9650 used to be 500 dollars back in early 2008, I dunno I just feel it should be marked below 200 dollars since the i7 line is the premier. Think there will be another price adjustment when intel releases the 32nm chips in sometime of 010? I hope.

Shoot you can get a phenom 955 for 220 dollars? and that chip is as good or better than the c2q 9000 series chips, over 100 bucks less too, pfffff no brainer.

So, google amd phenom 2 955 and 965, some of the websites have bench mark tests, people like to use first person shooters and fps for evaluations of raw processing power and thats ok, I'll put up a link

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2009/02/phenom-ii-scaling.ars

hopefully that clears up some performance what if's... the core i7's in the fps'rs usually do about 15% more power, so if your playing a shooter and your getting 85 fps, are you really going to kick yourself thinking you could be getting 100 fps? just food for thought.

 

[Ahgemon]

sorry hehe, night shift....bored

ok combo specials....

core i7 920 (494.98$)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.230255

AMD Asus M4A79T Deluxe AM3 (188.99$)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131363

Phenom 2 x4 955 (199.99$) currently sold out

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103674

199.99+188.99 = 388.98 494.98-388.98 = 106.00 (towards ddr3 memory)

oh and one last thing....

http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/503005-amd-phenom-ii-x4-965-975-a.html

look at which motherboard was used to achieve that over clock.... interesting indeed

 

[Mjolnir]

What? In what way is the duo and quad like AMD's and the I7 architecture? The facts are, AMD and I7 use designate cache per core....and have seperate shared L3 cache. They also use hypertransport/QPI instead of the front side bus system. C2D and C2Q shares none of these features that AMD has been using for years and intel did not have until the I7 came out.

I was more stating in terms of raw power and actual output. I guess our points are different and both valid. The tech for AMD was around earlier, yes, but Intel had 45nm far earlier, which allowed their earlier lines to throttle through.

Anyways, end result, we're both right.. Just making different points really XD. PEACE lol

 

[jgv115]

Stop! We all know that a Pentium 4 should be the CPU everyone buys. It owns the Core i7

 

[87dtna]

I was more stating in terms of raw power and actual output. I guess our points are different and both valid. The tech for AMD was around earlier, yes, but Intel had 45nm far earlier, which allowed their earlier lines to throttle through.

Anyways, end result, we're both right.. Just making different points really XD. PEACE lol

Yup!

I know what you mean, my E6300 scores higher in 3dmark06 vs my Phenom II 550 in the CPU score (3400vs3000, both at 3.8ghz), however I get higher SM2/SM3 scores and higher FPS with the AMD system. This is with sticking my gts250 into my intel system for better A/B testing, pretty much everything is the same in both systems besides mobo/cpu of course.

 

[87dtna]

sorry hehe, night shift....bored

ok combo specials....

core i7 920 (494.98$)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.230255

AMD Asus M4A79T Deluxe AM3 (188.99$)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131363

Phenom 2 x4 955 (199.99$) currently sold out

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103674

199.99+188.99 = 388.98 494.98-388.98 = 106.00 (towards ddr3 memory)

oh and one last thing....

http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/503005-amd-phenom-ii-x4-965-975-a.html

look at which motherboard was used to achieve that over clock.... interesting indeed

No no, you don't need a $200 board for an AMD system. Anything with the 790gx is going to overclock like a dream. And you also do not need ddr3.
Here's a perfectly fine and capable $100 board-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138128

So now you're talking $300 for the AMD board/cpu, and 4gb of ddr2-1066 of G.Skill ram is $55 VS 6gb of ddr3-1600 triple channel for the I7 is $100. The 1066 ddr2 ram at 5-5-5-15 timings scores a 7.4 on windows 7 experience for me, doesn't get a whole lot better than that and it's certainly no bottleneck.
So now you're talking $355 VS $600 for mobo/cpu/ram, for as I stated before about 10% better performance for nearly double the price. Good job.

 

[87dtna]

Stop! We all know that a Pentium 4 should be the CPU everyone buys. It owns the Core i7

I just upgraded my grandma's PC for her with stuff I had laying around, went from a P3 1.0ghz to a P4 2.2ghz, now it flies LOL.