Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ati/NVIDIA amd/intel?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    I have an Intel Core 2 Duo Q9500 and I have it running at stock clock speeds stably undervolted it to 1.1 volts, which makes it extremely cool running. I am sure that the core ix processors can be undervolted as well, especially the 32nm varieties.

    Anyway, as far as benchmarks at major review sites go, AMD's processors are about equal to my Intel Core 2 Duo Q9500. The Core ix series tends to outperform them in almost every benchmark.
    I guess that just depends on how you want to look at it. If you choose to compare Intels $500-$1000 CPUs vs AMD's $245 CPU, then that may well be true. But come on, lets be realistic, most people have a price point. If your price point is above $245 then Intel is your only choice. If on the other hand, like most people, your price point is $245 or below, then AMD becomes attractive. Not extremely attractive, but in the face of Intels temps.......

    http://www.techspot.com/review/195-m...nce/page6.html

    Notice how on highly integer dependent single threaded benchmarks I7 860 has a nice lead over the 965BE. However as the thread count increases Phenoms generally scale better than I7 does. On single threaded FP loads the difference is minor, but as the thread count increases Phnom scales better again....

    The real question is, what do you use your computer for. If your answer is an application that uses a good amount of well written integer code, then Intel will be the clear choice if your willing to deal with the temperatures. On the other hand if you use a well written multithreaded application that makes FP instructions, it will probably run equally well on both architectures, maybe with a slight advantage to AMD.

    The next question is how do you know how your application will perform? Google it. If you heavily use an application that needs the best performance, then chances are that somebody has already benchmarked it.

    Do you use POVray? Do you use Cinebench? Do you use SiSoft Sandra? I mean really do you use PCmark? And when your playing a game do you actually play it at 1024x768 with the lowest possible settings?? Alot of people do use winrar, but what about 7zip? And really handbrake, what about AutoGK?

    And really what the hell is up with all of these integer heavy synthetic benchmarks? I think in the real world most code is heavily FP dependant. Desktop applications like firefox, or the ms Office apps. It seems like Anand and Toms and HardOCP and ExtremeSystems always pick out the most synthetic and most integer heavy benches they can find... In recent years the benches that are being pushed out are less and less real world. You will --NEVER-- run any real workload that even closely resembles Sandras arithmatic bench.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    Bah the edit time. Correction, no VT-d, has VT-x.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    i3 has VT, but no VT-x or VT-d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    @BlackStar

    Btw. every Intel iX supports VT. No AMD CPU supports VT but since AM2 (with the exception of Sempron) they support AMD-V (formerly known as Pacifica). In /proc/cpuinfo -> vmx -> Intel VT, svm -> AMD-V.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shining Arcanine
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    OK, so if you dont like that one then how about these.....

    http://www.thetomorrowtimes.com/2009...ooler-and.html
    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2019595
    http://aphnetworks.com/reviews/thermaltake_silent_1156

    These are all I7 860s, which happen to be priced similar to Phenom 965....

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...65,2468-5.html
    http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3621

    I can go on if you like.. For a quick rundown, for about the same price you can get a 2.8ghz I7 running stock with load temps around 65-80 degrees celcius, or you can get a BE965 at 3.4ghz (performance should be about the same, maybe a slight edge to AMD.) running stock with load temps arounf 40-55 degrees celcius.

    The I7 generally overclocks to between 3.9ghz-4.2ghz with a good aftermarket cooler and runs between 75-100 degrees, the AMD can get between 3.8ghz-4.0ghz with a good aftermarket cooler and will run between 55-65 degrees The performance edge when overclocked may go to Intel, but I'm gonna have to say with temps like that the overall better deal is probably gonna have to go to amd.
    I have an Intel Core 2 Duo Q9500 and I have it running at stock clock speeds stably undervolted it to 1.1 volts, which makes it extremely cool running. I am sure that the core ix processors can be undervolted as well, especially the 32nm varieties.

    Anyway, as far as benchmarks at major review sites go, AMD's processors are about equal to my Intel Core 2 Duo Q9500. The Core ix series tends to outperform them in almost every benchmark.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    Why do you compare s1366? There the cpus are 130w tdp, s1156 for dual 73w and quad 95w. In idle mode they beat AMD chips with ease also for load.
    OK, so if you dont like that one then how about these.....

    http://www.thetomorrowtimes.com/2009...ooler-and.html
    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2019595
    http://aphnetworks.com/reviews/thermaltake_silent_1156

    These are all I7 860s, which happen to be priced similar to Phenom 965....

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...65,2468-5.html
    http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3621

    I can go on if you like.. For a quick rundown, for about the same price you can get a 2.8ghz I7 running stock with load temps around 65-80 degrees celcius, or you can get a BE965 at 3.4ghz (performance should be about the same, maybe a slight edge to AMD.) running stock with load temps arounf 40-55 degrees celcius.

    The I7 generally overclocks to between 3.9ghz-4.2ghz with a good aftermarket cooler and runs between 75-100 degrees, the AMD can get between 3.8ghz-4.0ghz with a good aftermarket cooler and will run between 55-65 degrees The performance edge when overclocked may go to Intel, but I'm gonna have to say with temps like that the overall better deal is probably gonna have to go to amd.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shining Arcanine
    replied
    Originally posted by Serjor View Post
    Hello!

    I'm new in those forums, so if this post doesn't belong here let me know and I'll post it were it belongs.

    I wan't to build a new computer from scratch, and one of it's mainly purposes will be gaming, and I'm very lost looking the best linux compatible hardware.

    The most simple questions, ati or nvidia? intel or amd?

    I guess, but it's just a supposition that the best option will be nvidia for the graphic card, but what about motherboard?

    Thank you very much

    PD. Sorry my bad english
    I suggest you go with Nvidia and Intel. The motherboard should be made by either Asus or Gigabyte. Intel's processors are more energy efficient than AMD's processors and programs are usually optimized with them in mind. Intel's chipsets are also very good. Nvidia's graphics cards have excellent binary drivers. You cannot go wrong with that combination.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Why do you compare s1366? There the cpus are 130w tdp, s1156 for dual 73w and quad 95w. In idle mode they beat AMD chips with ease also for load.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    Because your cpus needs more power and is slower, right? Maybe a few bucks cheaper when you buy it...
    Are you kidding me.....

    http://www.legitreviews.com/article/880/11/

    Those numbers are in celsius mind you.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...65,2468-5.html

    Again in celsius from toms no less....

    Leave a comment:


  • LinuxID10T
    replied
    Go AMD and ATI

    Personally, I have had some bad experiances with Intel and AMD. Intels never seem to have enough features, and AMD dud chips (see the original Phenom.) Despite this, I do recommend AMD for a better price to performance ratio. I know with all this talk floating around about how much faster the i series is, you may think AMD is falling behind, but where real world applications are concerned, AMD is comparable on the low end. I personally run an Athlon X4 635 @ 3.51 GHz, and for such a low price, it runs circles around a similarly priced Core i3.

    As for graphics, I would really go for ATI. I know that support sometimes seems flaky (see Unigine,) but for the most part, it is just fine. I also like the choice of being able to know that there is a open source driver available, if I ever wanted to use it. I have a Radeon HD 4650 in my computer, and for the most part, it can handle just about any Linux game I can throw at it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X