Phenom II 965 seems faster in some games than I7 920

[anubis44]

If you're ONLY going to be gaming and never plan to, for example, rip a DVD to H.264 or compress large .rar files, then you'd be fine with a less powerful CPU. However, if you actually do any sort of semi-productive work on your PC then you're better off with intel processors.

Or if you play games, rip DVDs only occasionally to H.264 rather than doing it 24/7 as a job, don't mind the extra few measly seconds of waiting to retouch a photo, don't want to buy a new motherboard each and every single time you upgrade your processor, want to save money buying CPU/mobo/ram up front, and don't want to help a callous, monopolistic company snuff out its only remaining competitor so they can jack the price of CPUs back up to $1000 per unit, then you (and probably most of us) are better off going AMD.

[Nater]

Yeah, because when AMD was the performance leader they sold their top-end CPUs for $250 a pop and gave you a beautiful vase of flowers. Grow up. intel and AMD have the exact same goals; to control as much of the x86-64 processor market as possible and return maximum profits to their shareholders. If AMD could get away with charging a grand for a Phenom II, they would and they have in the past (Athlon FX?).

Not to mention that intel requiring a new motherboard with new processors isn't a big deal at all. 99.9% of the market doesn't care, in fact I've only done a CPU upgrade once without replacing the motherboard too. That AMD's server chips use the same socket is really only advantageous from a manufacturing standpoint. Data centers don't pull CPUs, they pull the whole server and replace it.

Also, AMD has had it's fair share of socket replacements too. Remember S754 and S940? People who dropped a thousand (just like evil intel) on an FX-53 were probably pretty pissed when AMD EOLed the socket in favor of 939. Or when they EOLed 939 in favor of AM2. But I'm sure there would good technical reasons for doing so. Just as when intel dropped LGA775 for LGA1366 and LGA1156. intel finally went with an on-die memory controller, they couldn't keep using the LGA775 socket as more bandwidth was required.

I always like people who comment on Photoshop performance but obviously know absolutely nothing of the program. Doing bracketed HDR exposures, or working with a lot of layers, is a lot more intensive than 'photo retouching'.

[Soul Assassin]

Yeah, because when AMD was the performance leader they sold their top-end CPUs for $250 a pop and gave you a beautiful vase of flowers.

I never got a beautiful vase!

[taggart6]

No, it's not magic. It's the fact that extremely high resolutions and AA/AF levels, games are far more limited by the GPU than by the CPU.

The performance deltas here are on the order of one to three frames per second. Basically so low that you can consider it even. There is a reason why CPU tests use low resolution game runs (mainly to test the memory subsystem). As has been known, running games at the level people actually play them at has little to do with CPU performance.

Pretty much any modern CPU can easily handle any game out there. This just goes to reinforce that. If AMD's inferior Deneb chips can keep pace with Bloomfield or Lynnfield chips in gaming, but get battered badly in CPU intensive tasks, it's obvious that most games don't hit the CPU very heavily.

If you're ONLY going to be gaming and never plan to, for example, rip a DVD to H.264 or compress large .rar files, then you'd be fine with a less powerful CPU. However, if you actually do any sort of semi-productive work on your PC then you're better off with intel processors.

That's good to know for the one time a year I might rar a group of files greater then 100 MB in total size.

[Nater]

I never got a beautiful vase!

It's pronounced VAHzzze.

[anubis44]

Yeah, because when AMD was the performance leader they sold their top-end CPUs for $250 a pop and gave you a beautiful vase of flowers. Grow up. intel and AMD have the exact same goals; to control as much of the x86-64 processor market as possible and return maximum profits to their shareholders. If AMD could get away with charging a grand for a Phenom II, they would and they have in the past (Athlon FX?).

I'm well aware of the fact that corporations seek to maximize profits. The trouble is that SOME of them are more willing to do anything to realize this goal, even breaking the law. I have no trouble paying more money for a top-line AMD or Intel processor if I have the money to do so. What I DO have trouble with is helping a known criminal company crush its final competitor. That's NOT very smart, even if you like their products. You seem like a clever fellow. Surely you can understand that AMD's withdrawal from the x86 market would spell the end of cheap Intel processors. If you DO understand this, then stop telling people they're stupid for buying AMD. It makes you look bad.

I always like people who comment on Photoshop performance but obviously know absolutely nothing of the program. Doing bracketed HDR exposures, or working with a lot of layers, is a lot more intensive than 'photo retouching'.

I don't use photoshop very much, and I've never represented myself as a photoshop expert, so your point simply serves to make you come off as abrasive and rude. My point still stands - unless you're using photoshop for work (and let's face it, who the hell knows how to do bracketed HDR exposures who DOESN'T use it for work), you aren't going to be upset with your Phenom II.

[Soul Assassin]

It seems to me that the only viable reason to buy AMD is to not buy Intel. Which is fine, some people just have problems with some companies. AFAIK Intel is better at every price point, so AMD doesn't even have a price advantage anymore.

For years I've bought ATI GPUs because I don't like nVidia as a company, even when ATI GPUs weren't the greatest. But I never tried to use funny math to try and make ATI seem like the better solution, I just accepted that I was supporting the company I preferred.

[Nater]

intel has no intention of completely destroying AMD. That would create far too many anti-trust issues and they already have enough of that. They want AMD down below 20% market share. I think they've already accomplished this over the last few years with superior products. In the past, they engaged in illegal and probably illegal activities.

If you take such a moral stance on who's products you buy or don't buy, then surely you don't run Windows. Microsoft's anti-competitive practices put those of intel to shame.

[fluffmonster]

If you take such a moral stance on who's products you buy or don't buy, then surely you don't run Windows. Microsoft's anti-competitive practices put those of intel to shame.

Not a good comparison. However more aggressive Microsoft's tactics might have been, they aren't necessarily as harmful. A big factor in the harm from anti-competitive behavior is the ease with which firms can enter or leave the industry. Software has easier entry than silicon. Look at browsers...as brutal as MS was, what has it gotten them? There are many (and arguably better) competing products offered on the market anyway. Working with silicon, on the other hand, is a harder industry to enter or even expand in. Intel's anti-competitive tactics offer a much more durable benefit to the firm and durable harm to competition because they can better capitalize on a lack of competition. Summary: Intel's practices give them more control over their market than MS's did for theirs.

[Soul Assassin]

Wow. 'What has IE gotten for MS?' How about a decade of standards that go in their favor? How about nearly complete control of internet banking via ActiveX and other MS technologies? How about endless Windows Server sales to support IIS installations that support IE-specific extensions? How about the tens of millions of dollars in advertising dollars that msn.com generates every year because it's the homepage of like 50M people?

And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. And that's just IE. How about Word's destruction of WordPerfect? Or Excel's destruction of Lotus 1-2-3? Or Windows Media's destruction of RealMedia?

Intel is a d-i-s-t-a-n-t second to Microsoft when it comes to anti-competitive behavior.

[anubis44]

If you take such a moral stance on who's products you buy or don't buy, then surely you don't run Windows. Microsoft's anti-competitive practices put those of intel to shame.

I run it. Nobody said I 'bought' it, though...

[anubis44]

It seems to me that the only viable reason to buy AMD is to not buy Intel. Which is fine, some people just have problems with some companies. AFAIK Intel is better at every price point, so AMD doesn't even have a price advantage anymore.

Or to upgrade a Socket AM2+ system with a new processor without replacing everything else. It's called 'saving money'. Perhaps you've heard of the idea?

For years I've bought ATI GPUs because I don't like nVidia as a company, even when ATI GPUs weren't the greatest. But I never tried to use funny math to try and make ATI seem like the better solution, I just accepted that I was supporting the company I preferred.

I don't recall any 'funny math' being used to justify anything, just valid benchmarks and value-for-dollar estimates. For many people, going Intel is still more expensive. Why can't you just admit that? Look at the primary machine in my sig, and tell me if you can just exactly how somebody could build a comparable Intel system for the same price. THEN I'll believe the garbage you're saying.

[Soul Assassin]

Or to upgrade a Socket AM2+ system with a new processor without replacing everything else. It's called 'saving money'. Perhaps you've heard of the idea?

I don't even understand what you're saying here. Are you saying you can't upgrade an Intel processor? Are you trying to say that AMD doesn't change sockets? What is your point exactly?

I don't recall any 'funny math' being used to justify anything, just valid benchmarks and value-for-dollar estimates.

Intel CPUs are better, dollar for dollar. Trying to establish anything else is "funny math". No need to get all worked up about it.

[fluffmonster]

Intel CPUs are better, dollar for dollar. Trying to establish anything else is "funny math". No need to get all worked up about it.

So, you are saying there is never a circumstance or performance target in which AMD is the more affordable option?

[Soul Assassin]

So, you are saying there is never a circumstance or performance target in which AMD is the more affordable option?

I wouldn't say "never". There are exceptions to everything. But I don't see the point in basing a whole argument on an exception.

I have nothing against AMD. I wish they were more competitive than they are.