Conclusion
Admittedly, this shootout highlights an artificial condition. The direct comparison of various processors at a given clock speed doesn’t consider other important facts, such as market segments, platform constraints, available clock speeds, product cost, or overclocking margins. However, looking at the results of AMD and Intel processors running at the same core clock speed allows us to strictly define their differences at a set baseline.
Regular readers are aware of the situation on the processor market. Intel has the performance and the efficiency crown beyond any dispute, and this has a direct impact on processor pricing. Intel Core processors are always rather expensive. AMD has concentrated on providing maximum value based on its current portfolio, making Athlon II and Phenom II attractive options through aggressive pricing. A specific recommendation in favor or against certain options must only be given after consideration of platform aspects and total cost. Power savings on an Intel system are not worth a lot if the additional hardware cost exceeds the saved amount on the electricity bill (which it sometimes does).
As expected, Intel’s Core i7 on LGA 1366 is the undisputed performance winner at 2.8 GHz. There are a few benchmarks that run slightly better on Core i5 and LGA 1156, but these aren’t too significant in the big scheme of things. The Core 2 Quad is the direct competitor to AMD’s Phenom II X4 but it lags noticeably behind.
The efficiency battle is dominated by the Core i5 due to its 45nm fabrication process and feature cuts that do not have much impact in the real world. Core i5 lacks both the i7’s triple-channel memory controller and its Hyper-Threading, neither of which are necessary for excellent performance. Our Core 2 Quad processor also did very well, but we have to remind you that we used an S-model, which is the power efficient variant. Regular Core 2 Quad processors show significantly higher peak power.
Finally, we encourage you to take the results in stride. AMD’s Phenom II X4 isn’t as poor as the performance results at 2.8 GHz might suggest. You get faster clock speeds with AMD than on the Intel side for very little money, and once again we’d like to point at the fact that it’s the result that counts. Intel is in a comfortable position, but if AMD manages to deliver higher clock speeds and comparable performance at equal or lower cost, I’d say there is nothing wrong with that.
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Latest CPU News
- 24/05 – Nvidia to Push Tablet Prices to $199 With Kai Platform
- 23/05 – AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel
- 22/05 – AMD Hitting The Casino Floor With Embedded R-Series
- 22/05 – Does Your AMD FX Platform BSOD with Steam? Read This.
- 20/05 – Intel To Support Cheap Ultrabooks With Low-Cost Celerons
Latest CPU reviews
- 24/05 – Overclocking Core i7-3770K: Learning To Live With Compromise
- 22/05 – Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- 15/05 – AMD A10-4600M Review: Mobile Trinity Gets Tested
- 14/05 – Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility
- 23/04 – Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up From Sandy Bridge
It would be interesting to see compared systems at same price (probably would make sense if price included motherboard+processor).
As far as Gaming goes the results dont represent real life at all. At a resolution that someone with a CPU like the ones used there is really very little differance in performance at all. In fact the 965 would win some benchmarks at a sensable resolution.
Mactronix
what was wrong with the resolution shown i dont think to many people play at those res anymore with the current line up of monitors everyone has higher
doesn't the low resolutions push the game to be cpu bound and hence remove any chance of the gpu bottlenecking the result? hence the use of very low resolutions.
THG constantly manage to make AMD cpu's look a lot worse than they are don't they?
HINT : AMD already has a 2.8ghz cpu, USE THAT ONE INSTEAD OF DOWNCLOCKING THE FLAGSHIP YOU TARDS.
How much better a slant would this entire article have on AMD cpu's if they'd simply used a X4 925 instead of the X4 965?
SHEESH is it any wonder THG gets accusations of bias on every bloody article???
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo/ [...] &Itemid=42
Please read this article before doing any more benchmarks on intel power consumption.
THG constantly manage to make AMD cpu's look a lot worse than they are don't they?HINT : AMD already has a 2.8ghz cpu, USE THAT ONE INSTEAD OF DOWNCLOCKING THE FLAGSHIP YOU TARDS.How much better a slant would this entire article have on AMD cpu's if they'd simply used a X4 925 instead of the X4 965?SHEESH is it any wonder THG gets accusations of bias on every bloody article???
THG and every website which shows the true state of CPU performance(i.e. that AMD are behind Intel) will always cop accusations of bias from AMD fanboys who are addicted to denying reality.
THG and every website which shows the true state of CPU performance(i.e. that AMD are behind Intel) will always cop accusations of bias from AMD fanboys who are addicted to denying reality.
Funny how even a massively underclocked Phenom II can still beat an i7 in most of the gaming benchmarks.
Funny how even a massively underclocked Phenom II can still beat an i7 in most of the gaming benchmarks.
In a GPU limited situation, it appears that the PhII can compete with the i7, but once that bottleneck is removed, then the disparity in performance between each processor becomes apparent.
In a GPU limited situation, it appears that the PhII can compete with the i7, but once that bottleneck is removed, then the disparity in performance between each processor becomes apparent.
A gtx260 gpu limited at 1280x800 on medium settings? I don't think so, no.
The i5 manages ok, it's just further proof of the i7's gaming failings - and this time you can't even use gpu limited as the excuse.
THG and every website which shows the true state of CPU performance(i.e. that AMD are behind Intel) will always cop accusations of bias from AMD fanboys who are addicted to denying reality.
Yes AMD are behind Intel when all around performance is taken into account but the thing Intel is up on is encoding etc. For everyday usage in the real world, that's gaming and the odd bit of encoding where 18 seconds difference doesn't matter to anyone AMD are totally in the race.
Low power consumption is nice but it isnt a reason to buy one over the other. The differance is exactly the same thing as buying a diesel car over a petrol one because the running costs are lower, that differance being nothing. The milage you need to do before the fuel costs start to out way the extra you paid is huge. Same as you would get to the point where you are buying a new PC before the low power consunption of the intel would make a differance over teh extra you paid for the hardware.
In fact im strongly looking at AMD for my next build.
Mactronix
i just find it funny how people consider the GTX 260 a weak GPU, but in terms of performance it's holding its own in the top 10 cards from nVidia(from what i can make out)
Also, the Phenom ii 965 isn't exactly miles behind the i7s, it's clearly slower than the I7s in many benchmarks which involve sheer number crunching muscle, but in gaming benchmarks, AMDs flagship cpu is on par with the I7 regardless of only using a Dual channel memory configuration.
I personally can't go above 1366x768 in resolution(using a 720p HDTV)
so its nice to see benchmarks done using 1280x1024
Exactly if you want to crunch numbers and worry about power usage then get an i5/i7
If you want a general purpose/gaming PC get an AMD CPU. At a decent resolution with a top end card gaming wise the 965 actually beats an i7 in some games.
Mactronix
Imagine what AMD could do with that Triple channel controller...
But more to the point, in the 10 years i've been using AMD CPUs
(From K6-III 400 > Duron 750 > Athlon xp 1800 > Athlon 64 2800(754) > AMD Athlon 64 3700(939) then to Phenom II x4 955) and i've noticed in benchmarking AMD have favoured 3D application performance since the end of the Super 7 Era, intel couldn't keep up with the athlon Slot A.
And as for pricing at the moment, you can't get a more ferocious CPU than the PII x4 965 for £135 (Retail boxed CPU)
A gtx260 gpu limited at 1280x800 on medium settings? I don't think so, no.The i5 manages ok, it's just further proof of the i7's gaming failings - and this time you can't even use gpu limited as the excuse.
The result for the i7 in that particular test seems a bit odd as it doesn't correspond to the results that Tom's got when they tested all four processors previously at 2.8Ghz with 4870x2's as the GPU
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core [...] 672-9.html
So it does appear that the lack of GPU power distorted the results in AMD's favour for that one result(even though the i5-750 handily beat it), but with plenty of GPU grunt, of course the better CPU shines through.
The result for the i7 in that particular test seems a bit odd as it doesn't correspond to the results that Tom's got when they tested all four processors previously at 2.8Ghz with 4870x2's as the GPU
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core [...] 672-9.html
So it does appear that the lack of GPU power distorted the results in AMD's favour for that one result(even though the i5-750 handily beat it), but with plenty of GPU grunt, of course the better CPU shines through.
Ye sure...what was it the i5 had over the i7 again? On one hand you claim the better cpu shines through with plenty of gpu grunt, but you can't explain why the i5 is scoring so much higher?
Face it, the i7 is a lemon of a gaming cpu.
Ye sure...what was it the i5 had over the i7 again? On one hand you claim the better cpu shines through with plenty of gpu grunt, but you can't explain why the i5 is scoring so much higher?
Face it, the i7 is a lemon of a gaming cpu.
There appears to be something wrong with that particular benchmark as you don't see those results anywhere else.
Besides the other Tom's link I showed you(which you obviously couldn't understand), you don't see that result on other sites.
Here The Tech Report using a GTX260 shows the i7 at stock speeds beating a 3.4Ghz Ph II in Left for Dead on averagey settings
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17545/7
No actually the lack of GPU power distorts things in Intels favour.
If this test was done with a 5850 the gaming results would be level across the board.
Mactronix
No actually the lack of GPU power distorts things in Intels favour.If this test was done with a 5850 the gaming results would be level across the board. Mactronix
Check out this review with a 4870x2, it does not produce the results you suggest.
No actually the lack of GPU power distorts things in Intels favour.If this test was done with a 5850 the gaming results would be level across the board. Mactronix
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core [...] 31672.html
Check out this review with a 4870x2, it does not produce the results you suggest.