# i7 920 or AMD x6



## jellyrole (May 16, 2010)

I game, watch movies, multitask, internet, email, that kinda stuff.

I have the chance to switch from the 920 right now, but won't soon, so I what do you guys think?


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 16, 2010)

you already have a 920 dont bother not worth it


----------



## logan (May 16, 2010)

ya, no need to change from that. 

hell, im on a core 2 duo and i do all of that just fine


----------



## Athlon2K15 (May 16, 2010)

+1 on the 920...there not much different between the two


----------



## erocker (May 16, 2010)

By all means keep what you have.


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2010)

Yep, keep what you have. Both have the same performance, clock for clock for the most part.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 16, 2010)

I would only recommend it as a Second machine, not a replacement.

Stick with what you Have, It will last you for some time.


----------



## jellyrole (May 16, 2010)

That's what I figured. I'm blocking the motherboard soon, which is why now would be the time to change.

Thanks guys.


----------



## alexsubri (May 16, 2010)

Wait until AMD has their 12 core processor, then we'll see some heads rolling


----------



## surfingerman (May 16, 2010)

> Wait until AMD has their 12 core processor, then we'll see some heads rolling



hopefully it'll have more than 6mb l3 catch and a new socket, maybe thats too much to ask for


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 16, 2010)

why would they want a new socket? id rather not get shafted like intel users thank you lol but more on topic as previously stated. no point in the switch


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 16, 2010)

L3 may very well not be needed on Bulldozer.


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2010)

surfingerman said:


> hopefully it'll have more than 6mb l3 catch and a new socket, maybe thats too much to ask for





crazyeyesreaper said:


> why would they want a new socket? id rather not get shafted like intel users thank you lol but more on topic as previously stated. no point in the switch



You're gonna need a new socket if you want a 12core. And bulldozer will be a new socket anyway. Don't base *any* cpu decisions on socket longevity for now. All of them are due to be replaced in a year or 2, in both camps.


----------



## AlienIsGOD (May 16, 2010)

Its amazing that AM2/2+/3 has lasted as long as it did.  I hope their new socket has the same longevity as their current ones.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (May 16, 2010)

One more time I guess, save the money and stick with the chip you already have.  Get a new mobo for it since you seem to want to junk the one you have.

If you just want to try an AMD plateform, its your money so spend it.  But honestly, both chips are complete overkill for what you do.  Unless you are really into 3D rendering, I would spend the money on something else.


----------



## Cecil (May 17, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Yep, keep what you have. Both have the same performance, clock for clock for the most part.



No they dont. The 920 is way faster clock for clock. It also clocks higher on average as well. 
The X6 only comes in handy for extremely multi-threaded apps, and the HT on the i7 mostly makes up that difference.


Thuban is no different then Deneb accept extra cores, which dont do anything unless the software can put them to use. In other words, not useful 95% of the time.


----------



## Lionheart (May 17, 2010)

Cecil said:


> No they dont. The 920 is way faster clock for clock. It also clocks higher on average as well.
> The X6 only comes in handy for extremely multi-threaded apps, and the HT on the i7 mostly makes up that difference.
> 
> 
> Thuban is no different then Deneb accept extra cores, which dont do anything unless the software can put them to use. In other words, not useful 95% of the time.



shadedshushadedshushadedshushadedshu


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 17, 2010)

Lets not turn this into an argument people. Cecil if you read the original posters comment, and then the subsequent posts you would have your answer, but you failed to do anything so back off with your crass comments and leave please.


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (May 17, 2010)

I saw nothing "crass" in Cecil's post...just stating his opinion on the subject.


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 17, 2010)

If you were buying a whole new computer. X6 would have been the way to go. But just as an upgrade, it wont make a difference. Or atleast for some time when hexacore utilized apps and games come out......which might be in a long time... so instead save more cash for the future and get an intel 6 core


----------



## Cecil (May 17, 2010)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> shadedshushadedshushadedshushadedshu





eidairaman1 said:


> Lets not turn this into an argument people. Cecil if you read the original posters comment, and then the subsequent posts you would have your answer, but you failed to do anything so back off with your crass comments and leave please.



The guy is asking if there is reason to change from his 920 to a Thuban. Someone replied with false information. 
Seriously, whats the problem?
The Phenom II arch is clock for clock with yorkfield C2Qs. Not with Core i7, or even i5.


rickss69 said:


> I saw nothing "crass" in Cecil's post...just stating his opinion on the subject.



Thanks


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (May 17, 2010)

Heck Jellyrole, you have better parts in your current rig than most who post here now. I would'nt change a thing unless you are just bored with it and want to branch out. If you just want some kicks overclocking I suggest you try one of the i3/i5 dual cores...they clock like crazy even on air. You can pick up a 530 and a cheap Gigabyte mb and have a ton of fun. 

GIGABYTE GA-H55M-S2H LGA 1156 Intel H55 HDMI Micro...


----------



## exodusprime1337 (May 17, 2010)

as an owner of an i7 and a phenomII 1090t hexacore i can say they're both fast. Is intel faster clock for clock, yes it is.  In your current situation others whom posted are right, your rig is plenty fast and faster than many others who post here.  I would say do the switch if your looking to try something different, not because of the performance.  I can honestly say that the 1090t i have clocked at 4.3Ghz is a beast and screams, and i also agree with some others whom have posted in the past that the amd chips seem to operate smoother than the intel counterparts(windows desktop apps not games)

as far as gaming goes.. at 1920x1200 i wouldn't see a framerate difference between the two chips if i wanted to, things are pretty much even there, and probably will remain so for some time, i'm pretty much reaching the gpu bottleneck in a lot of the newer games i play.


----------



## PaulieG (May 17, 2010)

Cecil said:


> The guy is asking if there is reason to change from his 920 to a Thuban. Someone replied with false information.
> Seriously, whats the problem?
> The Phenom II arch is clock for clock with yorkfield C2Qs. Not with Core i7, or even i5.
> 
> ...



For the short time I was running a 1090T/Crosshair IV, it was benching everything comparable clock for clock to one of my old i7 860 rigs, and just a hair under my 920's. For sure a step beyond C2Q. I personally like the x58 platform better than AM3, so I went back to Intel quickly, but it was certainly not a lack of performance. I actually love the chip. I just don't like AMD boards/bios. That being said, I would stick with the 920. Overall, it will give you slightly better performance.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (May 17, 2010)

Cecil said:


> The guy is asking if there is reason to change from his 920 to a Thuban. Someone replied with false information.
> Seriously, whats the problem?
> The Phenom II arch is clock for clock with Yorkfield C2Qs. Not with Core i7, or even i5.
> 
> ...



I love when TPU tries to be nice.  Plain and simple, if you look through several dozen reviews or so, you will see the Phenom II X6 Thuban is clock for clock about the same as an i7 920.  It takes a truly commanding lead in 3D rendering, a back seat in several benchmarks, the same for gaming, and ahead in some of the benchmarks.  These tests are done at stock and at 4.2 Ghz each.  So you are the one posting false information.

As far as the Phenom II X4 965 does doe rather well against the i5 750.  It does not beat it, but is not overwhelmed by any means.  And while the Yorkfield is and was a great chip, only the higher end $300+ models can compete against the PII X4's and I would venture to say would struggle dearly against the X6's.

Now setting aside pointless pissing contest from benchmark reviews and people's strange concern about e-penis in the hundred of "swinging" contests online, lets get to some real issues.

Cost of change:  Honestly a i7 board of decent quality will cost as much 1055T and a mid-ranged board for the AMD architecture.  Winnner:  I am going to go with i7 here because being able to spend all the of say.....$300 to $350 (cost of either path) on just the board allows for much higher quality equipment.

After effect:  Switching would leave him with an i7 920, at least 1 stick of RAM, and his current mobo (which I am sure he implied he would be trashing).  While he can easily sell the i7, the RAM stick may be a harder sell as it would not be in an set. Winner i7: Less extra parts to worry about selling or using elsewhere.

System Improvement:  From the reviews I have read, there will be little difference.  Gain something here, loose something there.  Real world differences only crop up in DVD encoding and extreme CPU use (Folding, 3D rendering, PhotoShop 300 MB+ file conversion, etc.).  He doesn't seem to dev into this area so gains and loses here are moot.  Winner:  None

So end the end, the only real factor here is cost.  And this is coming from a guy who has not bought an Intel product in 9 years.  Stick with the i7.  Go buy that nice new mobo you been eyeballing for months, but was too expensive to justify spending the money on.  This will keep the quality of your parts on a high level, provide better resell value later, reduce failure possibilities, etc. etc.

If this situation was reversed and he had an AMD with an X4 955, the answer would be the same, no need to switch for what you do.  People here would have said, "Consider an X6 as a drop-in upgrade before switch to Intel."  Why?  Because it would have been more cost effective.


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (May 17, 2010)

I don't think he is going to "trash" a Vanilla Evga X58....that is already more mb than most have and a damn fine OCer to boot.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (May 17, 2010)

rickss69 said:


> I don't think he is going to "trash" a Vanilla Evga X58....that is already more mb than most have and a damn fine OCer to boot.



he said he was quote "blocking the motherboard soon so now would be the time to change".  

I may have simply misunderstood that statement.  I figured if changing to an new architecture was an option, the old mobo was not going to be included in the new system either way.


----------



## Wile E (May 17, 2010)

Cecil said:


> No they dont. The 920 is way faster clock for clock. It also clocks higher on average as well.
> The X6 only comes in handy for extremely multi-threaded apps, and the HT on the i7 mostly makes up that difference.
> 
> 
> Thuban is no different then Deneb accept extra cores, which dont do anything unless the software can put them to use. In other words, not useful 95% of the time.



920 is not faster clock for clock. Go dig up reviews, they are both almost perfectly equal, Thuban wins some, i7 w/HT wins some when both are at the same clock speeds. In other words, a 4GHz 1090T is the same speed as a 4Ghz 920, give or take. I didn't say clock for clock per core, I said clock for clock. 6 AMD cores are roughly equal to 4 i7 cores with hyperthreading.

I never mentioned anything about clocking, and I even told him to keep what he has. My info was not false.


----------



## Cecil (May 17, 2010)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I love when TPU tries to be nice.  Plain and simple, if you look through several dozen reviews or so, you will see the Phenom II X6 Thuban is clock for clock about the same as an i7 920.  It takes a truly commanding lead in 3D rendering, a back seat in several benchmarks, the same for gaming, and ahead in some of the benchmarks.  These tests are done at stock and at 4.2 Ghz each.  So you are the one posting false information.
> 
> As far as the Phenom II X4 965 does doe rather well against the i5 750.  It does not beat it, but is not overwhelmed by any means.  And while the Yorkfield is and was a great chip, only the higher end $300+ models can compete against the PII X4's and I would venture to say would struggle dearly against the X6's.
> 
> ...





Wile E said:


> 920 is not faster clock for clock. Go dig up reviews, they are both almost perfectly equal, Thuban wins some, i7 w/HT wins some when both are at the same clock speeds. In other words, a 4GHz 1090T is the same speed as a 4Ghz 920, give or take. I didn't say clock for clock per core, I said clock for clock. 6 AMD cores are roughly equal to 4 i7 cores with hyperthreading.
> 
> I never mentioned anything about clocking, and I even told him to keep what he has. My info was not false.



How nieve people can be. Clock for clock, core per core, i7 is 10-15% faster then Phenom II. Phenom IIs were never to compeat with i7. 

In multi threaded apps only does Thuban with 50% more cores then i7 does it come to about the same results. 

Of course rendering and other uses like that they are more even. If you read my post you would see I said they are similar with that. I even said that 95% of the time the extra cores wont matter, leaving 5% for when they would.

Not everyone does rendering, and in fact, MOST do not. So saying Thuban is clock for clock against i7 is in fact a false statement, no matter how you look at it. Thuban is clock for clock with Deneb since there is no difference among them accept core count, and you can look at any review which shows Deneb is clock for clock with Yorkfield. The reviews showing them compeat with i5 are NOT clock for clock. 

And, in the reviews for Thuban, they dont dissable turbo. So when they are running single threaded apps, the CPU is clocked far higher then stock.

If you take an i7 and a thuban, set both to the same speed with 4 cores, and 4 threads, with turbo dissabled, the i7 will win hands down.


----------



## Lionheart (May 17, 2010)

Dude, keep the system that you have, no need for upgrading or switching to another system, save ur cash and grab a SSD or another video card or sumthing like that 

I smell a moderator on the way


----------



## Wile E (May 17, 2010)

Cecil said:


> How nieve people can be. Clock for clock, core per core, i7 is 10-15% faster then Phenom II. Phenom IIs were never to compeat with i7.
> 
> In multi threaded apps only does Thuban with 50% more cores then i7 does it come to about the same results.
> 
> ...


Look, learn to read. I did not say per core. I said overall performance is equal clock for clock. 6 threads on Thuban is roughly equal to 8 threads on a quad core i7 w/HT when both are at the same clock speeds. Why the hell would I run only 4 threads thru Thuban, when it can do 6, and why would I run 4 thru the 920, when it can do 8? Do you purposely cripple your cpu to lower it's potential performance? I know I sure as hell don't. 

Adding 2 cores to deneb gives roughly a 50% boost in threaded apps at the same clock speed. So therefore, Thuban is roughly 50% faster than Deneb, at the same clock speeds.  

Adding more cores to an architecture gives it more processing power clock for clock.

And do you forget that Intel also has Turbo technology, so it also boosts clocks in less threaded apps? 

Following along yet?

Per core performance doesn't mean shit, only the end results do. The end result is that a 4Ghz Thuban is capable of roughly the same amount of overall work as a 4GHz i7 920.

And you still fail to realize, I told him to keep what he has.


----------



## Cecil (May 17, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Look, learn to read. I did not say per core. I said overall performance is equal clock for clock. 6 threads on Thuban is roughly equal to 8 threads on a quad core i7 w/HT when both are at the same clock speeds. Why the hell would I run only 4 threads thru Thuban, when it can do 6, and why would I run 4 thru the 920, when it can do 8? Do you purposely cripple your cpu to lower it's potential performance? I know I sure as hell don't.
> 
> Adding 2 cores to deneb gives roughly a 50% boost* in threaded apps *at the same clock speed. So therefore, Thuban is roughly 50% faster than Deneb, at the same clock speeds.
> 
> ...



That line right there. Name on a day to day bassis what apps are going to use 6-8 threads.

Also, have you ever used an i7? On a 920 turbo only bumps the multi up once, and it does it under load, not when less cores are needed. 

In 95% of tasks (the ones that dont use 6 cores) the i7 is faster. In the other 5% they are about the same.

So are they clock for clock? No, not at all. 




> You start running into problems when you look at lightly threaded applications or mixed workloads that aren't always stressing all six cores. In these situations Intel's quad-core Lynnfield processors (Core i5 700 series and Core i7 800 series) are better buys. They give you better performance in these light or mixed workload scenarios, not to mention lower overall power consumption.





> The Phenom II X6 is an interesting proposition as it's meant to provide heavy multi-tasking performance on a budget.
> Starting with the Phenom II X6 1090T, this processor can be matched to the Core i7 930 processor as they are both priced around the $300 mark. Unfortunately for the Phenom, the Core i7 930 processor was faster in most of our real-world tests. The Intel CPU dominated in all of our application benchmarks and was much faster in all of our gaming benchmarks. Games such as Company of Heroes and Resident Evil 5 heavily favored the Core i7 930 processor.





> Not every testing scenario showed the benefits of having six-cores, though. For example, in gaming we saw a little performance boost here and there, but nothing significant at the resolutions we actually play games on. Crank up the image quality and the screen resolution and you'll be limited by the graphics card way before the flagship processor of either company. The game developers need to stop porting games over from consoles and walking away from them! PC users deserve some solid code that takes advantage of 8 or more threads. It was an eye opener to see some of our gaming benchmarks only putting our processor under 20% load during testing!


Dont know what reviews you are reading, but thats pretty much the conclusion to them all.

In heavily multi-threaded apps, its able to tie a cheaper, 2 year old CPU, with two less cores and a lower stock CPU speed 


That doesnt mean they are bad, but they are not clock for clock with Intel, and anyone who thinks so has to be a fanboy. I just switched from an i7 running 4.4HT daily to an X2 555 unlocked running at 4Ghz daily. Why? Cause anything in the last two years is overkill for what 95% of people need in a daily PC. Doesnt change the fact the i7 was faster, even though you wouldnt be able to tell a difference between them daily.


----------



## Wile E (May 17, 2010)

Read my sys specs genius. I don't even own a Thuban. I own a QX9650 and a 980X. No fanboy here.

In gaming, the biggest factor is generally the GPU. I don't even bother with games for testing a cpu. It's kind of pointless.

Why would you even bother using apps that don't max the cpu as a cpu test? That tells me that the apps are the limitation, not the cpu.

In tests that max the cpu, you know even relatively common tasks, like converting videos, they are almost exactly equal clock for clock.

If you don't use apps that use all the processing power, then either processor is complete and total overkill for you anyway, so the performance difference in those apps is completely moot to the intent of my statements.

In all of this arguing, you STILL fail to recognize that my point in saying they are equal is that it's a waste of his time to switch to a Thuban when he already has the equally powerful i7, so you are apparently arguing just to argue.


----------



## Cecil (May 17, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Read my sys specs genius. I don't even own a Thuban. I own a QX9650 and a 980X. No fanboy here.
> 
> In gaming, the biggest factor is generally the GPU. I don't even bother with games for testing a cpu. It's kind of pointless.
> 
> ...



My last post here.

Your statement was Thuban and i7 are clock for clock. Just try making that statement anywhere else, and you will get laughed at. 

Im not arguing. I posted a fact correcting a false statement. The follow up posts were arguing. I posted examples from multiple reviews that state in REAL WORLD APPS, the i7 wins, as it was ment to. AMD never ment for thuban to compeat with i7, and it doesnt 95% of the time. Plain and simple.


----------



## Wile E (May 17, 2010)

Cecil said:


> My last post here.
> 
> Your statement was Thuban and i7 are clock for clock. Just try making that statement anywhere else, and you will get laughed at.
> 
> Im not arguing. I posted a fact correcting a false statement. The follow up posts were arguing. I posted examples from multiple reviews that state in REAL WORLD APPS, the i7 wins, as it was ment to. AMD never ment for thuban to compeat with i7, and it doesnt 95% of the time. Plain and simple.



Convert a video to h.264 using Mediacoder or ffmpeg or handbrake or whatever on each at the same clock speed, and come back and tell me with a straight face that Thuban and i7 are not equal clock for clock. All of these are real world apps, that are quite commonly used.

Tell me what real world apps i7's are so superior in that wouldn't be just as happy on a common dual core.

If you are looking to buy a Thuban or 8 thread i7, you obviously have a want or need for threaded performance, why are we discussing anything else? They are moot here. This is enthusiast class, and people that want the threaded performance. Non-threaded tests are stupid to use in this cpu class.


----------



## Binge (May 17, 2010)

Cecil said:


> My last post here.
> 
> Your statement was Thuban and i7 are clock for clock. Just try making that statement anywhere else, and you will get laughed at.
> 
> Im not arguing. I posted a fact correcting a false statement. The follow up posts were arguing. I posted examples from multiple reviews that state in REAL WORLD APPS, the i7 wins, as it was ment to. AMD never ment for thuban to compeat with i7, and it doesnt 95% of the time. Plain and simple.



That helps the OP how?  Have you ever thought that your opinion is based on a standard of computer operation which has no relevance to the OP or his question?  Give it up.  Wile E is a good guy and gives a rational unbiased opinion, the kind of an educated adult, while you're using the "best" as a means to debase the opinions of another forum member.


----------



## erocker (May 17, 2010)

The usefulness of this thread ended at about post #8. Thread is done.


----------

