1 secret of the year.

[Hunt3r]

Athlon X4 620 took advantage of the Core i3 530. Finally, AMD has gained on Intel's something. It will be a light at the end of the tunnel??


http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7475

Oops, took a pressure of 435 Athlon II X3 also.

http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7479&pageid=6406

 

[newtekie1]

Sooo...you are suprised that a quad-core beat a dual?

And even still, the win seems kind of marginal...

I mean in real world tasks that most of us do most often, the i3 seems to still manage to compete.

WinRAR - i3 Wins
Crysis - i3 Wins
UT3 - i3 Loses by only 7%(8FSP, still giving over 110FPS)
HAWX - i3 Wins
Bionic Commando - i3 Loses by only 1.5%(2FPS, still giving over 130FPS)
Call of Duty: MW2 - i3 Wins
Left 4 Dead 2 - i3 Loses by only 3%(3.5FPS, still giving over 110FPS)
DiRT2 - i3 Wins

I think it is actually a pretty amazing feat that a dual-core is able to come very close to matching a quad.

The only thing that will make the difference really will be price. The i3 will likely be more expensive at first, but prices will continue to drop.

 

[Hunt3r]

The cost of intel yet on any processor is very expensive so many people going for AMD

 

[Goodman]

yeah! nothing impressive...

Maybe when AMD release the Six-core desktop (may-june?) they would have something good to really compete with Intel offering?

 

[Hunt3r]

maybe yes .. let's wait what will happen in the middle of January .. with the new releases from intel

 

[3volvedcombat]

The cost of intel yet on any processor is very expensive so many people going for AMD

Ya the cost of Intel's 4.2-4.5Ghz overclocked 24/7 chips that do it at such low voltage 24/7 is fairly good.
But isnt there Intel's i5's and i7's which you can get for 150-200 bucks respecticly, o wait arnt phenom II 955's and 65's about 150+ to or COULD i be lost?
Also the i5's and i7's outperform the AMD Phenom II's?

You dont even know the Price of Intels i3's yet really till they are finnaly out, but judging from 150 dollar core i5's then the duals should be 100-120 dollars or below.

Price per dollar and performance, Intel prices the i5 750, i7 920, i7 860 right.

And if your in america, you can grab a i5 750 for 150 bucks hand picked, from Microcenter pickup.

And a i7 920 for 199.99 from Microcenter also.

Ya 100 bucks for a quad core but anustly, Intels i3 dual core acctualy only lost by 10%-5% most of them time, and yet its only a dual core with semi effiecent hyperthreading?

Also you have to think about this, to many of us overclockers, and chip freaks, if a D0 i7's can do 4.0Ghz at 1.28volts and below imagine, how well the i3's should overclock, espicialy while 32nm. I mean there going to be hitting 4.0ghz in such low voltage, on stock coolers, and run stable with 40c loads. Probably. I give it 3 months after Intel releases those i3's and such that they revise the stepping like they did with the i7's and were going to watch them fly at really high 24/7 clocks, that no AMD athlon II archetexture can handle and compete with.

 

[exodusprime1337]

I'd say don't get your hopes up with amd coming close to anything intel has out right now, a quad just barely edging out a dual isn't coming close, thats a dual whooping ass on an amd quad.

Personally i love the the amd products, my 965 hit's 4Ghz no problem, runs cool at 1.48v and puts out an amazing level of performance, combine that with my new mobo on teh way and my early tax return presents i'll be grabbing(2 5870's), my amd rig is one hell of a system and in the real world my ability to notice the difference is minimal, i personally dont' care for comparison benches unless the chips are of the most current architecture for each manufacture and all the variables are elimitated, such as core speed, fsb, memory, hdd and the like to make the benchmarks equal, and then see who edges out who, which we all know is almost always intel

 

[Hunt3r]

It is the intel and AMD has its strengths and weaknesses it can not lose hope that AMD can pater a day intel..

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The cost of intel yet on any processor is very expensive so many people going for AMD

Intel uses a different process technology than AMD. AMD has been using Silicon On Insulator (SOI) for a long time. Intel's technology costs more but it allows the chip to operate safely at much higher temperatures. It is not uncommon to see a Core i7 920 hit 85C with the stock HSF where AMD's processors are usually well below 60C with stock HSF.


AMD really doesn't have a chance until the new architectures debut (namely, AMD Fusion).

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

If i were AMD i'd hide this under a rock and pray nobody found out

i have to agree with tekie

 

[Hunt3r]

Intel uses a different process technology than AMD. AMD has been using Silicon On Insulator (SOI) for a long time. Intel's technology costs more but it allows the chip to operate safely at much higher temperatures. It is not uncommon to see a Core i7 920 hit 85C with the stock HSF where AMD's processors are usually well below 60C with stock HSF.


AMD really doesn't have a chance until the new architectures debut (namely, AMD Fusion).

I agree with you the AMD processors are always colder same high voltage .. and we have to see how their new architecture will be

 

[@RaXxaa@]

The core I3 wins only cuz of it clocks higer at 2.93 if clock per clock amd is faster and cheaper and better and a quad

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

clock per clock intell has always been faster since core 2 came about and its still true if not truer now with i3 i5 and i7 only thing AMD wins at is high stock clock which helps it compete in the OEM world where the real money is at for both companies why would u pay for a stock clock i7 that in an oem rig is far more expensive then a stock clocked 965 that will in most cases prove equal in terms of us power users its far different

in oem rigs amd has the advantage of price and offer good perfromance

in terms of enthusiasts intel wins with 4 core 8 thread cpus soon to be 6 core 12 threads etc with dual socket platforms for 12 cores 24 threads

amd continues to be bang for buck intel continues to be perfromance leader

 

[TheLaughingMan]

Sooo...you are suprised that a quad-core beat a dual?

And even still, the win seems kind of marginal...

I mean in real world tasks that most of us do most often, the i3 seems to still manage to compete.

WinRAR - i3 Wins
Crysis - i3 Wins
UT3 - i3 Loses by only 7%(8FSP, still giving over 110FPS)
HAWX - i3 Wins
Bionic Commando - i3 Loses by only 1.5%(2FPS, still giving over 130FPS)
Call of Duty: MW2 - i3 Wins
Left 4 Dead 2 - i3 Loses by only 3%(3.5FPS, still giving over 110FPS)
DiRT2 - i3 Wins

I think it is actually a pretty amazing feat that a dual-core is able to come very close to matching a quad.

The only thing that will make the difference really will be price. The i3 will likely be more expensive at first, but prices will continue to drop.

While that would apple to many of us, these are all tasks that do not properly take advantage of multiple cores. While some claim to be (optimized for multi-cores), that just means 2.

Personally, I couldn't care less. The Intel i architecture is better and we have known that for some time now. AMD is still my go to man for Price/performance. While only marginally better, it is also marginally cheaper on top of that.

 

[newtekie1]

While that would apple to many of us, these are all tasks that do not properly take advantage of multiple cores. While some claim to be (optimized for multi-cores), that just means 2.

Personally, I couldn't care less. The Intel i architecture is better and we have known that for some time now. AMD is still my go to man for Price/performance. While only marginally better, it is also marginally cheaper on top of that.

Actually, right now, we don't know that it is marginally better price wise.

I do know that the 965BE has about the same Price/Performance as the i5-750, the 750 being about $10 more and I would say it has about $10 worth of better performance.

Also, I believe the i3 will likely be priced at about $100. We know the tray price for the processor will be $110, and newegg seems to be able to sell processor at or below the tray price somehow, so $110 or less for the i3 doesn't seem that bad. Especially considering the likely high overclockability of these chips.

Personally though, I'd like to see a comparision between the X2 550 and the i3, as both will likely be at the same price point, and both are dual cores. I mean the 620 barely managed to match a Q8200...

Where AMD is really shining, Price/Performance, is the mid-range quad market. Intel currently doesn't really have a quad-core under $150, while AMD has several. The Phenom 810 is still a killer deal. IMO, Intel is about $50 overpriced on all their 775 quads, maybe even more with some of the higher end ones.

 

[Hunt3r]

Actually, right now, we don't know that it is marginally better price wise.

I do know that the 965BE has about the same Price/Performance as the i5-750, the 750 being about $10 more and I would say it has about $10 worth of better performance.

Also, I believe the i3 will likely be priced at about $100. We know the tray price for the processor will be $110, and newegg seems to be able to sell processor at or below the tray price somehow, so $110 or less for the i3 doesn't seem that bad. Especially considering the likely high overclockability of these chips.

Personally though, I'd like to see a comparision between the X2 550 and the i3, as both will likely be at the same price point, and both are dual cores. I mean the 620 barely managed to match a Q8200...

Where AMD is really shining, Price/Performance, is the mid-range quad market. Intel currently doesn't really have a quad-core under $150, while AMD has several. The Phenom 810 is still a killer deal. IMO, Intel is about $50 overpriced on all their 775 quads, maybe even more with some of the higher end ones.

now if you have a comparison with x2550 that the i3 I i3 will do better .. more I could be wrong also

 

[3volvedcombat]

Actually, right now, we don't know that it is marginally better price wise.

I do know that the 965BE has about the same Price/Performance as the i5-750, the 750 being about $10 more and I would say it has about $10 worth of better performance.

Also, I believe the i3 will likely be priced at about $100. We know the tray price for the processor will be $110, and newegg seems to be able to sell processor at or below the tray price somehow, so $110 or less for the i3 doesn't seem that bad. Especially considering the likely high overclockability of these chips.

Personally though, I'd like to see a comparision between the X2 550 and the i3, as both will likely be at the same price point, and both are dual cores. I mean the 620 barely managed to match a Q8200...

Where AMD is really shining, Price/Performance, is the mid-range quad market. Intel currently doesn't really have a quad-core under $150, while AMD has several. The Phenom 810 is still a killer deal. IMO, Intel is about $50 overpriced on all their 775 quads, maybe even more with some of the higher end ones.

They are overpriceing there 775 quads, a q9550, was 209.99-199.99 when the core i7 came out . And now its 250-260 bucks everywere except microcenter, Microcenter has the q9550 at the price it should be which is 169.99- used to be 159.99 to. Price For Performance, i think Intel should discontinue q8000 serios, realease the low end i5 quads, Keep the q9450/q9550/q9650 Revise the chip batches, because q9550 is litteraly 1-10% faster then a AMD Phenom 940, and if they priced the chip at 140-150 respectivly it wouldnt bother me, because 775 platforms are cheap and there still fast. The thing is clock for clock even core 2 quad architecture is faster. 3.0Ghz AMD 940, compared to a 2.8Ghz q9550 and there on par, but sometimes the q9550 edges out the amd 940 by little margin. But its 150Mhz+ slower then a AMD Phenom II yet just as fast. So i always piont it out like this. My Core 2 quad at 4.0Ghz 24/7 is like having a AMD Phenom II 940 at 4.2Ghz 24/7haahaha

And if i needed to, just for a while, ill clock my q9550 to 4.2-4.3Ghz 24/7 and have a 4.4Ghz Phenom II 940 equivlant.

**EDIT**
http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/CPU...-X4-9950-BE-and-Intel-Core2-Q9550/Page-8.html
^^^^ q9550, Out beats the Phenom II 940 in everything, and most benchmarks with the Phenom II 940 overclocked

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=88&p2=50
^^^^ q9550 is acctualy just as fast or faster in encoding and such vs the AMD Phenom II 955 O:!

 

[Hunt3r]

the difference that you can rise significantly above the clock of the processor from intel without much voltage .. the thing that AMD has got to put some voltage to achieve a high clock

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

yes but the voltages dont mean squat as each processor uses a different architecture thereby meaning voltage means NOTHING because if a i7 920 uses 1.2 (not sure exacty on the i7) volts its still rated at 130watt TDP while a phenom 940 is 1.35volts stock even tho theres a difference both use the same wattage or there about so voltage dosent mean much in this comparison as architecture is different so it cant really be compared in any reasonable sense.

(cant remember 965 125watts default voltage)

and even if a phenom needs higher volts some members here on tpu have taken Phenom 965 125watts to 3.8ghz stable on stock coolers and stayed within the acceptable temps and voltages last i checked most intel stock coolers cant even cool chips at stock.

point remains intel wins perfromance wise amd wins price / perfromance wise

 

[TheLaughingMan]

I actually think the AMD X2 550 would do better than the 620 agains the i3. The 620 has more cores, but it is only...what 2.6 Ghz? The X2 550 has show time and time again that it will out pack the 620 in gaming and non-multitasking apps because of the default 3.1 Ghz clock speed.

I too want to see the i3 vs. the X2 550 and I think the 550 will come out on top.

And while the OC headroom is not quite as good, the Phenom II's have held their own and are still really good OCers. I tend to ignore this as a excuse why 1 processor is better than another.

Lets all be honest, AMD or Intel, has your processor ever been the reason you were disappointed in your computer performance when the processor is...say...less than 2 years old? I don't think it has or will be. There will always be better targets for that upgrade.

 

[Hunt3r]

Now you think that one day AMD can do better than the intel in terms of advanced technology..