its not fanboyizum sayin there faster but most benchmarks which say there faster. so you going to get a x6 when most games right now use 2 or maybe 4 cores at most. i bet you will start another thread in 6 months time titled "another going intel thread" or something like that. somebody has already said it but you get what you pay for.
X6 it's a very good CPU no doubt it hammers the i7 930without issues. X6 can overclock to 4 GHz also in a breath and do not require more than medium air coolers but in i7 to clock up to 4 GHz you will need a water loop to get even near to X6 temps. I got my X6 at 3.7 GHz (as I really do not need more) with a 5 years old Zalman 9500 and never exceed 41°C (yes twimb readings). At 4 GHz I reach 51°C (IBT test) with a voltage boost of 0.075V. In all games at 1920x1200 maxed out I never felt that a i7 can do better.
Before I bought my I7 860 I contemplated on getting the amd 1090T. But the AMD one was more expensive and didn't give any real world improvements despite having two more cores. So in this case, I actually got more bang for buck from an Intel. I do however love the AMD videocards.
In heavily multithreaded apps, the 1090T at stock clock only marginally outperforms the i7 930 at stock clock. In multimedia apps and games, the i7 930 at stock clock only marginally outperforms the 1090T at stock clock. Now let's have a more interesting comparison, the 1090T at 4 GHz versus the i7 930 at 4 GHz: the i7 930 almost always outperforms the 1090T significantly and only rarely outperforms it marginally (this applies to heavily multithreaded apps as well, by the way) while also being less power hungry than the 1090T. More interestingly still, the i7 930 can typically reach 4.2 GHz on air but the 1090T typically cannot. Also, the 1090T uses dual channel memory which means if 4 GB of RAM happens to be nearly enough but not quite enough for you, you're forced to either get 8 GB of RAM for it or cripple its overclock potential by getting 6 GB. The majority of people who buy a CPU in this price range have no direct need for 8 GB but need more than 4 GB.
In memory intensive applications....LGA1366 Core i7 processors dominate their AMD equivalents due to the triple channel memory configuration. In multi-thread aware applications, the i7 930 can keep up with the 1090T because of HyperThreading. Disable HyperThreading and the results will be different.
That's assuming it's not mission-critical applications like database servers and stuff like that where latency is paramount because you're trading off latency for more throughput. deltatux
my 1090t at 4ghz bottlenecks a 580. getting two 480s with a 1090t would just be silly because you'd be bottlenecked to the point where you cant take advantage of the second card unless you run surround vision.
How much is it bottlenecking it by? By bottlenecking, as in it can't use 100% of your GPU at full load? deltatux
GPU power all the waaaay~ I dont care about the CPU hu hu hu. I get the similar benchmark results with people with i7 930's and X6's in Heaven bench with GTX470, or other GPU dependant applications, so CPU doesnt matter much to me. Just has to be a quad, with a high end GPU and you are good to goooo.
I also noticed that AMD's K10's FPU performance is really its weak spot in terms of performance because I was looking at benches for its integer, it can keep up with Core i7, but tanks in comparison for the FPU tests. I think AMD needs to strengthen their FPU. deltatux
Strange because we dont have these diffrences. Phenom II 1090T X6 is 40$ more expensive than i5 760. And i would take that i5 760 any time over that phenom
While that may be true, but you're getting more cores and the fact that AMD doesn't lock you to a specific chipset unlike Intel where they segmented mainstream and high-performance markets with different sockets. deltatux
Looking at that now that doesn't make much sense. What I meant was I don't neccesarily believe as a company Intel is better than AMD. If you look at both companies track records, both have had their periods of being on top. But right now, like you said, Intel certainly is better then AMD performance wise. Although, AMD has always been the better bang for your buck.
If it is for gaming, the faster i7 can't justify the cost. You have to spend more money on the CPU and their Chipset (for i7 9xx case) for a few more FPS. The money difference can be better spend on better VGA card.
I have prejudice against amd. Dont know why. Just, doesnt feel right and warm. Intel feels like he is from neighbourhood, but amd feels like a stranger.
bottlenecking as in my framerates are 10% lower in every game compared to when i tested it in my friend's i7 setup with the same settings. it probably wouldnt be much of an issue if more programs supported the extra cores of the phenom, but in games where 2 cores are supported, the superior performance per clock advantage of the intel setup shines. im using a 37inch panasonic IPS TV. i'd rather not downgrade in size. if i do end up upgrading, i'll wait till 3dtvs get better and run it via nvidia 3d vision.
