Told ya dude - the AMD is way behind on a clock for clock basis. Dont compare mhz to get an idea of speed as the intel does more work per mhz than the AMD these days (used to be the other way round). If the AMD hexacore can only just keep up with the Intel quads in full multithreaded apps what do you think will happen when you hit an app only coded for 1 or two cores?
FYI - any i7 reviews you see with hyperthreading enabled should be disregarded. It slows down game performance by the order of 2-5%. Its really for office and creativity apps such as design rendering and video encoding. In these situations it adds 50% performance. Any other time its slower, so should be disabled in bios.
Heres a quick image to show you the benefits in source of overclocking and a comparison of efficiency between the 2 cpus. Note that this is a benchmark of the most intensive cpu side part of graphics rendering in source engined games. It does not take into account any of the rendering your graphics card does, so it does not represent actual game performance. With a good graphics card even a p4 670 can run TF2 acceptably as we all know. Its just a useful comparison tool.
The i7 960's 533mhz increase gains you nearly 30fps (920 2.8ghz compared to 960 3.33ghz). Add another 30fps for overclocking the 920 to 4ghz or thereabouts and you'll hit nearly 200fps in source bench. In comparison the 400mhz difference between the 1090T and 1055T gets you only 10fps increase. A max overclock of 3.8ghz on this cpu would yield you roughly 135fps. Case closed.
If you are not overclocking then it does not matter what you buy - every cpu whether i3, i5, i7, X2, X3, X4 or x6 will be within 10fps of each other when paired with a high end graphics card(s). Both now and further down the line this difference is negligible. When you take overclocking into account the difference can be 50fps+.
As a result, it’s easy to recommend the Phenom II X6 1090T for folks able to employ its six cores. Video work, threaded Photoshop filters, rendering—in those workloads, AMD’s new flagship is, in many cases, able to keep up with the quad-core Core i7-975.
In the same vein, the gaming benchmarks are a reminder that the latest and greatest graphics cards really do need a capable processor behind them if you want to unleash their potential. An overclockable CPU like the Core i7-920 or -930 can really open up a Radeon HD 5870 or GeForce GTX 480 when you get it up to the 4 GHz range. Dipping down to 3.2 GHz doesn’t really help the 1090T win any battles in the games (Call of Duty excepted, where Turbo CORE seems to improve performance over the X4 965). If you’re a gamer, save the money you’d spend on a six-core CPU, buy your favorite overclockable processor, and spend the difference on graphics or an SSD to cut level load times.
If it was my own personal system i'd rate having an SSD system drive above cpu/memory/motherboard given how close the performance is at the cpu end. Kingston 64gb SSD vNow is quite slow compared to so other SSDs but at £100 is quite the bargain. Its write speed seems low, but most of an SSDs performance comes from low seek times, no spin up time and fast 4-8k random I/O reads/writes rather that actual data transfer speed. The kingston drive is fully featured in that department.
I will say that Intel builds are generally easier than AMD builds from a setup/bugs/driver point of view. May be a consideration for you given you are doing a self build.
If you want me to quote you for a pre-overclocked build (with or without windows) then pm me a price and i'll get back to you dude.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
:
.
